Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 July 16 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was procedural close.. This is full of errors. The correct nomination appears to be located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhiljhile City. North America1000 21:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jhiljhile[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:Jhiljhle}}}}
[[:{{subst:Jhiljhle}}]] ([[Special:EditPage/{{subst:Jhiljhle}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{subst:Jhiljhle}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{subst:Jhiljhle}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{subst:Jhiljhle}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{subst:Jhiljhle}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{subst:Jhiljhle}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:Jhiljhle}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Tiger Gang Talk 12:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jalex[edit]

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

Delete - While I suspect the creator of this article is one of the two people mentioned as creating this it is not directly stated so a11 wouldn't apply. I can find nothing to verify anything in this article and the two sources supplied do not verify anything about jalex. There is no claim to significance in the article. -- GB fan 23:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of existence or notability. PamD 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be an in-joke, not a real topic. LaMona (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tair Kaminer[edit]

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

Classic case of there simply being nothing else aside from that one event, the PROD was simply removed with the apparent basis that extra sources would help but it's nowhere close to convincing. Notifying Deborahjay who also commented at the talk page. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm open to hearing opposing arguments but the coverage of this has been extensive, world-wide. Some sources in addition to what's already in the entry:
  1. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-woman-19-becomes-longest-jailed-military-objector/
  2. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/14/israeli-military-to-release-female-refusenik-from-jail.html
  3. http://forward.com/opinion/344413/meet-tair-kaminer-the-19-year-old-conscientious-objector-who-just-made-isra/
  4. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.730895
  5. http://972mag.com/israeli-jurists-to-idf-release-conscientious-objector-tair-kaminer/120421/
  6. http://972mag.com/idf-releases-longest-serving-female-conscientious-objector/120616/
  7. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IDF-denies-Kaminer-conscientious-objector-status-460131
  8. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.730026
  9. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.726062
  10. http://972mag.com/photos-protest-for-conscientious-objector-outside-idf-prison/116256/
  11. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.713944
  12. http://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/israel-une-lyceenne-prefere-la-prison-au-service-militaire-3997561
I also saw sources in German, Italian, Spanish and Turkish, but others are probably better qualified to assess those than I.
Perhaps the best solution is simply to change the name of the entry to something like Tair Kaminsky Conscientious Objection or something else to indicate the focus on the event rather than a true biography. In any case I don't think Wikipedia is served by deleting. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Per WP:BIO1E, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Apart from the links mentioned above the subject has been covered by major news agencies such Independent UK, Associated Press, Yahoo news, Jerusalem Post and there are many more. I guess inclusion of this article to an encyclopedia is going to be more meaningful than deletion. Hitro talk 19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-keep: as user:hitroMilanese said, In addition this title "was the longest held female conscientious objector" that published by media make her notable.Lstfllw203 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides Innisfree987's long list we have [1] and [2] which are fresher than others. Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax Jac16888 Talk 10:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akinmoladun Ayodeji[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be a cut and paste repost of an article since there are reference access dates from late 2015 and early 2016. Possibly this was 2shydrapper which was speedied A7, G11, G12 by User:Randykitty a few days ago. If the references were actually in a form that we could evaluate it's just possible that he would meet WP:MUSICBIO, but I'm not finding enough independent reliable sources to show notability. Note that the identical material was first posted in the unrelated article Bevis of Hampton, on the creator's talk page, on the creator's user page, and in the unrelated Category talk:Start-Class Hampshire articles (from where it was moved to article space). If this survives it will have to be completely overhauled. Meters (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 15:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uruvi[edit]

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

Reason Thikthik15 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC) This article is full with wrong information there are no character in Mahabharata as Uruvi.She is completely a fictional character.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Is the assertion here that this character never existed, and is just made up in a fictional reimagining of religious tales? That's not a reason for deletion per se, as the Good Samaritan never existed either... Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator definitely has a case, but has not been making it clearly. Uruvi is apparently the protagonist of an apparently popular novel based on parts of the Mahabharata and published in 2013. Her husband Karna is a significant character in the Mahabharata, but Uruvi herself seems to have been the novelist's own invention. Notability is not completely impossible but, unless the author lifted at least Uruvi's name from the Mahabharata, would be completely dependent on the novel and reactions to it. PWilkinson (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:The matter is not about being fictional character or not this is about history. I do not bother about Mahabharata but I obviously bother about history.The wikipedia page is showing Uruvi as a character of Mahabharata.Who married to Karna despite knowing the fact that he was a lower caste man.How is this possible before 5000 year ago!! It was impossible in ancient India.At the ancient India caste system was strictly followed. If I take Mahabharata as a fictional book it is not possible even that.That is why I think this page is given full of wrong information about history.Also at the ancient India suta (lower caste) was allowed to marry once.For further detail check the wikipedia page of Vrushali (original wife of Karna ) according to author of Mahabharata whatever is his name.For all of these reason I think this page is spreading wrong information about history thus I think this page shold be deleted.Thikthik15 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete: Searching Google Scholar is confirming what was said above about Uruvi being a character who was only recently created to fit in to the events of the Mahabarata. The article needs to make that clear; as it stands, it is effectively a hoax. We sadly neither have an article on the creator of the character nor the book in which she appears, and so a merge is not appropriate, but I am not convinced that the character is sufficiently notable to support her own article; Google Scholar throws up a rather extensive discussion of her in an MA thesis (not strictly reliable, I don't think) as well as two more passing mentions in very minor journals. (I have had to limit my searches to English language sources; maybe there will be more in other languages.) This suggests that she might be notable at some point, but probably not now. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not part of the original Mahabharata. A new fictional character.--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But I don't know that how this page would be deleted as the administrator of the absent from the discussion.Even I send him/her a massage in talk page but he/she do not respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thikthik15 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to the main article. Specifically, I find consensus below for a small sample of the comments to be included in the main article as examples, with all of them being added to Wikiquote (if they are not already there). Those arguing for the retention of the quotes did so largely due to their being potentially useful as a historic record, but did not address how they have encyclopaedic notability beyond there being other examples of lengthy lists of quotes on Wikipedia (a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). The prose elements of this article should be merged back into the main article's aftermath section (something explicitly or implicitly recommended by most "delete" voters as well). There is nothing in this AfD that would preclude a separate, prose-based Aftermath of the 2016 Nice attack article if the main article needs to be split on size grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack[edit]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. Bloated and unmanageable WP:COATRACK collection of predictable and non-noteworthy responses, created less than 10 hours after the main article was created. These "Reactions to [tragedy du jour]" articles have got to stop, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the "Keep" arguments in the other AfD discussions and say how they don't apply to this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first the article has WP:POTENTIAL as I have shown below, a rename should be in order. Aside from that there is WP:GNG which these quotes would pass. Given that WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP this article should be expanded, and improved from its current state just as the others have. (Example: Before [3], and After [4]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has potential to store more quotes. So does my scrapbook. Which at this rate will soon be getting its own article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree there are only so many countries out there, it has potential to have things added in prose which editors already have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep entirely notable people already on WP...despite sulking weenies who cant get consensus for their opinions.Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering if a WP:PRECEDENT is by now established. Yes every article is different but the same arguments are being used over and over when it comes to these types of articles. Can the article be expanded? Yes, retitle it to Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack, there are bound to be for example new terrorism protocols put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A universal consensus is being observed for condemnation of terrorism. One may see the censure made by countries and total number of countries of this globe, so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for. Nannadeem (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for". What? Since when does Wikipedia cater to anyone or anything? And since when is "condemnation of terrorism" anything new, unusual, or noteworthy? Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The international community was unanimous in its condemnation to the attack, and expressed sympathy for the victims". Fewer than 20 words, and not too difficult to find a decent source for. Hardly justifies a stand-alone article.

    If you had significant numbers of world leaders saying "he should have gone faster" or "it was six of one and half a dozen of the other", then yes, a stand-alone article would be perfectly understandable. But for straightforward if high-profile situations like this, Wikiquote is the place to go if the quotations are as important as is argued. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree that the mass of quotes is of little encyclopedic value, and am tentatively persuaded that notable reactions and aftermath will fit in the main article. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your introspection and humility, Four. I'm just an IP, but it appears to me that it's just the platitudenous reaction to the tragedy du jour. Thoughts and prayers. Outrage. Blah blah blah. But I'm just an IP and will remain so, so I don't have a vote. (But I have a voice.) 71.184.228.118 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? How does this belong on Wikipedia rather than Wikiquote? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it shouldn't be in both places, there are more than just quotes present in the article which can be expanded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reactions to a terrorist attack that has reached international attention literally worldwide is notable. Noteworthy responses as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a terrorist attack has achieved global attention is notable, and deserves a prominent mention in the attack's article. Whether the content of that reaction warrants a stand-alone article depends on the diversity of the comments. Can any of the comments on this page be summarised as anything other than "this is terrible. Our deepest sympathies to the victims and their families."? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge back into the article in a section entitled "aftermath". It is unclear why this content was separated from the original article. Certainly having removed the content, editors are quite happy to have images added to the original attack article which are only related to the content forked off here. Although developments are hard to predict, I envisage the attack article being not very dissimilar from the article on the November 2015 Paris attacks, which has a long but terse section on the aftermath. There are significant differences, but I would expect a similar format to evolve as events unfold. Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge with 2016 Nice attack per WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the article consists of sound bites that are mere political rhetoric and of no great importance to the article in terms of the events or its investigation. The content can easily be pruned, and that which is relevant merged back to the parent article. Either way, a merger is unlikely to cause a breach of WP:SIZE. -- Ohc ¡digame! 22:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim heavily and merge back to the main article, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS as explained above. ansh666 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is now a well established precedence for these enormous quote farms. Who knows what use it will be to future historians and writers? Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lord knows we all need to see all the specific ways one can offer their "thoughts and prayers". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it offers a snapshot in time, if anything gets implemented as well it could also go into the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • A snapshot in time of generic "thoughts and prayers" comments. That's not encyclopedic. "If anything gets implemented" = WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "encyclopedia" by whose standards are you going by? By Wikipedia's standards. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was created for one reason and one reason alone. Nobody had to guts to trim the section in the first place. The only possible justification for such an article is if there is a reason why we need to be comprehensive in our coverage of international reaction (i.e. do it for the whole world, which might be understandable when there is disagreement but not where there is consensus). We should instead aim to be representative – give a representative sample of the scale and extent of reaction from across the geopolitical spectrum. This can be achieved within the existing article.

    If we are aiming to be comprehensive, I will seek to counter systemic bias by ensuring that the views of the dozens of countries we routinely ignore are for once given appropriate weight. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I created it because User:InedibleHulk had done so, User:Mardus objected, and I (not being aware of this longstanding debate) thought such subpages were a more or less standard solution. FourViolas (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn them all This and similar articles are mostly filled with hot air, and are generally kept because the other ones weren't deleted. It's not a vicious cycle, but it's a silly cycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of these "reactions" have been particularity noteworthy. These are just statements from whatever head of states that can be found. How much value does a list of dozens of pretty flags bring when its content can be summarized as "Several international organizations and heads of state have expressed their condolences for the attack."? In the coming weeks, we can summarize actual action that has taken place in an "Aftermath" section.
Many similar articles made over the years should also be reexamined and dealt with. First off, for the first two "examples" listed above that I guess are somehow supposed to show widespread consensus are misleading. The first Norway nomination has several "delete" and "merges" and the second one shouldn't have been labeled a "Snow Keep" since there were valid deleted opinions. The Orlando nomination closed as no consensus. There does not seem to be any sort of precedent or widespread consensus to keep these type of articles at this time. ZN3ukct (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a textbook example of WP:QUOTEFARM. Also going by WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. I also wholeheartedly agree on the stance of ZN3ukct here; there just doesn't seem to be any value and notability in "a list of dozens of pretty flags bring when its content can be summarized as 'Several international organizations and heads of state have expressed their condolences for the attack.'." Parsley Man (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense + Merge - this appears to be a quotefarm of epic proportions. Unfortunately, we may have to be rather concise and somewhat discriminatory when it comes to quotes and reactions. GABgab 02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to 2016 Nice attack, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That explains why the history should be retained should consensus be to keep or merge - that's a condition of the CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution licence and therefore mandatory for all content on this site. It does not explain why we should keep or merge the article in the first place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. This is an editing dispute, not a deletion dispute. Even if the page is eventually merged there's no need to delete this page and its history, it can simply be redirected back to the main article. And there's no sense in keeping this discussion open for a whole week either. It's clear from many previous discussions that the page won't be deleted. Do we really have to go through this process every time? Cmeiqnj (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Of course this is a deletion dispute. Many people believe this article should not exist, and have given extensive policy-based reasons why not. You recognize that yourself by your acknowledgement that it could or should be merged. If you want to !vote "Merge" then do so. For more information on how AfD works and what the possible outcomes or !votes can be, see WP:DISCUSSAFD. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Cmeiqnj:, I am going to disagree with you on this one, as there are several requests to merge the article. Additionally, there is a reason that WP:AFD is not titled "Articles for discussion", although that may be a result. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the indiscriminate and repetitive quote farm, keep or merge the useful prose sections. Reywas92Talk 07:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nannadeem. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Nannadeem's so-called rationale was pretty much gibberish and didn't make much sense, at least not to me. Lugnuts, since you are native speaker of English, can you clarify your precise rationale? Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to negating my observation, please read the Definitions of terrorism. Nannadeem (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I am indifferent as to the fate of this article. I wonder though, what will be left of it once all the inappropriate quotations are removed? Do those arguing to keep it still think it will be worth keeping? --John (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: the platitudes should be cut to what secondary sources say, something like Wow, literally everyone from the King of the Netherlands to Hezbollah issued statements condemning the attack and expressing sympathy, with none opposed or abstaining. Details on notable and non-routine responses, such as ISIS's shifty claims, public debate over video surveillance and the state of emergency, saber-rattling and analysis, etc., can be treated as concise prose. FourViolas (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can obviously fit easily into 2016 Nice attacks, and should go there instead. If it were kept, this coatracky article, even if trimmed, would always still be a nightmare babysitting job because people will keep adding to it no matter how many times it is trimmed. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peru is still sitting this one out. Just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Terrorists. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I hear. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or they're waiting to swoop in and save the day at the last minute. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Turns out they're good guys. Phew! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to main article but trim to the most relevant and prominent quotes. This should be done for all these kinds of "Reactions to ..." type articles. This shouldn't become a class of article on its own. There will always be reactions to every major event. If this precedent continues, every major event will always be inherently two articles instead of one. -- œ™ 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Merge - We do not want to have two articles for every single major event... Ceosad (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with all other similar "articles". A random collection of predictable statements with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. This isn't Facebook. User2534 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, these articles still "only" contain about 50 random countries. So those in favour of these articles have a job to do lest it be seen as there's almost 150 possibly terror-supporting countries in the world. User2534 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of a wide coverage of source.Tart (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I have argued elsewhere, we don't need to inventory the generic "thoughts and prayers" comments produced by every world leader in response to events like this. I can't imagine anyone actually consulting this page because they need to know the exact wording of the president of Finland's condemnation of this attack. If President Niinistö had come out and condoned it (which doesn't sound like him), that might be worth mentioning, but failing that, it's not. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since we have a lot of these articles, and they're usually fashioned into something constructive once the editing slows down. This is Paul (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I even gave a difference on that above, people are so focused on the quotes though that they don't see anything else. I will repost here so editors can see the example: (Before [5], and After [6]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This would make the subject article very bloated and long otherwise.  — Calvin999 22:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly would it be "very bloated and long otherwise"? Please enlighten me. Parsley Man (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well take a look at Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, someone tried in vain to copy all of the info in the article over to November 2015 Paris attacks and as a result the latter page is over half filled with the "aftermath" section bloating the article beyond 130kb. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It is important that an encyclopedic record is kept of reactions by elected world leaders to these events. While reactions to these continuous terrorist attacks may seem predictable, history shows that international reactions to world events can help shape the domino effect of decisions taken by those world leaders, for example, whether to go to war or not, peace, the forming of alliances, political elections, public reactions such as protests, etc. Wikipedia needs to keep up with the modern day environment where reactions can be delivered by governments within hours if not minutes. Just because we didn't have this in the past doesn't mean we scrap it. IrishSpook (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you and many others misunderstand the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia umbrella. No one is suggesting that there is zero value in collating reactions to historic events. Plenty are suggesting that a collection of quotes belongs on a Wikimedia site dedicated to the collection of quotes; a representative sample of which should be used within the main article to give the reader a representative sample of what has been said and the opportunity to visit the Wikiquote page if so inclined. Of historical significance? Debateably. Of encyclopaedic merit? Unambiguously not. A closing admin – regardless of the final action they take or recommend when evaluating consensus, would need to take this into account in their closing rationale. Thus it would help your cause to explain why I'm wrong. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As this emphasizes the extensive political reaction from important leaders. Though some sections have way too many reactions from different leaders in one country, it should be kept. Both the Orlando and Paris attacks have their own reaction page, I don't see why this page should be deleted. The issue has received extensive media coverage and has once again directed attention towards` France. De88 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's all so totally predictable and repetitive, almost exactly the same for every recent Western (e.g. not Iraq, whose recent 300-dead bombing apparently did not deserve a reactions article) tragedy. Why not just create an article Standard reactions to a Western tragedy and link to that every time? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwxrwxrwx: We do have WP:REACTIONS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's sarcastic, but seriously not a bad idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Allows simple review of most publicly viewable international repsonses to the attack. Aidan (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — Aidanbeaumont (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep due to WP:SIZE limit for the main article. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the pap to memorialise the mush spouting out from the world's politicians, all wanting to virtue-signal "how much" they "care." It will probably make one or more wikipedia editors happy anyway if this drivel page is kept! XavierItzm (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep WP:CIVIL in place? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence about this AfD ever since the article was nominated. However, due to the enormous amount of reactions, especially internationally, the standalone article is necessary. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the sources write about it, and editors document it, then it needs to be preserved. Wikipedia wants to make "the sum total of all human knowledge" available to everyone, not just the stuff so-and-so thinks is interesting enough to bother with. If enough people didn't write this stuff, we would never have needed a separate article, but since they do, we most assuredly need an out of the way place to stuff it. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an article in French Wikipedia and it is too much for the main article (2016 Nice attack), so I do not think that deletion is right. It just needs more authorities and personalties' reactions. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can we stop the WP:POINTy nominations every time one of these comes up? There's never been any consensus to delete them, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Keep it and stop with these nominations. It's just wasting everyone's time. Ample reasons have been presented here and elsewhere for a standalone article. You're not getting anywhere with these deletion nominations. It's not going to change. Stop. Smartyllama (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:RAPID There are a number of substantive reactions beyond the boilerplate condemnations and condolences such as cancellations, impact on financial markets, deployment of security personal and emergency plans, some criticism over security policy, ect. That being said, the reactions are not nearly as numerous or substantive as those listed in other reaction articles such as Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. I believe it would be desirable to discuss whether a merge should occur in a few months, but doing this less than a week after the attack is pointless since coverage is still occurring and the more substantive reactions tend to occur after the boilerplate condolences. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which says not to have excessive listings. This is needless repetition of the same basic "this was a horrible event" message. Nothing particularly noteworthy about that. WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper also notes that being mentioned in the news doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion within articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that, it says: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of the articles." You are taking the policy and interpreting it. As for WP:NOTNEWS this cant be considered routine coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments of Knowledgekid87, Aidan, and Humberto del Torrejón. Subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG and the content would clutter the main article if merged. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Piro[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. He exists and runs a company. Is married, has children and has suffered loss. None of this equates to notability and none of the references give any inkling of any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability that I can see in the article, also not much in the way of secondary coverage. Borock (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator's rationale appears to be valid. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Jay[edit]

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

G4 speedy deletion contested by The Anome for Recreating from machine translation of pt:Sara Jay, per Wikipedia licensing. I believe this needs revisiting, since the article's deletion in 2011, which is now 5 years ago. I can't see any reason why this does not now pass WP:PORNBIO, particularly with the Hall of Fame award -- this article exists on multiple other Wikipedias, and clearly meets their WP:PORNBIO criteria., thus sending it here. I am sort of expecting another deletion, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 23:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still fails GNG and PORNBIO. As noted in the the 3rd nomination AfD in 2011, winning an Urban X Award does not establish notability per WP:PORNBIO. Several AfD debates since 2011 have come to the same conclusion. The semi-reliable coverage in the porn trade press is not enough to satisfy GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: @Davey2010 and Gene93k: per both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG: Firstly, PORNBIO: What makes the AVN and XBIZ Halls of Fame distinct from the Urban X Hall of Fame? As far as I can see, both are porn industry insider events, not directly connected to the individuals given awards, and listed in the {{adult entertainment awards}} template. The WP:PORNBIO criteria states as one possible criterion for notability the following: "a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." The key words here are "or equivalent." Secondly, GNG: here's mainstream media coverage featuring her, via Google News: [7], [8], [9], [10] I could work on digging out more, but she clearly has some mainstream celebrity. Update: the 2012 stunt with Siri seems to have brought her to international attention: [11], [12]. Per-country searching also yields interesting results: the Greek media, for example, seem to be quite interested in her. As a matter of procedure, apart from her apparent international (minor) celebrity, is any further evidence of meeting WP:GNG needed? -- The Anome (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Several Urban X Award Hall of Fame inductees have been deleted in the past that didn't have other qualifying awards or coverage (Ray Victory, Kitten, Lacey Duvalle, Devlin Weed and Mercedes Ashley to name some). It is not an equivalent of the AVN or XRCO HOF. The news coverage (not reliable outlets anyway) falls short of the GNG. Just fluff and stunt coverage, with no substantial reliable content on her life or career. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets requirements of both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain how it meets PORNBIO & GNG without copying the above ? .... –Davey2010Talk 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor always votes keep in porn-related deletion debates. Such assertions without evidence are usually discounted. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear delectionists i.e. Davey2010, Gene93k etc Sara Jay won: Urban X Award - Best Interracial Star and Urban X Award - Hall of Fame, so - meets requirements of WP:PORNBIO and also there are interpendent (non-porn) sources, in article - for example: Limite Magazine, so - meets requirements of WP:GNG Moreover, arguments by User:The Anome. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     15:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete In short- A detailed check of the sources finds that neither claim being made for article retention comes anywhere close to meeting our usual standards. Furthermore, a high proportion of the article content is unreferenced and is tagged as such. For these 3 reasons, there is nothing worth retaining here. I recommend deletion and I would suggest that this topic should be considered for possible salting because it should not go through AfD after AfD to reconsider the essentially similar, grossly subthreshold elements. In depth - 1. The collective community WP:PORNBIO consensus has decided that Urban X HOF is not "equivalent" to AVN or XRCO HOF. This is a legitimate benchmark for this topic area, just as other factors are, within their areas. This issue was convincingly addressed in detailed analysis in the prior AfD, and this issue is also updated above (• Gene93k). It is not enough to push against that consensus "just because". 2. Even after almost a decade of attempts at content improvement, the topic content still has a good proportion of its text tagged as needing supporting references. 3. As to WP:GNG, I examined the "sources" in the article, as well as those newly suggested above, and from an independent search. They collectively show absolutely no in-depth treatment, or analysis, or encyclopedically relevant contextualization. Full-on deep-depth analysis for the scratchy-minded who prefer a glossy graphic spread - Blow-by-blow, item-by-item, probing analysis of the putative claims for mainstream media presence is quite revealing as the sources are extremely skimpy mentions in completely exciting but intellectually dodgy sources. Yes, the three T's: Telegraph, Times and Tribune. Oops, sorry, strike that - it's the other three T's: Terra, Trome, and Tud, (written by MrMecc, if you can believe it), as well as PopDust. These all skirt around very short sensationalist social media messages; they are quite plainly kanoodling and deep kissing conveyors of promotional hype. This type of so-called mainstream sourcing is encyclopedically irrelevant. It is "mainstream" only in the peculiarly narrow sense that it's not porno industry directly - except actually it's quite obvious on looking at the "sources" that they are message fluffers, whose existentialist paradigm is to attractively "place" the entertainment industry's verbatim quotes or very mildly-modified porn industry press releases, social media hype, and advertising "stunts" - The Anome is completely bullseye on that choice of wording. More than half of one of these "mainstream" sources lays out (with a high proportion of red-lining emphasis and capital letters - I am not making this up) the exact rules on how to show up and possibly complete an orally intimate visit with the servicing provider, subject to there being only one day to cum to meet the talented entertainer person, who.... reserves the right to change the date of the "stunt" to any other day (...that you can't show up and hope for service). The other half of the article lists the names (and legal challenges) of some people who have a history of making a recurrent success of sharing the day with the entertainer for these "stunts". (I am actually not puffing that up bigger than its original size either.) "Mainstream" isn't the same thing at all as "reliable sourcing" and conflating these concepts would be... a very full mouthful; really quite messy. Then there is the Limité source, which far from being a magazine in a conventional sense, is a blog posted by Adrian "Age" Farquharson (sic), of a word-for-word interview with the subject (so hardly independent of the topic) where we learn... actually "not too much" (unless the age of first sex of various types or of state of mind while preparing for a session is "much".) It is neither independent, nor is it non-porn. We also have the offer of both Hypervocal and ComPlex as sources, where quite frankly the most pressing thing we learn from either is that the subject says she has a thing for Sneakerheads. (There is a conveniently adjacent advertorial video from Nike.) Really? Sweaty footwear, anyone? FeatherPluma (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs better sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, speedy delete. As solidly and repeatedly established in prior discussions, the Urban X/Urban Spice awards fail to meet PORNBIO standards. In particular, the Urban X hall of fame is not an industry hall of fame, as required by the applicable SNG, but a personal project associated with a short-lived, for-profit awards ceremony. The article creator's claim that the awards are "not directly connected to the individuals given awards" is palpably false; a lion's share of these "awards" went to projects and individuals associated with the awardgiver's husband, whose businesses these awards were contrived to promote. The db-repost speedy was erroneously declined; the admin who did so substituted their own poorly informed impressions for well-established consensus, repeatedly confirmed since the prior AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per persuasive arguments made by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:FeatherPluma.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to the main article. Specifically, I find consensus below for a small sample of the comments to be included in the main article as examples, with all of them being added to Wikiquote (if they are not already there). Those arguing for the retention of the quotes did so largely due to their being potentially useful as a historic record, but did not address how they have encyclopaedic notability beyond there being other examples of lengthy lists of quotes on Wikipedia (a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). The prose elements of this article should be merged back into the main article's aftermath section (something explicitly or implicitly recommended by most "delete" voters as well). There is nothing in this AfD that would preclude a separate, prose-based Aftermath of the 2016 Nice attack article if the main article needs to be split on size grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack[edit]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. Bloated and unmanageable WP:COATRACK collection of predictable and non-noteworthy responses, created less than 10 hours after the main article was created. These "Reactions to [tragedy du jour]" articles have got to stop, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the "Keep" arguments in the other AfD discussions and say how they don't apply to this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first the article has WP:POTENTIAL as I have shown below, a rename should be in order. Aside from that there is WP:GNG which these quotes would pass. Given that WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP this article should be expanded, and improved from its current state just as the others have. (Example: Before [13], and After [14]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has potential to store more quotes. So does my scrapbook. Which at this rate will soon be getting its own article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree there are only so many countries out there, it has potential to have things added in prose which editors already have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep entirely notable people already on WP...despite sulking weenies who cant get consensus for their opinions.Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering if a WP:PRECEDENT is by now established. Yes every article is different but the same arguments are being used over and over when it comes to these types of articles. Can the article be expanded? Yes, retitle it to Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack, there are bound to be for example new terrorism protocols put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A universal consensus is being observed for condemnation of terrorism. One may see the censure made by countries and total number of countries of this globe, so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for. Nannadeem (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for". What? Since when does Wikipedia cater to anyone or anything? And since when is "condemnation of terrorism" anything new, unusual, or noteworthy? Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The international community was unanimous in its condemnation to the attack, and expressed sympathy for the victims". Fewer than 20 words, and not too difficult to find a decent source for. Hardly justifies a stand-alone article.

    If you had significant numbers of world leaders saying "he should have gone faster" or "it was six of one and half a dozen of the other", then yes, a stand-alone article would be perfectly understandable. But for straightforward if high-profile situations like this, Wikiquote is the place to go if the quotations are as important as is argued. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree that the mass of quotes is of little encyclopedic value, and am tentatively persuaded that notable reactions and aftermath will fit in the main article. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your introspection and humility, Four. I'm just an IP, but it appears to me that it's just the platitudenous reaction to the tragedy du jour. Thoughts and prayers. Outrage. Blah blah blah. But I'm just an IP and will remain so, so I don't have a vote. (But I have a voice.) 71.184.228.118 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? How does this belong on Wikipedia rather than Wikiquote? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it shouldn't be in both places, there are more than just quotes present in the article which can be expanded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reactions to a terrorist attack that has reached international attention literally worldwide is notable. Noteworthy responses as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a terrorist attack has achieved global attention is notable, and deserves a prominent mention in the attack's article. Whether the content of that reaction warrants a stand-alone article depends on the diversity of the comments. Can any of the comments on this page be summarised as anything other than "this is terrible. Our deepest sympathies to the victims and their families."? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge back into the article in a section entitled "aftermath". It is unclear why this content was separated from the original article. Certainly having removed the content, editors are quite happy to have images added to the original attack article which are only related to the content forked off here. Although developments are hard to predict, I envisage the attack article being not very dissimilar from the article on the November 2015 Paris attacks, which has a long but terse section on the aftermath. There are significant differences, but I would expect a similar format to evolve as events unfold. Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge with 2016 Nice attack per WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the article consists of sound bites that are mere political rhetoric and of no great importance to the article in terms of the events or its investigation. The content can easily be pruned, and that which is relevant merged back to the parent article. Either way, a merger is unlikely to cause a breach of WP:SIZE. -- Ohc ¡digame! 22:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim heavily and merge back to the main article, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS as explained above. ansh666 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is now a well established precedence for these enormous quote farms. Who knows what use it will be to future historians and writers? Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lord knows we all need to see all the specific ways one can offer their "thoughts and prayers". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it offers a snapshot in time, if anything gets implemented as well it could also go into the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • A snapshot in time of generic "thoughts and prayers" comments. That's not encyclopedic. "If anything gets implemented" = WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "encyclopedia" by whose standards are you going by? By Wikipedia's standards. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was created for one reason and one reason alone. Nobody had to guts to trim the section in the first place. The only possible justification for such an article is if there is a reason why we need to be comprehensive in our coverage of international reaction (i.e. do it for the whole world, which might be understandable when there is disagreement but not where there is consensus). We should instead aim to be representative – give a representative sample of the scale and extent of reaction from across the geopolitical spectrum. This can be achieved within the existing article.

    If we are aiming to be comprehensive, I will seek to counter systemic bias by ensuring that the views of the dozens of countries we routinely ignore are for once given appropriate weight. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I created it because User:InedibleHulk had done so, User:Mardus objected, and I (not being aware of this longstanding debate) thought such subpages were a more or less standard solution. FourViolas (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn them all This and similar articles are mostly filled with hot air, and are generally kept because the other ones weren't deleted. It's not a vicious cycle, but it's a silly cycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of these "reactions" have been particularity noteworthy. These are just statements from whatever head of states that can be found. How much value does a list of dozens of pretty flags bring when its content can be summarized as "Several international organizations and heads of state have expressed their condolences for the attack."? In the coming weeks, we can summarize actual action that has taken place in an "Aftermath" section.
Many similar articles made over the years should also be reexamined and dealt with. First off, for the first two "examples" listed above that I guess are somehow supposed to show widespread consensus are misleading. The first Norway nomination has several "delete" and "merges" and the second one shouldn't have been labeled a "Snow Keep" since there were valid deleted opinions. The Orlando nomination closed as no consensus. There does not seem to be any sort of precedent or widespread consensus to keep these type of articles at this time. ZN3ukct (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a textbook example of WP:QUOTEFARM. Also going by WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. I also wholeheartedly agree on the stance of ZN3ukct here; there just doesn't seem to be any value and notability in "a list of dozens of pretty flags bring when its content can be summarized as 'Several international organizations and heads of state have expressed their condolences for the attack.'." Parsley Man (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense + Merge - this appears to be a quotefarm of epic proportions. Unfortunately, we may have to be rather concise and somewhat discriminatory when it comes to quotes and reactions. GABgab 02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to 2016 Nice attack, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That explains why the history should be retained should consensus be to keep or merge - that's a condition of the CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution licence and therefore mandatory for all content on this site. It does not explain why we should keep or merge the article in the first place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. This is an editing dispute, not a deletion dispute. Even if the page is eventually merged there's no need to delete this page and its history, it can simply be redirected back to the main article. And there's no sense in keeping this discussion open for a whole week either. It's clear from many previous discussions that the page won't be deleted. Do we really have to go through this process every time? Cmeiqnj (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Of course this is a deletion dispute. Many people believe this article should not exist, and have given extensive policy-based reasons why not. You recognize that yourself by your acknowledgement that it could or should be merged. If you want to !vote "Merge" then do so. For more information on how AfD works and what the possible outcomes or !votes can be, see WP:DISCUSSAFD. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Cmeiqnj:, I am going to disagree with you on this one, as there are several requests to merge the article. Additionally, there is a reason that WP:AFD is not titled "Articles for discussion", although that may be a result. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the indiscriminate and repetitive quote farm, keep or merge the useful prose sections. Reywas92Talk 07:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nannadeem. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Nannadeem's so-called rationale was pretty much gibberish and didn't make much sense, at least not to me. Lugnuts, since you are native speaker of English, can you clarify your precise rationale? Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to negating my observation, please read the Definitions of terrorism. Nannadeem (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I am indifferent as to the fate of this article. I wonder though, what will be left of it once all the inappropriate quotations are removed? Do those arguing to keep it still think it will be worth keeping? --John (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: the platitudes should be cut to what secondary sources say, something like Wow, literally everyone from the King of the Netherlands to Hezbollah issued statements condemning the attack and expressing sympathy, with none opposed or abstaining. Details on notable and non-routine responses, such as ISIS's shifty claims, public debate over video surveillance and the state of emergency, saber-rattling and analysis, etc., can be treated as concise prose. FourViolas (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can obviously fit easily into 2016 Nice attacks, and should go there instead. If it were kept, this coatracky article, even if trimmed, would always still be a nightmare babysitting job because people will keep adding to it no matter how many times it is trimmed. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peru is still sitting this one out. Just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Terrorists. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I hear. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or they're waiting to swoop in and save the day at the last minute. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Turns out they're good guys. Phew! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to main article but trim to the most relevant and prominent quotes. This should be done for all these kinds of "Reactions to ..." type articles. This shouldn't become a class of article on its own. There will always be reactions to every major event. If this precedent continues, every major event will always be inherently two articles instead of one. -- œ™ 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Merge - We do not want to have two articles for every single major event... Ceosad (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with all other similar "articles". A random collection of predictable statements with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. This isn't Facebook. User2534 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, these articles still "only" contain about 50 random countries. So those in favour of these articles have a job to do lest it be seen as there's almost 150 possibly terror-supporting countries in the world. User2534 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of a wide coverage of source.Tart (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I have argued elsewhere, we don't need to inventory the generic "thoughts and prayers" comments produced by every world leader in response to events like this. I can't imagine anyone actually consulting this page because they need to know the exact wording of the president of Finland's condemnation of this attack. If President Niinistö had come out and condoned it (which doesn't sound like him), that might be worth mentioning, but failing that, it's not. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since we have a lot of these articles, and they're usually fashioned into something constructive once the editing slows down. This is Paul (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I even gave a difference on that above, people are so focused on the quotes though that they don't see anything else. I will repost here so editors can see the example: (Before [15], and After [16]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This would make the subject article very bloated and long otherwise.  — Calvin999 22:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly would it be "very bloated and long otherwise"? Please enlighten me. Parsley Man (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well take a look at Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, someone tried in vain to copy all of the info in the article over to November 2015 Paris attacks and as a result the latter page is over half filled with the "aftermath" section bloating the article beyond 130kb. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It is important that an encyclopedic record is kept of reactions by elected world leaders to these events. While reactions to these continuous terrorist attacks may seem predictable, history shows that international reactions to world events can help shape the domino effect of decisions taken by those world leaders, for example, whether to go to war or not, peace, the forming of alliances, political elections, public reactions such as protests, etc. Wikipedia needs to keep up with the modern day environment where reactions can be delivered by governments within hours if not minutes. Just because we didn't have this in the past doesn't mean we scrap it. IrishSpook (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you and many others misunderstand the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia umbrella. No one is suggesting that there is zero value in collating reactions to historic events. Plenty are suggesting that a collection of quotes belongs on a Wikimedia site dedicated to the collection of quotes; a representative sample of which should be used within the main article to give the reader a representative sample of what has been said and the opportunity to visit the Wikiquote page if so inclined. Of historical significance? Debateably. Of encyclopaedic merit? Unambiguously not. A closing admin – regardless of the final action they take or recommend when evaluating consensus, would need to take this into account in their closing rationale. Thus it would help your cause to explain why I'm wrong. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As this emphasizes the extensive political reaction from important leaders. Though some sections have way too many reactions from different leaders in one country, it should be kept. Both the Orlando and Paris attacks have their own reaction page, I don't see why this page should be deleted. The issue has received extensive media coverage and has once again directed attention towards` France. De88 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's all so totally predictable and repetitive, almost exactly the same for every recent Western (e.g. not Iraq, whose recent 300-dead bombing apparently did not deserve a reactions article) tragedy. Why not just create an article Standard reactions to a Western tragedy and link to that every time? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwxrwxrwx: We do have WP:REACTIONS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's sarcastic, but seriously not a bad idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Allows simple review of most publicly viewable international repsonses to the attack. Aidan (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — Aidanbeaumont (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep due to WP:SIZE limit for the main article. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the pap to memorialise the mush spouting out from the world's politicians, all wanting to virtue-signal "how much" they "care." It will probably make one or more wikipedia editors happy anyway if this drivel page is kept! XavierItzm (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep WP:CIVIL in place? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence about this AfD ever since the article was nominated. However, due to the enormous amount of reactions, especially internationally, the standalone article is necessary. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the sources write about it, and editors document it, then it needs to be preserved. Wikipedia wants to make "the sum total of all human knowledge" available to everyone, not just the stuff so-and-so thinks is interesting enough to bother with. If enough people didn't write this stuff, we would never have needed a separate article, but since they do, we most assuredly need an out of the way place to stuff it. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an article in French Wikipedia and it is too much for the main article (2016 Nice attack), so I do not think that deletion is right. It just needs more authorities and personalties' reactions. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can we stop the WP:POINTy nominations every time one of these comes up? There's never been any consensus to delete them, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Keep it and stop with these nominations. It's just wasting everyone's time. Ample reasons have been presented here and elsewhere for a standalone article. You're not getting anywhere with these deletion nominations. It's not going to change. Stop. Smartyllama (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:RAPID There are a number of substantive reactions beyond the boilerplate condemnations and condolences such as cancellations, impact on financial markets, deployment of security personal and emergency plans, some criticism over security policy, ect. That being said, the reactions are not nearly as numerous or substantive as those listed in other reaction articles such as Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. I believe it would be desirable to discuss whether a merge should occur in a few months, but doing this less than a week after the attack is pointless since coverage is still occurring and the more substantive reactions tend to occur after the boilerplate condolences. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which says not to have excessive listings. This is needless repetition of the same basic "this was a horrible event" message. Nothing particularly noteworthy about that. WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper also notes that being mentioned in the news doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion within articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that, it says: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of the articles." You are taking the policy and interpreting it. As for WP:NOTNEWS this cant be considered routine coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments of Knowledgekid87, Aidan, and Humberto del Torrejón. Subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG and the content would clutter the main article if merged. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Reynolds[edit]

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

No indication of notability; a dead link is the only source, although the article contains an external link to the subject's web site.

An IP editor continues to add material unsourced (edit summary suggests he got info from the subject himself, suggesting a WP:COI). An earlier PROD was removed by that IP editor.

Note: an earlier claim of an award has been deleted, as not supported, and indeed contradicted, by its reference; the reference only said he'd entered the competition; it also looked like a draft announcement, with highlights of proposed edits, so it was not a reliable source in any event. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; reliable source coverage which verifies the accomplishment of one or more specific things that satisfy WP:NMUSIC must be present. But while there are claims here that would satisfy NMUSIC if they were sourced, nothing here is actually referenced at all and better sourcing isn't readily locatable — all I can find on either Google or ProQuest is glancing namechecks of his existence, not substantive coverage about him. And NMUSIC is not passed by claiming that it's passed; it's passed by reliably sourcing the truth of the claim. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search for sources comes up empty. Present content has one non-independent reference. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resume Games (retailer)[edit]

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

Newly started company still gaining establishment and there's nothing to suggest the substantial independent notability, sources are noticeably consisting of their own and the ones that are not, are not fully convincing; my own searches have also found nothing better than one of the listed local news articles. There's also no inherited notability from a partnership with Nexway. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Coffee Roasters[edit]

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

Completely promotional. Local popularity is not the same as notability, and "among the top 20 coffee shops in Portland" is a pretty faint claim of significance. ubiquity (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclosure: article creator). If there are problems with this article in terms of promotional language, then let's discuss on the article's talk page, but this company has been discussed by Condé Nast Traveler, Portland Monthly, The New York Times, Serious Eats, Thrillist ("Top 10 Cofee Roasters in the Nation..."), etc., so I don't think notability is a problem. I was attempting to describe the company's reception, but perhaps came across too promotional in doing so. I've posted additional sources for expanding the article on the talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many sources, some with significant coverage or notable features of this company, listed at Talk:Heart Coffee Roasters. And being in a list of the top 20 coffee shops in Portland is impressive. I found a source that said there were over 2,500 coffee shops in the Portland metro area, so being listed in the top 1% in a place that takes its coffee very seriously should not be dismissed out of hand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes GNG. "Local popularity is not the same as notability"? Local popularity leads to notability, perhaps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a major rewrite, but this article is not completely promotional, and has some actual notable content. Margalob (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 12:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Nobel laureates[edit]

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

This seems... a dubious subject for a list. It's an intersection, combining two subjects, and appears to be using quite a deal of synthesis to make it up, evaluating each of them. That would be fine if the subject were notable, but it really doesn't seem to be, with the only source previously covering it being a single book of trivia and other information about the Nobel Prizes. This does not rise to notability - we require references in multiple reliable sources, after all. I just don't see this article being defensible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this list is not an original research since been several studies or infortmation about the religions of Nobel prize laureates as the book 100 Years of Nobel Prizes by Baruch A. Shalev, and cientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, and Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, and Comparative Religion For Dummie by William P. Lazarus and Mark Sullivan, and The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige by Burton Feldman and others.--Jobas (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the lede to this article is not well-sourced, there are, in fact, entire scholarly books that deal with the quesiton of why modern science originated as a Western (i.e. Christian) phenomenon, for example, Toby Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. Article lede should be tagged for sourcing and kept. Other scholarly conversations discuss why science continues to flourish in some faith-related cultural areas and not in others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, It would be exceedingly inconsistent to keep the the 3 faith-related lists mentioned above by User:Jobas and the many other articles along the lines of List of Buddhists "This list includes... people notable in other areas who are publicly Buddhist or who have espoused Buddhism." while deleting this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't see the Christianity and Science argument as at all a good keep argument - the prize list is not limited to science - Literature and Peace Prizes, for instance - and it kind of makes it sound like the list is pushing an agenda, since the percentage of Christians in the Nobel Prize lists is not particularly evidentiary to that argument - and the list itself doesn't have the bias that's being added to it in order to make a notability argument. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very well sourced and relevant. Nominator's argument is inconsistent. In view of past AfDs, a vexatious nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep With over 450 sources, this list is well referenced and all the information is easily verifiable. It also seems to meet the purpose of lists, and as others have said, deleting this would be incosistent when other similar lists exist. Omni Flames (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sources show this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is well-sourced and like others have mentioned, it is a notably studied topic. Relevant to religion and science related articles.Mayan1990 (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, studied by scholars, relevant to history, including the history of science, and paralleled in lists for other religions. It is this proposal that has a very dubious premise. Evensteven (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (commenting, because I was asked to). This is a well structured list providing useful analysis of what it clearly a notable subject, the Nobel Prize being the world's supreme international accolade. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only because it is hard to argue to delete this one when we have lists for Athesit, Muslim, Jewish laureates, but it seems to pass WP:LISTN. Mario-mardini (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neutrally worded and this topic is both verifiable and significantly covered in reliable sources: WP:SNOW KEEP. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as properly sourced and notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the argument made by User:E.M.Gregory. AnupamTalk 23:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator might to think about withdrawing this nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think it's useful to withdraw. It'll help the page more if it can point to a firm keep instead of a mere no consensus. I'm not sure I agree with the logic put forwards - it still feels like an intersection of two topics, which would be better handled, if encyclopedic, as part of a "List of Nobel Laureates by religious affiliation" or the like, but I do intend to accept the result, whatever happens. I don't think it's likely to be deleted at this point, but I still think it's a useful debate to have, particularly as I'm not sure we've gotten that good of sources out yet. It feels a little like taking trivia, mentioned briefly in books covering more broad topics - Christianity and Science; statistics about the Nobel Prize; etc, etc - and making it a unit in its own right, and that still feels wrong to me.
It does feel like some voters - particularly E.M.Gregory and "per E.M.Gregory" votes - are somewhat explicitly using this to make an argument about Christianity and Science that's not at all supported by the facts (the list includes LITERATURE and PEACE prizes, after all - it's not about the topic it's being claimed to be about, and those are likely to have at least some Western bias when being awarded by a European Foundation, particularly in the early years, and even the science prizes aren't going to have been perfectly awarded. But the list itself doesn't try to make any dodgy analyses, they're being made as part of poor keep arguments, and are a reason to ignore those keeps, not to ignore the other keep arguments. (Mind, I'm going on the argument as written; it may be there's a better argument hiding under it) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth considering a merge after this AfD is decided. The biggest drawback about the current organization is that any Nobelists with relatively obscure faiths are left out because separate articles cannot be justified for those faiths. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rrgarding Hindu/Buddhist lists, give it a few years, there are top scientists/economists/physicians from those backgrounds on Noble probable lists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to User:Adam Cuerden's comment, it may seem odd, but when I saw this AFD my mind went exclusively to the medicine/science/economics prizes. I never gave a moment's thought to the literature or peace prizes. I read his comment and was momentarily genuinely puzzled, then I realized what he was saying ans asked myself how I could have forgotten those prizes. And realized that the answer is that in the circles I move in, people stopped taking them seriously - or talking about them - years ago. To the point where I didn't even think of them when I saw this AFD. And I suppose that the reason for that is that it has been taken for granted for so long that the lit and peace prized are so thoroughly political, so entirely responsive not merely to culture but to fashions in culture, and have been so since time immemorial that they long ago ceased to be regarded as prizes, within, as I said, the rather limited circles that I move in. this does not change my overall analysis that this page is notable, and that there are real correlations between cultural groups and participation in the sciences that continue to affect who does cutting-edge work in medicine/economics/and in the sciences.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: And that's fair enough, just they are included in the statistics, so it weakens the original argument a fair bit. I don't feel horribly strongly about this list - it seems odd and trivial to me more than harmful, so I'm not going to make a fuss over it being kept, if it is, and I don't imagine it isn't going to be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Drive[edit]

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

Article about a road in a suburban city, which makes no substantive claim of notability under our inclusion criteria for roads -- and even more importantly, cites no reliable source coverage for anything in the article. A prior version was deleted in 2008 -- while this is different enough in form to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, it isn't different enough in claimed or sourced notability to not still be a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per nomination, which summarizes the situation well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability.Charles (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 12:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danialle Karmanos[edit]

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

Nothing at all suggesting any convincing independent notability and searches have found nothing substantially better. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially Mrs. Karmanos throws her money at projects other people create and gets her name on them. Even at that, it is not entirely clear they are notable projects. The article basically functions as a coat-rack for advertisement for non-notable programs at Children's Hospital and Beaumont Hospital.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mentioned in article about Grosse Pointe, Michigan (photographed and short quote) in The New York Times, Video segment from American Black Journal on PBS, lots of details in the "Background" section on Bloomberg, in depth coverage and interview in The Huffington Post, in depth coverage and interview in Metro Parent, press release from NBC News, short article in Corp Magazine, and several mentions and press releases found through HighBeam - Health & Medicine Week, Life Science Weekly, Obesity & Diabetes Week, Cancer Weekly, Women's Health Weekly, Food Weekly News.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As creator of the article, I respectfully disagree that “nothing [about the article suggests] any convincing independent notability[.]” According to Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines, “if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” Furthermore, “the common theme in notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.” All of the above criteria have been met here. First, there has been “significant coverage” of Mrs. Karmanos and the nonprofit that she founded. As Isaidnoway points out, for example, the 2013 interview in The Huffington Point is more than a trivial mention of DKWIO; the article addressed the Work It Out program directly and in great detail. Lastly, the coverage received by Mrs. Karmanos and her philanthropic efforts has been from "reliable, independent and objective sources" – ranging from national news outlets (such as The Huffington Post and Bloomberg) to respected publications in the Metro Detroit area (e.g., Crain’s Business Detroit and Freep.com). Jvandepu34 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As shown above, she has significant coverage in multiple RS. Being a philanthropist is a lot more than just "throwing money" at projects. Philanthropy has a long history in the US and is an interesting topic in and of itself. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other comments above. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW, obv A7 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McKnight[edit]

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

non notable autobiography. noq (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Roesler[edit]

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

Time to put a stop to this. While the tone here is not overly promotional, it is part of an effort by Electric7304 to put this guy and his company, CMG Worldwide, on the map. This has been deleted before, most recently by DGG--a version maybe just different enough for me not to pull the trigger right now and just delete it per WP:G4. Note that other edits made by the creator all embellish this company's reputation and I will warn them.

In the meantime, though, we're dealing with this article, which has no decent sourcing whatsoever. There's a number of hits in Google News, and all of them confirm that Roesler is indeed "Chairman and CEO of CMG worldwide", but I see no in-depth coverage that proves he's notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. No indication of notability, no sources other than the websites of the subject himself or his company. Already in use as a coatrack to bootstrap a stealth article on the company. It's already been deleted six times; I don't see anything suggesting it won't be recreated yet again, so WP:SALT. TJRC (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My previous deletion was a speedy G11, and previous deletion by speedy does not justify use of G4. Rather, G4 can only be used after prior deletion by a community decision at AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right--thank you, DGG. I think that I saw in the log what I wanted to see: it's been deleted six times already, but they're actually all speedies, none of them followed discussion. Either way, G4 shouldn't have been based on your deletion. I guess it's not a bad thing that we have a community discussion for an article that made its first appearance in 2007. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is actually needed is a NPOV article on his company. There are sufficient sources. He appears as its spokesman,not as havignseparate notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Haines III[edit]

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

I'm torn bringing this to AfD, but alas I must. The subject has claims of notability, however after searching through references, the most I can find are information referring Haines to Wyck House, which has more of the notability. The best I found was that he had the first hot-air central heating system installed at Wyck House.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I just don't see enough notability on his own for verification. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not sure why the original deletion had to be taken down just for the article to be nominated again. There is no notability whatsoever. Also various CN tags which stretch further notability by association claims were since taken down which makes the article look more legit than it is. JesseRafe (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unable to determine notability. The Haines family is mentioned in a historical perspective pertaining to the Wyck House in Philadelphia:
  • [17],
  • [18],
  • [19],
  • [20]. However, I am unable to discern this family's importance - and in particular I am unable to discern the importance of this particular individual. The creator of this article will have to do the leg work - and I have provided some sources for exploration - but I am unable to determine notability of Reuben Haines III. I also reccomend trying some relevant JSTOR searches Steve Quinn (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seemed to hit the same roadblock you did as well. I sort of took this article on as a "pet project" to improve it, but everything seemed to mention Haines in passing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing mentions that he lived in a now-notable historic house and associated with notable people do not make him notable, although perhaps the family was. Jonathunder (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, sources found just have trivial mentions, subject is already covered at Wyck House. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Cleveland Cavaliers[edit]

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

Redundant - word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article Vjmlhds 15:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete What, one Wikipedia article on the Cavaliers isn't enough? sixtynine • speak up • 15:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as last time. The history section at Cleveland Cavaliers is far too long and another editor has already been paring it down to expand this article. The nomination last time was just a few months ago. Little has changed since then, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article" is normal procedure for "daughter" articles like this (and was explained in the last nomination and in the talk page for the Cavs article), though it's not accurate, since it all came from the History section. That was your main reasoning for the last nomination, which ended up being a strong keep. Nothing has changed in that regard in the two months since the last nomination. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per User:JonRidinger. It should be noted that the "History of the Cleveland Cavaliers" is not a "word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article" as the history section Cleveland Cavaliers page was thoroughly compressed before this nomination was made. Frank AnchorTalk 17:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While this had no impact on my response, and should have no impact on anyone else's, it should be noted that the nominator reverted the compression of the history section on the Cleveland Cavaliers page immediately before nominating this page for deletion. Frank AnchorTalk 17:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Follows WP:SPINOFF. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legitimate WP:SPINOFF of long article. We see this kind of history article for many sports teams, see Category:History of sports in the United States by team and related categories. Also it's not apparent why we are again seeing this at AfD only 2 months after the last discussion was closed as keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate way to keep the history section of the main article to a manageable size. The nominator seems to have tried to withdraw the nomination by doing this, which isn't the correct way of going about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above, as per the last AfD debate. A legitimate WP:SPINOFF of a section of an article that had grown too long to be manageable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPINOUT. The content about the team's history should exist here. If there's too much historical content at the article about the team, then trim it back. Based on the fact the first AfD resulted in keep only two months ago and the nominator's reversion I have to wonder if this is a good faith nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as legitimate spinoff. No good reason to delete. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw deletion request I know when I'm licked. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and animation[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY. Essentially a collection personal critiques of depictions of archaeology in popular media by the primary author. I don't think it's salvageable: in theory, something like this could exist as a subarticle of Archaeology#Popular views of archaeology, but the current content is subjective, specific to particular works, and almost entirely without references. Joe Roe (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an essay, pure and simple. freshacconci talk to me 21:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible merge as above. Does not rise above a High School essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as journal material, still nothing actually convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it may be possible to create an article about the use of (computer) animation in archaeology, the indiscriminate collection of examples used here and the essay form make it not salvageable. Mduvekot (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, is an essay with a lot of WP:OR. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there is a merge !vote, the keep !votes based on policies outweigh it. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly algorithm[edit]

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

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

  • Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
  • Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
  • Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
  • I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5940 papers
The Firefly algorithm is discussed in many chapters of the edited book Adaptation and Hybridization in Computational Intelligence [21]. Although the first chapter is indeed written by Yang, the other chapters are not. You can see the list of chapters and authors from Amazon's "Look Inside".[22] Also, on Google Scholar there are 5,940 search results for "firefly algorithm", of which only a dozen or two are authored by Yang. [23] I recommend the Refimprove template be added rather than the article be deleted. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I noted a superficial look makes this look quantitatively well-cited, but superficial looks can be deceptive. From all those references could you pick out those which you believe have been published in the qualitatively best venues? Did you find any truly respected textbook or overview article discussing this? —Ruud 20:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Google Books for "firefly intitle:optimization" [24] turns up 511 books from various well-known publishers, including:
* Evolutionary Optimization Algorithms By Dan Simon, Wiley, [25]
* Computational Intelligence Paradigms for Optimization Problems Using MATLAB®/SIMULINK® by S. Sumathi, L. Ashok Kumar, Surekha. P, CRC Press [26]
* Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization, edited by Wang, John, IGI Global [27]
Michaelmalak (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evolutionary Optimization Algorithms looks like a decent enough source. Are there one or two more like that? (The other two you suggested above are already seem to be of more dubious quality. I couldn't find out anything about the authors of the CRC Press one. There is another similarly titled book, though. Neither appear to have received any citations. Somewhat similar story about the IGI Global one, which isn't a top-tier publisher to begin with.) —Ruud 09:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weyland, Glover, Sörensen

Weyland, who has previously criticized another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic (harmony search), also explicitly calls out the firefly algorithm as being of unclear novelty in the introduction of his new article (Elsevier ScienceDirect link). —Ruud 09:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years a huge number of novel metaheuristics were proposed. These metaheuristics are usually based on metaphors describing natural processes or social phenomena. The metaphors used to derive the working mechanisms of such novel metaheuris- tics are getting increasingly absurd and the connection between the metaphors on the one hand and optimization on the other hand is getting increasingly vague. It is not really clear what the flow of water [1], the leaps of frogs [2] or a salmon run [3] have to do with optimization. Additionally, it seems that the underlying working mechanisms of these methods are very similar, and in some cases even identical, to those of well-established heuristics. For example, the differences between the particle swarm optimization meta- heuristic [4] and ‘‘novel’’ metaheuristics like the firefly algorithm [5], the fruit fly optimization algorithm [6], the fish swarm opti- mization algorithm [7] or the cat swarm optimization algorithm [8] seem negligible. Nevertheless, the literature is full of results which certify exceptional performance to these ‘‘novel’’ methods. Obviously, there is something going wrong. This whole develop- ment had been ignored for quite a while, but recently open crit- icism has emerged.

Glover and Sörensen also comment on the problem we are seeing here in their Scholarpedia article under the section "The metaphor controversy":

A large (and increasing) number of publications focuses on the development of (supposedly) new metaheuristic frameworks based on metaphors. The list of natural or man-made processes that has been used as the basis for a metaheuristic framework now includes such diverse processes as bacterial foraging, river formation, biogeography, musicians playing together, electromagnetism, gravity, colonization by an empire, mine blasts, league championships, clouds, and so forth. An important subcategory is found in metaheuristics based on animal behavior. Ants, bees, bats, wolves, cats, fireflies, eagles, vultures, dolphins, frogs, salmon, vultures, termites, flies, and many others, have all been used to inspire a "novel" metaheuristic. A more complete list can be found in Fister et al (2013). As a general rule, publication of papers on metaphor-based metaheuristics has been limited to second-tier journals and conferences, but some recent exceptions to this rule can be found. Sörensen (2013) states that research in this direction is fundamentally flawed. Most importantly, the author contends that the novelty of the underlying metaphor does not automatically render the resulting framework "novel".

Given the big controversy and huge number of book and paper citations, I would think it makes it all the more important to keep in Wikipedia, and add in the criticism (with cites) -- including in the lead. Michaelmalak (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifying almost 60 references is a daunting task for anyone. Many of these references seem to be conference proceedings. Although these are sometimes more "significant" in CS than perhaps in other areas of science, typically conference proceedings are not secondary sources, as required by WP:NOR. Focusing on more traditional print media, some of the remaining references appear to be from open access publishers. For example, the "Journal of Applied Mathematics", "Int. J. Computer Science Issues". Several of the other journals seem otherwise dodgy. But there is a solid core here of high-quality journals, for example the Proceedings of the Royal Society. I would really like to see the references pruned to some more manageable collection of high-quality sources. I do not think specific implementation details belong here. Entire sections are sourced only to conference proceedings, and should be removed. Also, given the amount of skepticism that these metaheuristics have generated, I find the tone of the article inconsistent with WP:NPOV, and especially WP:WEIGHT. Possibly WP:FRINGE is relevant. However, AfD is not cleanup. Although what we have right now is a pretty terrible article, it does not rise to the level of TNT. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My general belief is that much of the work in this sort of metaheuristic is junk science, but the high citation counts and numbers of hits for this topic in Google Scholar make clear that, regardless of that, it is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016-07-17 Vast Improvement in Article

Thank you Ruud for your editing work on this article: adding the criticism and deleting the fluff. And thank you for leaving in the actual pseudocode as that answers the question pertinent to Wikipedia readers: "What is the Firefly Algorithm"? Michaelmalak (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nature-Inspired

A direct quote from Xin-She Yang himself from his book Nature-Inspired Metaheuristics which has been repeatedly published by Elsevier.

Researchers have drawn various inspirations to develop a diverse range of algorithms with different degrees of success. Such diversity and success do not mean that we should focus on developing more algorithms for the sake of algorithm developments, or even worse, for the sake of publication. We do not encourage readers to develop new algorithms such as grass, tree, tiger, penguin, snow, sky, ocean, or Hobbit algorithms. These new algorithms may only provide distractions from the solution of really challenging and truly important problems in optimization. New algorithms may be developed only if they provide truly novel ideas and really efficient techniques to solve challenging problems that are not solved by existing algorithms and methods.

Sadly, the scientific community rewards those algorithms that are able to produce better results on a set of benchmark functions Test functions for optimization . Coincidentally, these "inspired algorithms" have been performing well in solving such test cases along with other complex problems, hence the high number of citations. Although, these algorithms may appear to be "metaphoric", most of the original algorithms in this field share at some level, the same level of similarity in terms of "population", "fitness", "operators", "solutions" etc. Hence, singling out "inspired" algorithms for deletion based on a few handful of publications outlining its negative "novelty" against the large number of publications outlining its "effectiveness" is still a matter up for debate. It is true that research at this point of time is mired at the metaheuristic level but till the time the scientific community decides over the debate of "fittest" vs "novelty" , as an knowledge sharing site, both the pros and cons should be weighed infront of the reader, meaning both the applications that have been conspicuously blanked for some algorithms due for deletion and the criticism like the one already been put for firefly should together be put up as information. Furthermore, to clarify some of the claims but these "algorithms" have been published not only in 2nd tier journals or conferences but reputed journals like Elsevier , Springer Publishing , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, wiley etc. Capn Swing (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there's enough to suggest it is convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge People here are making pretty strong cases for deletion by citing these damning criticisms, and then saying "keep" for some reason. The problem here is that the articles/algorithms themselves aren't notable, but the "Nature-inspired metaheuristics" category is notable (for the criticism if nothing else). Rather than keep them all and add a "criticism" section to every one, why don't we make a succinct article for all of them? I'd also like to point out that being mentioned and being notable are not the same thing. A bunch of academics copying and adding to lists en-masse can quickly lead to citation bloat, as we've seen in the WP article itself. These topics should be treated the way the academic world treats them: as an example mentioned in passing by people who don't care how (or if) they work. Jergling (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the number of metaheuristic algorithm articles needs to be reduced, but I believe Firefly and Artificial Bee Colony are notable enough for articles of their own. Michaelmalak (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Tigers[edit]

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

Delete. Non notable organization and no claim of notability. Article on primary source. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Snowballs don't last long in Florida in the summer, either. Even though the creator had blanked the page/requested deletion, it's pretty clear that this was going to be an outright delete, so it's being deleted as such, rather than a G7 speedy. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Libertarian Party of Florida[edit]

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

While the Libertarian Party of Florida is arguably a notable political organization, I question whether this "friends of" organization meets the policies and guidelines for organizations Shirt58 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete organization too new for a mention in the Libertarian Party of Florida article, along with no sources. Prevan (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jhiljhile City[edit]

Red X I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepali keto62 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsource,article created by blocked user,citiation isn't available in google Tiger Gang Talk 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is about a small city in Nepal where citations are not easily available. Citations provided there can be great proof that it exits.Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 01:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it seems unlikely that this is a city, otherwise better sources could be found. OpenStreetMap just points me to a forest, this source also suggests it is a forest, though there are other mentions of a settlement in books. Does this satisfy WP:NPLACE? I'm not sure. We could do with someone looking for sources in Nepali. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you want then delete this page and I will create the new page with sources and citations.Thanks—Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 07:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really how Wikipedia works, Nepali keto62. If you have sources, then please add them to the article and a case can be made for keeping it. That's much simpler than having the article deleted, only to start it again. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know why you're so desperate to remove this article from deletion discussion. You can edit the article freely and if you want to save the article, then please add sources. You cannot remove this article from article for deletion discussion, it can only be closed by an admin depending on the consensus formed through this discussion. Ayub407talk 08:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing stopping you from editing the article while this discussion is taking place, Nepali keto62. In fact, improving the sourcing of the article is the best way to demonstrate that it should be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created and nominated for deletion by the same blocked user. This is just a waste of time. There's enough edits by other users that this probably doesn't qualify for WP:G5, but at this point, we should just delete it and stop wasting everyone's time. No prejudice against someone else recreating this with sources. Consider it WP:TNT, basically. ~ Rob13Talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar constitutional referendum, 2015[edit]

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

As this referendum did not happen, there is no need for an article on it (as effectively the topic now fails WP:NOTNEWS). I am the article's creator, but could not do a speedy under G7 as it has been edited by several other users. See a similar AfD from a couple of years ago. Number 57 11:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 12:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOTNEWS and article creator is requesting deletion Prevan (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The referendum isa significant part of the recent politics of the country, especially because it would have involved a very major change in the government. It therefore has historic significance. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: The suggested constitutional changes can be covered in Politics of Myanmar, but this article is specifically about the referendum itself, which didn't happen. Number 57 22:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it didn't happen does not mean that the events around it are not notable. The encyclopedic value in this seems to be that a big attempt was made to change the constitution to reduce the power of the military and the military blocked it. Maybe it should be renamed to something like Proposed Myanmar constitutional referendum, 2015 to indicate its failure. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MontaVista#Meld. If Kvng wants to Merge I have no objections however consensus here is to redirect so closing as such. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meld embedded Linux community[edit]

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

NN web community. Typical launch-time coverage, but nothing else. One of the issues in finding coverage is that there's also a Meld software package for Linux that is entirely unrelated to this. Tellingly, the EL to the website is on archive.org, and it no longer exists live. MSJapan (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MontaVista#Meld. There's little out there beyond articles that look suspiciously like press releases. For example, compare "We are excited to be part of the Moblin community" found in both this article at eWeek and this press release at mvista.com. Sorry, not good enough for me. However, redirects are cheap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MontaVista#Meld as material in this article will improve the material in the section of the proposed target. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MontaVista#Meld My goodness. There is no need to have an article for basically an internet forum. I see it is already mentioned in the target article along with some content, so I guess a redirect works here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three relists, , and lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laserfiche[edit]

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

Obvious spam is obvious. Lord alone knows how, but this has previously survived an AFD so I can't speedy-delete it.  ‑ Iridescent 10:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt as I myself had tagged, excessively advertorial with nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 11:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sources have been provided, and those advocating deletion haven't responded to them. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Childre[edit]

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

An AfD a couple of months ago was closed as no consensus. The sources provided in that AfD were never added to the article, but the discussion and the sources can be seen here. As an aside, I don't think that AfD was an appropriate candidate for a non-admin closure, but it's a little late to complain about that now.

I agree with the deletion rationale, namely a lack of notability, and a failure to meet WP:ANYBIO. The argument was raised that the person meets #3 in WP:NAUTHOR, but I disagree with this. NAUTHOR specifies: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Boldface added by me.) Are Childre's (mainly) self-published books "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? The relevant books appear to be The HeartMath Solution, Transforming Stress and Freeze Frame - the LibraryThing link in the previous AfD lists lots of titles but it lists translations and alternative titles as separate works. Now, the titles mentioned, as well as the ones that are not, are books that are basically adverts for the Heartmath institute (which is not notable per this AfD), as well as fringe science, and so the burden of proof of notability is pretty high, in my opinion. Publishers Weekly is still an acceptable source for book reviews but one such review (which, in my eyes, is a poorly written one, without any attempt at going beyond what the author says about his own book) for one of his books does not mean that the person meets WP:NAUTHOR. bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep
  • The last AfD closed 1 month 19 days ago. Nothing has changed with the article. Now a pernicious AfD.
  • This is the third afd, not second. The first one closed keep. This was documented on the article talk page, not sure why the nom neglected to link the Keep AfD.
Doc Childre is the WP:AUTHOR of many books[28] that have received book reviews in reliable sources, per WP:AUTHOR #3 "The person has created .. a well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
Other Sources: NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank though not dedicated reviews. A couple examples:
  • Gracie Bonds Staples. "Living with your choices Course of action", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 30, 2010. Quote: "Doc Childre, the internationally renowned stress expert, said.."
  • Portia Berrey, "The heart has its own brain.literally." Denver Examiner, September 21, 2009. Summarizes Childre's position on the "brain in the heart".
  • Media sources at the HearthMath website has 100s of "in the media" sources archived (I have not looked through them for reliable sources about ChildreP).
In addition as noted by User:Arxiloxos in the last AfD (quote):
  • In addition to his written work, note this 1992 Los Angeles Times article reporting that his Heart Zones stress-reduction tape "recently landed on the top 25 'Adult Alternative' list in Billboard magazine six weeks after its release. This is believed to be the first "therapeutic" tape to make the chart." And a March 20, 1993 page from Billboard shows that this album had been on the New Age chart for 49 weeks.
The noms rationale ignored all of the above reliable sources, other than Publishers Weekly. This is the same tactic used in the previous AfD completely ignoring the peer reviewed academic journals, mainstream newspapers like LA Times, etc.. I understand this is not popular article, presumably due to its connection with fringe science, but the sources are really quite solid, this is a textbook case of a unpopular topic meeting the notability guidelines and ceaseless attempts to get it deleted. -- GreenC 14:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Pernicious"? No, it is possible to have different opinions without any malice being involved at all, and it would be appreciated if this discussion could take place without any name-calling or assumptions of bad faith. I have not been involved in any previous deletion discussions, so there are no ceaseless attempts here - it is perhaps telling that two experiencd editors have independently judged that it merits a deletion discussion, however. As I observed above, in my view the previous AfD was inappropriately closed by a non-admin - non-admin closures should be avoided unless the result is crystal clear, and in any case the close was not a "keep" but a "no consensus", so a new attempt to get consensus cannot possibly be a bad thing. The observation that nothing has happened with the article is correct: in my opinion, it shows no more notability today than it did a month ago. I apologise for being sloppy in checking the AfDs. The previous one did not mention a prior AfD, and Twinkle (which I used to create this AfD) also did not notice it. The burden was on me to make sure, of course. Thank you for pointing it out. Finally, when partially quoting a guideline or policy it is easy to cause inadvertent misinterpretations, so looking at the whole guideline in context is important; I included the relevant one in the nom above. --bonadea contributions talk 22:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Respectfully, this discussion hasn't changed my feeling, as I stated it in the first AfD, that there is enough reliable source coverage here to warrant a carefully edited article on this fringey, but notable, subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment -- if this is a notable subject, why does the article not reflect that? There's one citation. If the sources exist, why not add them? Nothing stops AfDs better than adding RS to an article. If there's no desire on the part of the community to improve the article, then yes, an AfD is warranted. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • editors are under no obligation to add citations to an article that have been discussed at afd, if a subject is notable its notable, articles don't need to show this - WP:CONTN, anyway, sources were added in October 2013 - [29], but were then deleted in November 2013 (with a rather unhelpful edit summary, may have been more appropriate to move them to the talkpage instead) - [30]. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment, as previously mentioned, this is the 3rd afd, not the 2nd, the 1st was closed by an admin as a "keep", who also included their reason for the decision. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, works have been reviewed in multiple independent publications as listed by Green Cardamom above. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article as written is promotional fluff. It's been three years, people. AfD isn't cleanup but the article barely states a claim to notability ("is an author") and doesn't indicate why this particular author is important. The third prong of WP:AUTHOR isn't met. The requirement that the works be reviewed in multiple sources is a qualifier to the following: "significant or well-known work or collective body of work." No evidence of this whatsoever. Showing the the books were reviewed is not enough. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- promotional piece on an apparently non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article and reads like a CV; Wikipedia is not a newspaper with stories of passing interest. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re 3rd prong of WP:AUTHOR not met (ignoring some of the sources found by Green Cardamom), i suppose the same can be said about WP:GNG as the reviews are concerning Childre's works and not him (the same could probably be said about 1000s of author articles), suppose we will have to rename the article "Works of Lee Childre"? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank not dedicated reviews. This is the "well known" portion of the guideline. People are free to disagree but if 34 references are not enough than nothing will be, and no rationale has been put forward to ignore all these sources (including the reviews) in determining the well known status of his body of work. -- GreenC 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep delete Fact is, I'm searching and from what I can find, it would be easier to source a good article and support notability for the other Lew Childre, the one who founded a well known fishing tackle company in the Ozarks [31]. There are a few sources on both "Lew Childre," and on "Doc Childre." Doc is his first name, he is not a physician with a new approach, he is a music promoter who got into nostrums for "heart-brain-coherence." That sort of thing can make you rich and famous. In this case, I cannot find that it has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed earlier in this AfD are freely available online through many public library accounts, or they can be requested from other Wikipedians through WP:REX. It is not a good reason to ignore those sources (most quite old from the 20th century) just because they are unavailable in a Google search ca. 2016. -- GreenC 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for brevity. I have access to powerful search engines. On a Proquest news search of "Lew Childre" the top two hits are th efisherman, # 3 is a local radio announcer, and the fourth hit is our boy. First sentence of article, "His Dad was old Doc Lew Childre Sr., the Grand Ole Opry star whose major contribution to music was a little ditty called Let's Go Fishing." (Wisdom through heartfelt music: [CITY Edition] Evertz, Mary. St. Petersburg Times [St. Petersburg, Fla] 20 Sep 1992: 1F. [32].) Dunno, I may have been wrong since this is a full profile that was picked up by a wire service and ran in 2 big city dailies. I have not disintangled who the father was. but the fishing guy was a big deal, lots more in-depth coverage than this guy has. We do have a WP:RECENTISM problem. The notable fisherman who founded a significant fishing tackle company should have an article. And this boy's daddy, Doc Lew Childre, Sr. probably merits one as well (I'm no authority on mid-century country music.) Frankly, I'm just not that impressed by the fact that a self-promoter like the Lew of this article did get written up in a few places. I suppose that I can see your argument for keeping the article. and will change to a very tepid keep.E.M.Gregory (talk)
  • Keep as the references supplied by GreenC seem compelling that the subject passes WP:BASIC, they need to be added to the article, particularly the academic journals and Los Angeles Times coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Evertz, Mary (1992-09-20). "Wisdom through heartfelt music". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2016-07-30. Retrieved 2016-07-30.

      The article notes:

      His Dad was old Doc Lew Childre Sr., the Grand Ole Opry sta whose major contribution to music was a little ditty called Let's Go Fishing.

      On 100 acres of prime ranch land, rimmed by the Santa Cruz mountains, redwood trees, fruit orchards and horses, Doc Lew Childre Jr., in a California way, is following in his Dad's footsteps.

      We're talking very California.

      Childre, the younger, you see, has a hit compact disc on the charts.

      But you'll find no lyrics about loyal dogs, lost love or manly fishing - Grand Ole Opry staples.

      No, Childre has come up with a synthesizer album, which some consumers claim is an "atmospheric and attitudinal conditioner" that helps them feel relaxed. Others, not attuned to this "anti-stress" CD, think it sounds more like "clunks and plunks."

      The believers, however, seem to outnumber the skeptics. The CD, called Heart Zones, was released in July and has been climbing the Billboard charts since. It has gone from 23 to 21 this week on the Adult Alternative Chart (i.e. New Age), an indication of heavy sales.

    2. Curnutte, Mark (1992-09-02). "Doc Feel-good Lew Childre examined the head and heart, and he came up with a remedy for stress - one that doesn't require a prescription". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-07-30. Retrieved 2016-07-30.

      The article notes:

      The man who wrote and performed the first stress-reduction music to reach the Billboard charts appears to be a bit stressed out by the media attention he's receiving.

      Still, if he can't talk, he can fax.

      Doc Lew Childre, a "fortysomething" Goldsboro native now living in Boulder Creek, Calif., is "too busy" to come to the phone but, through a publicist, agrees to field questions via fax machine.

      With "Heart Zones" at No. 19 on the adult alternative charts, Childre is being besieged with requests for interviews, he faxes. Everyone apparently wants to know how 16 minutes of instrumental music got so hot.

      This is yuppie feel-good music to the max. Don't call it New Age or jazz. Childre and company refer to it as "designer music," created specifically to reduce stress, and it's being played on alternative radio stations in 35 of the nation's largest 100 markets.

    3. Selvin, Rick (1996-09-17). "In One Ear ... The Power of Music Can Be Striking IN ONE EAR". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2016-07-30. Retrieved 2016-07-30.

      The article notes:

      A guy named Doc Lew Childre has had some success playing and marketing music that, he claims, will have a specific positive effect on the mind and body. He wants not only to soothe your breast, but also the major organ directly underneath it - your heart.

      The word "doc" in Childre's name does not imply he is a medical or any other kind of doctor. The prefix was inherited from his father, Doc Lew Childre Sr., a legendary country musician who was one of the founders of Nashville's Grand Ole Opry. The story goes that when any of the Opry performers had a problem, they'd go to Lew to talk it out, and feel better for the effort. The nickname Doc was born.

      Doc Junior, whose formal education extended only to the 11th grade, is a musician, too. His first album, 1992's Heart Zones, was something of a recording-industry phenomenon. Consisting of four short songs created on a synthesizer - each tune played twice, for a total of less than 34 minutes of music - the CD was marketed as a tool to "boost vitality." The publicity associated with the product said the sounds on it were "based on research in human performance" and that the recording could reduce anxiety, fatigue and stress, and enhance intuition and creativity.

      Enough people believed the claims to keep the debut album on Billboard magazine's adult alternative music chart for nearly a year.

    4. Wilson, Craig (1993-01-06). "'Heart Zones' album targets stress reduction and therapy". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2016-07-30. Retrieved 2016-07-30.

      The article notes:

      Doc Lew Childre says they can. And they don't even have to leave their BMWs trapped in traffic on Highway 101 to do so. Just pop in Childre's new CD and let his music calm you.

      Childre - a 48-year-old musician and self-educated researcher in human development who says he has spent his life looking for self-fulfillment - heads the two-year-old Institute of HeartMath here. It's a 40-member, non- profit research/education organization whose goal is stress reduction. His newest album, Heart Zones, has been riding the Billboard New Age chart now for more than 25 weeks, the first music for stress reduction ever to make the list.

    5. Condon, Garret (1993-04-23). "Musician says tunes lower stress - Music that strikes a chord". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2016-07-30. Retrieved 2016-07-30.

      The article notes:

      There's plenty of laid-back music on Billboard magazine's Top Adult Alternative chart -- the place where best-selling New Age discs come to roost. But only one of the 25 albums on the chart claims to have been scientifically designed to reduce stress: "Heart Zones," written, performed and recorded by Doc Lew Childre, a former rock band manager turned human-potential guru.

      The four-song album of synthesizer music, which goes from dreamy to upbeat and back again, is currently No. 15 on the Billboard chart and has been on the chart for 39 weeks. (Of those now listed, only New Age doyenne Enya has spent more time on the chart.) Childre, in his 40s, is a native of Goldsboro, N.C., and the son of a lesser-known country singer of the same name ("Doc" is a nickname; Childre is not a college graduate).

      His music is an outgrowth of his self-developed HeartMath system of "personal energy management and self-empowerment." Childre's 1991 book for teenagers, "Heart Smarts: Teenage Guide for the Puzzle of Life," was well received by educators and librarians. His Institute of HeartMath in Boulder Creek, Calif., which publishes his books and records, offers popular training courses (of which "Heart Zones" is a part) for businesses and the military and does research on Childre's theories. Those theories center on seeking counsel from the heart -- which Childre defines as the center of human intuition and wisdom.

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

    Cunard (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided by Cunard and GreenC provide compelling evidence that the subject of this article meets WP:BASIC. Vanamonde (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iniya Tamil[edit]

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

None of this is suggestively notable for any applicable notability and my own searches simply found 2 local articles from November. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unable to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analisa Leppanen[edit]

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

The article gives at most one indication of significance: being one of the foremost authorities on one particular artist. Google shows little or no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Google Scholar shows her published works, but one has only three citations and the rest none. She doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably because you searched google for Analisa Leppanen instead of Analisa Leppanen-Guerra, the name she has published under most. Searching by Leppanen_Guerra brings back tons of articles. Billyglad (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Leppanen is one of the foremost authorities on Joseph Cornell, as a writer and artist I would find that very significant. Probably her expertise extends to surrealism in general. If nothing else, she should make valuable contributions to any articles on Cornell and links back to her credentials would be essential for judging the weight of her opinions. Billyglad (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad[reply]

Is she one of the two foremost authorities or one of the 45 foremost authorities? I lean toward attributing less significance to vaguely worded claims made by people about themselves. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that to say that someone is authoritative is to say that they are a significant player in the world of scholarship, in this case Cornell scholarship. Maybe looking at the acknowledgements in this excerpt from one of her books will give us an idea of the level at which Leppanen plays. https://books.google.com/books?id=Qne_wqJfbFsC&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=joseph+cornell+scholars&source=bl&ots=TY700_GBuE&sig=EU-P1yXKNAIaHjr8XM1Ww27muE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU6N2svOrNAhUFQiYKHTbqAE84ChDoAQg4MAQ#v=onepage&q=joseph%20cornell%20scholars&f=false. I'd add that it's significant that she published a multi-media work (Joseph Cornell's Manual of Marvels), which included a book of essays, a partial facsimile, and a CD-ROM, on Cornell's book-object, which was the first artist's book of its kind --a groundbreaking work of scholarship that revealed Cornell's book to other scholars and the general public. And your Google search should have turned up Julie Bloom's full-page review in the New York Times (Dec. 2, 2012) and Jed Perl's glowing review in the New Republic (Dec. 5, 2012)." Billyglad (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad Also, I believe a Google search on Analisa Leppanen-Guerra the other name she has published and lectured under will turn up much more coverage than the articles you found searching just on Analisa Leppanen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyglad (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC) This page is looking good this morning.Billyglad (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leppanen passes WP:AUTHOR #3 with her work as the subject of multiple reviews in reliable sources. I just added another source from Art History. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leppanen's multi-media work, Joseph Cornell's Manual of Marvels, is clearly an original contribution to her field. Billyglad (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad It also appears that the Further Reading section of the main Joseph Cornell WP page links to Analisa Leppanen. Billyglad (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, article has been improved and reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players[edit]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Algeria national football team season, this article was mentioned as having very doubtful notablility. There is no evidence that it passes WP:GNG and the sourcing for individual footballers does not prove that the list is complete. How can we be sure that all players are listed and none has been missed? I think it should be deleted, it is simple not notable Qed237 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a list of players who have played in a fully-professional league, in the same way as List of Premier League players is. Why is one questioned but the other not? Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per GS, lists of players in fully professional leagues are deemed notable. The fact that it may be incomplete is no reason for deletion, if there is a concern about this, it can simply be hatted at the head of the article. Fenix down (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AskMeBazaar[edit]

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

Article is undergoing too many edits with negative comments from an anonymous user and deletion from other anonymous users. The article is being used as a complaint forum. The content of the article is written in a promotional manner. Gayatri0704 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : We can have page protection to avoid further disruptions from IPs instead.— TOG 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as what's damaging this is the overall advertising formatting , information about a newly started company talking about funding are the alarms there, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webe Kadima[edit]

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

There is nothing in this article that seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Slashme (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A GS h-index of only 9 in a highly cited field is not enough for WP:Prof#C1. A good start but at present WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Being a "professor at the State University of New York at Oswego" is far from being not notable. The responsibilty of a professor is based on three columns: (1) teaching, (2) research and (3) public responsibility. The achievements regarding Numbers 1 and 3 are difficult to assess just by doing just a web search. Thus, I propose to keep the article, and emphasise the achievements in these three sectors. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the notability criteria for academics does Prof. Kadima fulfil? --Slashme (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" in 2004, when "she went back to the Congo ... concentrating her research on plants used in the Congo to treat diabetes. She created ... the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute, whose mission was to investigate medicinal plants used in the Congo." This is unusual and thus in my eyes notable, indeed. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a reasonable argument. --Slashme (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd agree with that. Also she has enough coverage generally to just meet WP:GNG. Her Dictionary of African Biography entry is especially persuasive. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cannot trace her entry in Dictionary of African Biography. Can anybody help? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for this. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the professor's activities in Oswego and more importantly the unusual scientific work in the Congo. NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. African Dictionary bio is helpful, but it falls pretty far short of "multiple sources". With low h-index (I get 8), notability claim is also pretty far short of PROF. I think Xxan has it correctly characterized as TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The article has used more sources than just the African Dictionary bio. Also she has accomplished some notable things such as creating the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute.2601:46:C801:5300:45EB:6148:6233:5AB2 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that the reference list has more entries, but they're all web pages and other such insignifcances. Her departmental listing does not help the notability argument. Is the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute that she created notable, or is just another institute in the vast sea of non-profits? Agricola44 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I've taken a look at the article in question: she's third author along with Rabenstein and Isab,[1] (Edit: sorry, that's not the one in question - wrong journal. I couldn't find her Inorganica Chimica Acta publication.) and Rabenstein published quite a lot in that field. It's good to get a publication out of your M.Sc., but hardly unusual. I see that she was later first author on a paper looking at the stability of the cadmium-glutathione complex in hemolysed red blood cells.[2] That's solid science, but not really a notable breakthrough or surprising discovery as far as I can tell. --Slashme (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, second edit to clear things up: I found the Inorganica Chimica Acta article. It is not about glutathione, cadmium or erythrocytes, which is why I didn't find it right away: it's about the kinetics of palladium ethylenediamine chloride in solution.[3] Again, solid science. The discovery that cadmium binds to glutathione and hemoglobin is indeed not trivial, and that's why it got published in a peer-reviewed journal, but discovering non-trivial facts about nature is what scientists do. My Biochem M.Sc. study leader did most of her work in Africa, and has over 60 publications, compared to Kadima's 17, and I have great respect for her, but she's still not notable by Wikipedia standards. So my take-away from this is that Kadima is professionally competent, but not notable as a researcher, so we have to decide notability based on the fact that she founded the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute. --Slashme (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Slashme: Thank you very much for collating the information about her scientific publications. I added a summary to the article, to make it easier for an administrator to make a valuable decision about keeping or deleting this article. It will also enable search engines to find this article more easily. I fully agree with you, that articles about non-notable persons should be deleted from Wikipedia, but I think, on this occasion, the notability threshold has easily been passed, at least according to the standards of the German Wikipedia, with which I am more familiar. Fingers and toes crossed... --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I translated this article to German (de:Webe Kadima), I noted that she has received a $200,000 national science fund, which is another indication of her notability. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here's the documentation on the NSF grant: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1008535 And she is the principal investigator for it. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the NSF, they make 12000 awards per year, so getting an NSF grant is not evidence of notability. --Slashme (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rabenstein, Dallas L.; Isab, Anvarhusein A.; Kadima, Webe; Mohanakrishnan, P. (July 1983). "A proton nuclear magnetic resonance study of the interaction of cadmium with human erythrocytes". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research. 762 (4): 531–541. doi:10.1016/0167-4889(83)90057-5.
  2. ^ Kadima, Webe; Rabenstein, Dallas L. (October 1990). "A quantitative study of the complexation of cadmium in hemolyzed human erythrocytes by1H NMR spectroscopy". Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 40 (2): 141–149. doi:10.1016/0162-0134(90)80047-2.
  3. ^ Kadima, W.; Zador, M. (January 1983). "Kinetics on interaction of Pd(en)Cl2 with inosine in chloride containing aqueous solutions". Inorganica Chimica Acta. 78: 97–101. doi:10.1016/S0020-1693(00)86496-8.
  • Comment And now User:David Eppstein has decided to make an article about Amanda Swart (I noticed because I get notified of Wikilinks to Aspalathin and Nothofagin). That's a bit WP:POINTy, but hey, why not. It doesn't affect Prof. Kadima's notability either way: the point I was making was that Kadima's publications and academic career don't rise to the level of Wikipedia notability, and her notability must therefore be judged on the notability of the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute. --Slashme (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, not trying to make a point, I merely felt that she was notable enough for an article (through WP:PROF#C7 – her work has been described multiple times in the popular press, and the case for #C1 is less clear). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. The citation record is not yet strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, the Oswegonian piece is entirely composed of quotes from a press release by her employer, and the Mwakilishi.com article (mirrored elsewhere) mentions her only in passing. And the arguments made above about how she has made scientific discoveries and been funded by grants are pointless: all academics in the sciences do that, and I don't think we want to argue that all are notable. The standard in sports of including anyone who walks onto the field in a professional game should be fixed, not emulated. But I think the "Dictionary of African Biography" entry linked above does count strongly for notability (even though it seems not to be linked in the actual article). Although the Post-Standard article is too local to count for WP:GNG notability by itself, it is reliable and independent of the subject, and I think it can be combined with the DAB source to provide the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've thought a bunch about this one because honestly I don't think the entry outrightly meets any of the notability guidelines. But at the end of the day, the reason for those guidelines--WP:WHYN--is to make sure we're providing readers with a reliable account. And I have vanishingly little concern that we might lead readers astray with this entry--much less so, in fact, than any number of entries that do meet our notability guidelines, but do so through popular press sources that in many cases are much less credible than the Dictionary of African Biography. Now, if the DAB were literally the only source, we might have a different issue, along the lines of WP:COPYVIO: we can't create a Wikipedia entry by, essentially, copying the entry from another encyclopedia, especially not one that's not in the public domain! But that doesn't seem to be the issue here; the DAB provides some information for this entry, and confirms information from other sources we have.
Bottom line, to me this seems like an entry that is reliable despite limited sources, on a topic that Wikipedia presently does a very poor job covering (actually several topics: women in science in Africa!) I think this is a case where following the rules here would be at odds with improving or maintaining the encyclopedia: WP:BURO / WP:IAR. Not to mention that even as stated, the BLP notability rules mean "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" WP:BASIC; and I don't see that any of the specific grounds for exclusion WP:NOT apply here. So, keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - The article has been improved since nomination and consensus here is to keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Louisa Bustill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. She was related to notable people but the article doesn't make a case for her notability. All the references are related to her family members. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a redirect to Paul Robeson, but only on the basis William Drew Robeson I and Charles Hicks Bustill is also redirected too (it would be blatantly biased to only redirect the female relative). All are known only because of a famous son and the family info/basic info about Robeson's parents is already in the Paul Robeson article. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. no standalone notability. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there appears to be enough material for an article, and she appears in over a dozen references. She does not have to be the main subject of the articles used as references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources have more than enough material about the article's subject to satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is enough notability to have a separate article. Hx7 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Norton and others above. --NSH001 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that there are enough sources for GNG. She is treated in a non-trivial matter in many accounts relating to her son. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maung Maung Gyi (politician)[edit]

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

I was unable to verify his WP:NOTABILITY. There was a scholar born 20 years later, which makes it more difficult. This has been unsourced for 10 years; hopefully we can now establish if it meets criteria for inclusion. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total lack of sources. Beyond that, none of the statements in the article come close to asserting notability. I guess if he had been in key planning sessions with Nehru and Gandhi it would probably indicate he was notable, if we had sources on these key sessions. I guess a very friendly reading of the article could suggest that this is what it is saying. However having dealt with how after the fact everyone is said to have been in marches with Martin Luther King Jr. or have opened their house to the underground railroad, I want to see sources before giving it any basis in fact. Even when we do find that someone had marched in the Civil Rights Movement, at times we find they were in one march against housing segregation in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. However even if they were walking across Selma Bridge with MLK or coming down the streets of Alabama when Bull Connor's agents let loose packs of dogs, this is not alone going to make them notable. The spontaneous nature of some of these incidents will make it possible to argue that people who started lots of protests and sit downs are notable, at least if there are sources to show this. In the same way, if this person was an organizer in protests in Burma or India, that might make him notable, but we lack any sources for this, and have for a long time, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely unsourced biography, whose only discernible claim of notability is that he worked with other people (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so that doesn't count for much by itself.) It might be possible to write a substantive and properly sourced article about him which made a real claim of notability — I'm not familiar enough with Burmese history to assess that one way or the other — but nothing claimed in this version is strong enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better in the future. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Tazawa[edit]

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

No substance at all to suggest the independent notability and my searches are not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this site suggests a lot more notability, possibly. I am not familiar enough with the competitions and awards to evaluate it accurately. I think we need to call over some classical music editors to check this out. Montanabw(talk) 04:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a minor competition (takes place in church halls apparently), and there is no coverage of the competition from major sources or institutions as far as I can see from Googling. It does not imo contribute to making the article subject notable and I would be in favour of delete.--Smerus (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This fails GNG for English language sources. I'm pinging MSJapan to ask if there are any Japanese sources available. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment I'm here via Montanabw's query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. I've done a pretty through search including the specialist music press via my subscription to HighBeam Research. While undoubtedly accomplished and with the possibility of having a significant and notable career as a pianist in the future, there is simply not enough here to support a stand-alone article. Since there is no significant coverage of this person in independent sources, we'd have to rely on passing one of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. The profile at Classical Pianists of the Future is for one of the artists which they are promoting, and not at all independent of the subject. None of the awards are notable. There is no evidence of performances in major concert venues or festivals (and not even reviews available for the minor ones—I've looked). There is only one recording as a soloist. The label, Belarca Records, is very marginally notable if at all, and was basically founded by William Susman to promote his own compositions and his Octet Ensemble (both those articles are very poor, referenced largely to Amazon pages, etc., as is the one on their first recording Scatter My Ashes). There is a a considerable overlap in the creators and main editors of all three of those articles and of Erika Tazawa. The article under consideration here was created shortly after the release of her Belarca cd, Rhythm of Silence. Excerpts from the CD were played once on a local radio station KPFA [34]. KBFA is not part of NPR. I can find no evidence of her recording or performances ever being broadcast by the BBC or NPR. I'm going to hold off on a final opinion in case something else surfaces, but at the moment I'm leaning pretty strongly to deletion. In my view, the other articles in this "suite" should also be carefully scrutinized. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my comment above to a definite delete. Nothing has emerged which indicates that the subject passes either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of Voceditenore's comments above (... considerable overlap in the creators and main editors of all three of those articles and of Erika Tazawa) I initiated Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Susman / Sommacal hoping this would bring some clarity on whether or not there are undiclosed COIs that needs to be taken into consideration for this AfD. Otherwise, on first sight, I'd say delete per the analyses provided above by Smerus and Voceditenore. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there probably is some COI editing going on, but that isn't a consideration in the decision to delete an article if the subject is notable, unless the article is such a blatant advert that it would need to be completely rewritten, which is not the case here. The primary problem is there is no evidence that subject meets the inclusion critera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't implying a direct influence (otherwise I wouldn't have started a separate topic on a noticeboard), but I can, for instance, see a potentially COI editor being invited to this AfD (as it happens the same editor who successfully counteracted the deletion of another article of the same pool of connected articles – as it happens a biography of one of the composers of Tazawa's CD) – In the case such editor would cast a !vote here, it would make a difference, when assessing the weight of that opinion, whether there is a COI or not. So, for this AfD, just a heads up for what may result from the COIN thread. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, possibly there is a fourth editor in the pool: this editor created an article on yet another composer of Tazawa's CD, but that article has since been deleted (see User talk:Contemporarymuslover#Proposed deletion of Francesco di fiore). Lacking the edit history of the deleted article I wasn't sure whether to add them to the COIN thread (and finally didn't because they have only one remaining edit). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not voting because I'm only providing sources and don't have time to dig on this otherwise at present. There's a few Japanese sources. I've sourced her name in Japanese, but that source doesn't confer notability - I only used it because it's an independent entry unrelated to the subject. There's a focused article here which is mirrored here (just so nobody thinks they're different). There's also a list of concert dates in Japan here, bnack from 2003-04. She also gets a mention for a concert at the Japanese Embassy in Atlanta here as a member of the ensemble "Kanade" that is performing. Kanade gets a performace reference for a festival here, with coverage here and here, mirror of #2, for it. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a GNG fail. Apart from the article in the Japanese community magazine, the rest seems to be all trivial and routine coverage. Concert dates and simply being part of an ensemble doesn't confer notability. I don't see any notable albums either. Overall, the illusion of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN deceived me for a while, but now it is a clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per the [{TOOSOON]] assessment of the classical music editors. I am willing to reconsider my position should additional source material be found. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)
  • Comment: "Plan"
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Take it to the Belarca AfD or Belarca talk if it's about the Belarca article. We never "centralize" discussion on AfDs, because once the AfD closes, that's it. MSJapan (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the reference sources included in the article constitutes anything approaching the "in-depth third-party coverage" normally demanded for biographical articles. --DAJF (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC .Non notable pianist who has just released her debut solo album in 2016 with only an earlier appearance in 2011.A case of WP:TOOSOON at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Krez[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a person who has his fingers in a lot of pies, but which doesn't make any quantifiable claims of passing Wikipedia's notability standards for any of those occupations. Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which anybody gets to have a promotional profile just because they exist -- they must be demonstrated as passing WP:GNG for one or more specific achievements. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with previous commentor. No evidence of notability. Engleham (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeamWarfare League[edit]

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

No appearance in reliable sources or books. No idea why the last afd had no votes- Prisencolin (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, let's avoid that here. The nominator is correct: I can't find any reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

I can find no sources for this school except Facebook and a few mirror sites, seems like it fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. The previous discussion was closed with reference to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (with the closer somewhat bizarrely suggesting that that essay overrode the need for sources), but common outcomes are not policy, so I don't see why we shouldn't assess the article against notability requirements, which are policy. Yes, articles on secondary schools are usually kept, but this one strikes me as one that shouldn't be, due to a lack of sources to base article content on. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the debate was closed before and result was keep. This article's citation can be taken as proof that it exits. Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it has no citations? Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It had citiation before someone must have removed it. Please check edit history. Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The citation was removed by unknown Ip user. I will add again. Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 14:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. The current version has one reference, a 404. The deleted reference mentioned above was to a list of schools, with no discussion at all. Maproom (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can't be verified by a reliable source, it may need to be deleted. There would have to be Nepalese sources out there, that would be equally reliable, especially in the age of Google Translate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to account for this when I searched for sources, Shawn in Montreal, by searching for the name without the English words in it. I can't say that I found much. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're still using an English transcription, not the Nepalese. I've had success searching this way in Thai, for a geographical feature that had a common noun in the title. I used Google Translate to translate the words into the foreign language, then did a search. I can't help you here, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah yes, good point. If anyone can find Nepalese sources, then I will happily reconsider my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously.A classic example of the very long-standing consensus to keep such articles as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Already kept at a recent AfD where DGG provided the correct argument. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But DGG's argument there was not to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • His argument there was to keep the material and merge it into another article. Merge outcomes are a subset of keep outcomes. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Policy and guidelines are made here in two ways: one is the explicit changes in the actual statements, and the other is by consistent practice. Without the ability to make rules based on consistent practice, we would be forever squabbling over how to interpret the written rules, to the extent it would detract rom dealing with our many real problems where action is needed (I see the two most critical at this point removing promotionalism , improving article quality, and adding article for areas we cover inadequately--but there are of course others, and people's view of priority may matter.) The practice with schools is a deliberate and successful attempt to do this by compromise: keep high schools, redirect/merge primary schools to the town or school district or other suitable place. Before we had this policy, we had about a dozen afd discussions a day on these, most often leading to those results, but with random variation as always at AfD. They were always complicated discussions, involving usually the interpretation of the sourcing requirement. Some (myself included) would have wanted to keep all schools at any level, and yet others wanted to remove most of them, and neither side was prepared to give up their positions. But with the compromise although neither side was satisfied completely, neither were they dissatisfied completely, and by making the compromise we could have time to better discuss the articles that really needed discussion. We've had similar compromises in other fields, such as Sports, and they have served us very well also, Without compromises such as this, AfD would be several times as large, and the net result would be no better from any point of view, except those who think we should cover things at random. I and probably most of us have accepted compromises where we very much disagree with the result, because the purpose of WP is to write an encyclopedia , not to be a debating society or have a competition to see who can persist in arguing the longest. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says “Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.” Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This !vote from DGG I do agree with. We are able verify this high school exists and so we should follow schooloutcomes, because the downside to not doing so is vastly worse. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But where are the independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to remind me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapha International School, where some experienced editors wanted the article kept simply because it asserted that the school was a secondary school, even though not a single source was cited in the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All we'd really need is just one source verifying that it exists -- this isn't GNG. Google web search displays a link for some kind of .gov site that lists this place -- but the link won't open on my browser. An official FB page lists a school website, but you have to request the link and I have not yet received access -- and perhaps won't. Plus there seems to be at least 2 different public FB pages by students and alumni. That .gov site -- whatever it is -- leaves me reasonably confident this place exists -- though I can see why others are unsatisfied. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above—Constanstin 03:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existing source in the article does verify the school's existence, and I would judge it to be a reliable source (gov.np domain). It doesn't verify any of the facts such as year of founding etc, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (and as discussed above) the material point when it comes to keeping the article is its existence shown in a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If a secondary schools exists, we keep it by consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article was created by blocked user User:Bibekbhurtel5 and extensively edited by other socks. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the article was rewritten while this AfD discussion was occurring. North America1000 02:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Nut Bay[edit]

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

A clearly promotional article for a proposed residential subdivision. It doesn't seem to actually exist yet, though construction of some of the infrastructure has started. We've been fairly consistent in not generally considering these communities as populated places. There are sources. The sources are press releases, no matter where they've been published--we go by the content for this. Kudpung called this one to my attention as an example of the sort of promotional editing we may not be able to do anything about, because though it can be assumed to be a paid edit, we have no effective means of determining that. I disagree with him: I hope we do have an effective means, which is right here at AfD,for we can use of own judgment on the likely origin and purpose . There might be notability, but I think this still falls under CRYSTAL. Borderline notability combined with apparent promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posted in 1 immaculate edit, this article is blatantly obviously created as a comissioned work and authored by someone with a perfect in-depth knowledge of article creation. It's the kind of article that makes me want to give up volunteering my time and intelligence for Wikipedia. Per nominator: There might be notability, but I think this still falls under CRYSTAL. Borderline notability combined with apparent promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. . Let's close the crack in in our door now before Wikipedia totally degenerates into a spam farm . Whether or not the article will convince future clients to check out this billionairs' paradise, the islands developers won't hesitate to mention 'Of course, we're on Wikipedia, don't you know?' for those real estate salespersons it's (what they perceive as) the prestige that counts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Virgin Gorda Delete [See my comment below]. Per DGG, this is simply an advertorial referenced to other advertorials for a yet to be completed residential development. As of June 2015 "30 lots have been sold [out of 88] and nine homes have been built", says the real estate advertorial in the American Airlines in-flight magazine used as a "reference". According to their own website, the marina is only half built and the "Marina Village" is as yet non-existent. All of the "sources" are press-release based advertorials and real estate ads. They do not remotely attest to sufficient notability for a stand alone article. Observe the obvious advertorial in Forbes used as the main "reference":

Oil Nut Bay offers exclusive guests the safety and seclusion of their own private island plus high end resort amenities and services. One of the world’s most secluded, most comfortable and pristine natural settings with only 88 sites spread across 300 acres, each freehold owned home site has been sculpted to fit seamlessly into Oil Nut Bay’s overall plan— providing enduring, spectacular views for generations while maintaining and preserving the privacy of the natural landscape.

And this second Forbes "article":

The next custodian of this meticulously-built property will be one of the lucky few to enjoy the most exclusive location on Virgin Gorda—and arguably anywhere in the Caribbean. Just ask your neighbors Richard Branson and Larry Page. (Full disclosure: My husband and I have worked with Higbie Maxon Agney on previous real estate listings.)

UGH! Wikipedia should not be hosting links to this rubbish, let alone the article itself. Note also the disclaimer under both the Forbes advertorials "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After the complete refocus of the article by Aymatth2, I agree an argument can be made for keeping this as a geographical feature, but frankly, I don't see why this minimal amount of information and coverage should not be simply included in Virgin Gorda. The coverage of the geographical feature itself in Google books is really very minimal, sentences here and there in the discussion of more general topics. Is it really worthy of a stand-alone article? If it is kept, any mention of the "luxury development" needs to come from completely independent sources, and so far there is zero. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who blanked it and rewrote it as a bay. I'm sure the Virgin Gorda article could be fully expanded. I'm sure we could argue to merge most bay and geo articles into general articles on the area, but that's not what wikipedia is about. We ought to have several articles on bays of the Virgin Islands.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this version. I was not referring to your version which continues to plug the development sourced solely to blatant advertorials, including the highly misleading conflation of the Oil Nut Bay Marina which is still under construction and not even listed at the official BVI tourism website [35] and the Yacht Club Costa Smeralda, which is in North Sound Bay and is not part of Oil Nut Bay development. Not to mention the bizarre claim in the advertorial that private marinas are "rare" in that part of the Caribbean. Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is this place is well documented in reputable publications, even regional journals. You can't possibly claim all information about a resort is an "advert". I have a lot of experience with writing on hotels and resorts and know what is acceptable. If we failed to report this multi million dollar development and marina we'd be censoring wikipedia. A general article on the bay and a paragraph on the development is perfectly acceptable. The reality is that you thought it wreaked of COI and thoroughly disliked the way that it was started, and I agree. But Aymatth and myself have given it an overhaul, I added a bit on the local flora too. This sort of attitude towards the effort of people who try to salvage or improve articles on here is one of the main reasons I'm relunctant to edit much here anymore.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're also wrong about it not being mentioned on the tourism site. It's the marina at the bottom. I have restructured the section to indicate that the marina is to the southwest and not at Oil Bay itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the marina mentioned at the bottom of that list is the Yacht Club Costa Smeralda which is not in Oil Nut Bay. The smaller marina still under construction at Oil Nut Bay is not mentioned on the list. And the sources you used which I consider obvious advertorials as opposed to genuine independent coverage are this and this. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fair amount of independent coverage of the resort and its impact on the bay, some positive, some negative. An expensive development like this tends to attract attention. Locals complaining about attempts to restrict access to the bay for swimming and fishing, turtles, drunken power boaters, that sort of thing. The potential is there for a larger article, although it would take watching to weed out attempts at advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing minimally acceptable for any convincing notability, this is exactly deletion material, with there being nothing to suggest confidently keeping. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restart from scratch A look in google books indicates notability. Actually it has long existed as a bay, mentioned in sources from the 1970s but like DGG I'm suspicious about the way it was started though I don't see anything gushing in the article description. We could use a few hotels and resorts in the British Virgin Islands, but not done this way. This though is basically a verifiable geo feature, the type of article we normally keep. The resort info needs to be nuked and rewritten though, the base of the article should really be on on the bay itself. It'll sort it out tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I scrapped some junk about the "exclusive lifestyle community", but the bay exists and there are independent sources that talk about it. The Dream Homes at Oil Nut Bay may be a candidate for a separate article, if the subject can be shown to be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG; there is enough reliable secondary sources to warrant an article. Thanks to the efforts of Blofeld and Aymatth, the article has improved in leaps and bounds. JAGUAR  16:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kooapps[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No notable games. I removed the "reception" section, leaving it with very little. Created and edited by single-issue editor Faviola Publico (talk · contribs), possibly a WP:COI. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had proposed deletion on the basis of WP:CORPDEPTH. The article creator deprodded, but I haven't seen anything to change my mind. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing nearly convincingly enough for minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus; whatever remaining doubts there are about just who he is, everyone seems to agree there is no justifiable basis for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Trey Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP and the subject does not appear to be at all notable, so it's unlikely there will be any reliable sources to add any time soon. The only coverage outside of the subject's personal blogs and other user-generated websites is this article in a local magazine written by the subject.

This page was originally a stub about Will Smith's son by the same name, so the first AFD was about redirecting that one to Will Smith's article. Then the same page was used to create this article and the 2nd AFD is about this same Brian "Trey" Smith. The result was delete, but then it was recreated in 2015. All of the substantive edits to this article have been by SPAs that have almost exclusively edited this article. —PermStrump(talk) 08:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or make it a protected redirect to Will Smith's article. I would also keep an eye at Trey Smith (author) if this is deleted.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This AfD needs the attention of an administrator familiar with history merging/splitting and rev deletion.  I am pinging the administrator of most-recent record at [36] @Anthony Appleyard:.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Permstrump, MjolnirPants, and Unscintillating:
    • All the edits of page Trey Smith (which has no deleted edits and was formerly at Trey Smith (author)) seem to be about Trey Smith the founder of the God in a Nutshell Project.
    • Under Trey Smith (author) are 15 edits about a Trey Smith who is best known as author of Thieves and had committed a burglary, and may be the God in a Nutshell Project man. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trey Smith (version 2) (deleted) is:
      • from start to 02:53, 24 November 2009: about Willard Christopher Smith III AKA "Trey Smith", the son of actors Will Smith and his first wife Sheree Zampino Smith
      • from 04:39, 17 August 2010 to 04:39, 17 August 2010, about the God in a Nutshell Project man
      • from 00:19, 17 July 2012 to 23:42, 6 July 2015: disambig page between up to 3 Trey Smiths.
      • from 00:17, 17 July 2012 to latest: redirects.
    • Trey Smith (Will Smith) is:
      • from start to 06:00, 12 September 2010: about Willard Christopher Smith III
      • from 15:40, 3 April 2011‎ 67.174.43.214 to latest: redirects and vandalism (still there but now deleted: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    • Do you want me to histmerge together everything about the God in a Nutshell Project man into one page, and everything about Willard Christopher Smith III into one page, before deleting them all? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes to to the histmerging on all counts (I don't see any real reason there needs to be multiple histories about either person) and yes to deleting the God in a nutshell guy. I'm not sure if Will Smith III should be deleted though, I haven't looked into his notability very much. A quick glance at his IMBD page doesn't really answer that either, as he's has a few media appearances, but generally seems to stay out of the spotlight. So I think a separate AfD for him might be more appropriate. That could be undertaken after the histmerge, or if it seems likely to you that a keep vote would be a snowball, without any histmerge of his articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MjolnirPants. There's no reason to keep their histories. Can we make it harder for someone to recreate the article about the God in a Nutshell/safe "robber" guy again without demonstrating he has actually become notable?
I don't have a strong a strong opinion either way about Will Smith's son. I guess I don't see a problem keeping "Trey Smith (Will Smith)" as a redirect to Will Smith#Personal_life. —PermStrump(talk) 00:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not much of an argument since the nominator removed secondary sources before nomination.  In any case, sources in the article do not define wp:notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only removed sources 2 sources, neither of which seemed to exist. The links were broken and when I looked them up the only hits were WP and mirror sites. The only source I could find is the one I linked in the nom that was written by the subject and said the same things his blog already says, which was already sourced to his blog, so I didn't see a reason to add it. —PermStrump(talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the verdict is "keep", we must decide whether to move Trey Smith to Trey Smith (author) (without leaving a redirect) and then to move Trey Smith (disambiguation) to Trey Smith. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have been unable to find any useable reviews of his books. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  No champion to explain the problems, dubious wp:notability, and WP:BLP applies to the content, not just the topic.  The nominator I think has clouded the issue by adding WP:OR ("Pseudoarcheology"), diff, but a fair process here overcomes this concern.  As for the son of Will Smith, I assume without doing any checking that we want to keep this as a redirect, in some form.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable writer. For the record this Trey Smith (born 1977) is not the one the previous AfDs seem to have been about, they were about a man born in 1992, who is mainly notable because his father is a top ranked actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how much it matters, but I think the 2nd AFD is for the same guy (born 1977), but makes reference the first AFD for Will Smith's son (born 1992), because the nom said, "The previous AfD resulted in the article being redirected to Will Smith#Personal life; this article is about a different person named Trey Smith". Then someone else said, "This article/redirect was "hijacked" with this edit on 24 November 2009". —PermStrump(talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is the safe craker and author actually the founder of the God in the Nutshell Project? This article suggests he is, but the disambiguation page suggests they are two different men.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "safe cracker" is the founder of the God in the Nutshell project. Originally I felt confident that that was the say Trey Smith (author) that the 2nd AFD was about, but I'm not sure of anything anymore. —PermStrump(talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't even look close to being notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 00:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrigan[edit]

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

E-sports player. Was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but is now submitted for discussion to determine notability per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 7. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  06:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing actually convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep esports, DR.dk, and Daily Dot make 3 independent RS'es, so WP:GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm familiar with Karrigan, as he is an old name in the esports scene. However, this article doesn't really clarify why he's notable at this point. Shore this up with better sources, as apparently a Danish source says he has a reputation as a fierce in-game leader. If there can be more than that to prove that he's truly worthy of being included, I'd be open to considering a positive vote. Just, at the moment, this subject matter comes across as rather dubious. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. Consistent high level finishes at top CS:GO events as the team's in game leader means there should be enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Will work on this after I get back from weekend travel. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in DR.dk, Sport1, L33t Magazine, Aftonbladet, and Daily Dot is plenty for WP:GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prisencolin; meets WP:GNG with a multitude of reliable, independent and in-depth coverage. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Real with Joseph Azarian[edit]

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

None of the listed sources are actually convincing and my own searches have found nothing actually better; there's nothing to suggest merging either. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G4 applied Yeah...nice try with this paid (again, I repeat from the last nom that this takes massive cojones to do when YouTube is free; note their YT channel and only two videos have views in the low thousands and the vast majority struggle to get over 50 views) download show being notable again. Already deleted once in January under the title The Real With Joseph Azarian (note the capitalized "W"). Zero improvement, all garbage sources that are nothing but fluff...the only addition is that somehow this show has gone from paid Vimeo downloads to Amazon Prime streaming (but of course if you'd like to own the episode forever they'll take your $2 happily, just like on Vimeo!). And now in addition, a tenuous connection to NBC News's Robert Hager, who probably doesn't care a bit about this at all. Stop it. Salting may not be a bad idea here either (Joseph Azarian already is). Basically, this is Entertainment Studios, but on a low-trafficked part of the web with child actors that somehow have spin-off shows that are little watched from an already little-watched show. Please stop. Nate • (chatter) 07:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4, and in any event delete since I agree there is still no evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to support notability for the person or the project. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know how to edit Wikipedia but there is Amazon Prime, just a thought. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.84.10 (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Anyone can pay to have their films or shows on Amazon Prime. This is on Amazon Prime, for instance. Retail availability does not automatically confirm WP:NOTABILITY. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I declined the G4; the article is substantially different from the one deleted in January. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islamic schools and branches. There is near-unanimous consensus to not keep this as a stand-alone article. Opinion is somewhat more split between outright deletion and redirect. Going with the redirect, partly on strength of numbers, partly because of WP:ATD, and partly because that's what this was historically.

One of the points of contention here is what specific meaning the word denomination has, in the context of Islam. As near as I can make out from the discussion here, it has a less specific meaning in Islam than it does in Christianity, but there's no real consensus on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim denominations[edit]

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

This page duplicates Islamic schools and branches primarily, but also Islam by country to a certain extent. "Muslim denominations" has been a redirect for years, until this Turkish IP user converted the redir into what it is now. I have seen this IP frequently edit pages that list Islamic subgroups, such as Template:Islamic theology, and seems to be oblivious about the common English definition of "denomination" (see this discussion). Islamic schools and branches is the main list for the classification of Islamic subgroups, having gotten its current title after discussions several years ago. Eperoton and I agree that Muslim denominations is a redundant page and should be reverted to a redirect, but the IP needs convincing. Hopefully this AfD will do. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom. The content is copied from other articles and a quick review of dictionaries confirms that the term "denomination" doesn't have a specific meaning beyond Christianity to distinguish it from "schools and branches". Eperoton (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • but consider this issue: Islamic schools and branches is too long and does not tell anything about the Muslim denominations immediately. The reader has to spend a lot of time to understand what the Muslim denominations are. Islamic schools and branches give a lot of information about the all type of schools and denominations but it does not give the answer quickly if the person is asking what these denominations are...212.253.113.70 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 212.253.113.70 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And guess who made it that long? It would save thousands of bytes if you would have used a WP:BULLETLIST instead of sub-sub-sub headers, and if you would've simply used a link in the main text instead of calling Template:Main for each subsection. - HyperGaruda (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per rational here[37] by 212.253.113.70 and there are ample citations in Google scholar[38], news[39], newspapers[40] etc. Denominations exist within Islam such as Sunni Islam is the world's largest religious denomination followed by Roman Catholicism. Such denominations should not be covered under Islamic schools and branches. Drikulaeri (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drikulaeri: One simple question: what is the difference between a branch and a denomination? - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most common term, judging from phrase counts in Google books, is "the Sunni sect", followed by "the Sunni branch", followed by "the Sunni denomination", and I see no evidence that these terms are used differently in RSs. We don't create separate articles for synonyms of a word. Eperoton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance to this AfD discussion? Eperoton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Schools of Islamic theology and Sufism do not belong to the denominations. But, Sufism might be considered as part of Branches. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you will nevertheless find they are Sunnis.
  • Merge or redirect to Islamic schools and branches. Denominations is a term arising in Protestant Christianity and is far from ideal when applied to Islam. The merge target has tags on it about duplication. I would say that it is thoroughly appropriate to have an article giving an overview with "main" articles on particular topics. The mistake is to allow the overview article to become cluttered with detail that should be in the "main" ones. When this happens, an editor needs to Boldly prune the overview of excessive details, if necessary merging that to the "main" article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just looked up RSs on the various uses of "denomination" for Religious denomination: Within Islam, it can refer to the branches or sects (Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya),[1][2] as well as their various subdivisions such as sub-sects,[3] schools of jurisprudence,[4] schools of theology[5] and religious movements.[6][7] This range of use is basically identical to the scope of Islamic schools and branches. Eperoton (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 62.
  2. ^ Theodore Gabriel, Rabiha Hannan (2011). Islam and the Veil: Theoretical and Regional Contexts. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 58.
  3. ^ Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 129.
  4. ^ Muzaffar Husain Syed; Syed Saud Akhtar; B D Usmani (2011). Concise History of Islam. Vij Books India. p. 73.
  5. ^ Ali Paya (2013). The Misty Land of Ideas and The Light of Dialogue: An Anthology of Comparative Philosophy: Western & Islamic. ICAS Press. p. 23.
  6. ^ Joseph Kostiner (2009). Conflict and Cooperation in the Gulf Region. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 212.
  7. ^ Muhammad Moj (2015). The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies. Anthem Press. p. 13.
Comment - 2 : The information provided above is incorrect. Ash'ari alone which is aqida in Islam is not a denomination since there is no such group of people following this. Reference provides false information 212.253.113.70 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's another policy you need to consult: WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to recommend the IP to read WP:TRUTH. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's an unhealthy trend with lot of these Madhhab and Fiqh related articles that needs to be corrected, beginning with deleting the overlapping content. There are entire physics articles on Wikipedia with less word count and equations than certain subsections of some sub-sub-sub denomination and their obscure details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online seminary. cӨde1+6TP 22:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Islamic Theology[edit]

If you read the article on Amman Message, it gives an impression as if Maturidi and Ash'ari were "Muslim denominations". But this is not true since nobody calls himself as a member of Maturidi orAsh'ari alone. In order to define their denominations they have to define their own madhhabs as well. Otherwise, they will be non-denominational. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you glance at the template-Islam, you can easily see that the Denominations section is in contradiction with what is written in Islamic schools and branches article. The Schools of Islamic theology are mentioned and summarized in the Islamic schools and branches article, even though everybody knows that they are not Muslim denominations, but different denominations have something common with them. For example, a member of Hanafi denomination may have views or share some ideas of Maturidi or Ash'ari aqidah. Similarly, a member of Zaydi denomination may have views or share some ideas of Mu'tazili aqidah. Hence, we need Muslim denominations for details. When you click to denominations section in template islam, it automatically takes you to Islamic schools and branches article. This article includes things which are not related to Muslim denominations, therefore this links needs correction as well. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me again recommend reading WP:OR. You have been prolific in expressing your personal take on the meaning of the word "denomination" here and elsewhere, but personal opinions don't carry much weight around here. Eperoton (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to template - Islam they are not denominations, this is your announcement and template - Islam is well-protected, ıf they are really denominations why they are not listed in the template - Islam? 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to consult WP:RS. WP templates are not RSs. Whether or not that template needs changing is a discussion which belongs not here, but on its own talk page. Eperoton (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be in contradiction with another Wikipedia item since all these article's contents are closely related with each other. Actually, people learn from Wikipedia pages when they continue to make heir contributions. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get far by sharing your opinions ex cathedra and disregarding WP policies. Eperoton (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to stay within the boundary of the previously approved Wikipedia articles and the template - Islam is restricting our actions. If you will express something which is in contradiction with the template - Islam you're supposed to make the necessary changes there first, I believe. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "approved" articled on WP. Sometimes an extensive discussion yields a WP:CONSENSUS. A quick perusal of the template's talk archives shows that it's not the case here. Eperoton (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Then. I thought we are restricted to these templates, because there was a long discussion in the past about this template. As a result of these discussions, they did considerable modifications on the Template:Religion topics, and they were very useful.
I've learned more than 90% my knowledge from Wikipedia pages. Also consider this: There were Hanafi denominations from Mu'tazila aqidah in the history even tough today all converted Maturidi & Ash'ari. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series on
Islam
Beliefs
Practices
History
Culture and society
Related topics
  • Islamic schools and branches provides false information about the M-denominations
    1. Schools of Islamic Theology cannot be a part of M-denominations: Nobody calls themselves as Athari, Maturidi or Ash'ari when their denom. is asked. In addition, template:Islam concurs with tis notion.
    2. Amman Message declares the officially recognized M-denoms as Eight. You can increase this number by adding some other minorities, who are not accepted by the declaration of the Amman Message.
    3. Sufi tariqat cannot be included under the denominations since they are all sunni or Shi'ite.

    Therefore Islamic schools and branches cannot be identical to Muslim denominations] 212.253.113.96 (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect. Denominations can be presented as a subset of the Islamic schools and branches page and the current re-working of the page goes a long way to eliminate the need of the M-denom page existing by itself. cӨde1+6TP 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • severely Needed to KEEP Muslim denominations separately: Why will everybody read all of your staff under the schools as you claim, if they just wondering what those Muslim denominations are?

    212.253.113.96 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    212.253.113.96 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment -- I voted for a merge/redirect above. I am not a Muslim and do not know the detail well. However, if articles and templates are inconsistent, the solution is to edit things so that they are consistent. If someone can provide a robust definition for "denomination" in a Muslim context, as something distinct from "Islamic (theological) schools of thought", then it will be acceptable to keep both, but they should be providing complimentary content, not repeating what the other says. If a robust distinction cannot be provided, then the articles should be merged, with one of the present names becoming a redirect to the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as all of this suggests it's best. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Islamic schools and branches. This doppelgänger serves no function.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Young Xero[edit]

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

    Frankly I would've PRODed too, searches noticeably found nothing better at all and there's nothing suggesting the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - quick online search could not find any evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as blatant advertising per G11. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 13:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Love And Snow: A Novel[edit]

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

    Frankly I would've PRODed but that may be removed so here we are; my searches have simply found a few local news articles but nothing at all actually convincing for the needed substance and this is apparently her first book so no convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete (possible CSD G11): A WP:SPA article by User:Preksha413 on the first novel by Preksha Trivedi published two months ago. There was a brief piece about the writer in the Deccan Chronicle, not unusual for a book launch, but not I think substantial for notability. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per CSD G11 Clear case of promotion, and we're looking at the editor being reported too. Hx7 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This needs to be closed as the article has been speedy deleted; and I'm involved. Hx7 09:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweans Technologies[edit]

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

    PROD removed with the basis that the extra sources are enough, but examining them simply found PR-speak contents, nothing of actual substance and ym own searches have found nothing better, as mentioned by my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Company lacks notability and no third party reliable sources are provided, other than brief mentions about the company.Tinton5 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No reliable sources cited (directory listings and press releases). Unable to establish notability through other searches. ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Opinion is clearly divided as to whether the subject has adequate notability, with valid arguments on both sides. Cleanup is recommended, but in the absence of overwhelming WP:BLP concerns I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Tenner[edit]

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

    The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. None of the online refs I can see seem to be about the subject. It is possible some offline sources may be (the titles of the articles on "Las Vegas Weekly" and "All In" sound promising), but I have trouble verifying them (if we could see the scans, we could make a decision based on those). I did not prod it because I expect that the creator (User:I'm Tony Ahn, a self-disclosed PR professional) would likely challenge this and we would end up here. On the bright side, I hope he can also provide us with the scans of those sources for verification. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should assume good faith and nobody should require a writer to provide scans of print publications under the threat of excluding those sources otherwise, when they are available through a number of other channels (like LexisNexis). That sets a dangerous precedent. That said, I wouldn't have challenged a prod. This article is not being serviced by our agency at this time. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am puzzled. Whether an article is serviced by your agency or not, this should not matter. Unless you are saying that you will write and defend articles for $$$ only, regardless of them being notable or not. In this case, if she is notable, you should say so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second or third time that you've made a statement to me contain a subtext that editors are required to do further work if they've done past work. "You forgot to add categories," was the last one. I don't have to add categories. I don't have to defend anything I've written. I don't have say someone is notable. I don't have to do anything. What I will say at this time is that when my agency writes an article, it offers a refund if the article is deleted in a certain amount of time after it is written. We also offer monitoring and updating of articles. If we've just written an article that is deemed worthy to be in mainspace by an independent reviewer, and moved there by that editor, then it is AfD'd, yes I take an active role in the discussion. However, as a PR practitioner who was paid to write the article, I recognize my opinion may be given less weight than others, which is reasonable, so I don't think stating why I think a subject who we're not servicing is notable at AfD is a good use of my writing time or your reading time. And let me categorically state, that from this account, I ONLY write and defend articles for money. I have edited as User:Archer904 (started in 2005, retired now) and to this day still edit on my personal account User:Noraft. That account has created some of Wikipedia's best content. This account is my public relations agency account to separate my paid editing. So while this account "will write and defend articles for $$$ only," it is NOT regardless of the subject being notable or not. I turn away many more potential clients than I accept. First I send them here: Paid Wikipedia Article Requirements. Half don't come back after reading that. A third come back with questionable or unreliable sources (blogs without independent editorial review, and yes, we turn them away) and another eighth come back saying "I've got no press, how much do you charge to get me press?" (then they run when they see the prices are thousands of dollars). Only about one in six who approach us actually become clients, because we believe they are notable. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, believe it or not, I don't have much against paid editors, through I do have trouble understanding why you wouldn't want to defend articles you have written for $$$ - even if the customers are no longer paying, they are, a) part of your portfolio, and b), presumably beneficial to Wikipedia (or you should not have created them in the first place). Regarding print sources requirement, it is not necessary to produce them - but that makes them hard to verify, and at AfD, AGF for sources is not often extended. Particularly when visible online sources are poor, it stands to reason the non-visible ones will be poor too. To prove otherwise, we have to see them. In other words, when visible sources are poor, saying "but my non-visible sources are good, trust me" is not very effective. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you had anything against paid editors. I said I don't think my opinion carries as much weight, nor should it. That should be other members of the community. I don't defend articles I'm not paid to defend because time on the clock that is not generating revenue is a cost center. If I can generate two dollars a minute, spending an hour in AfD is an opportunity cost of $120 and an actual cost of my hourly wage. I get paid to add notable content like John Lemp to the encyclopedia where individuals such as yourselves can benefit from the third party financial investment in expanding Wikipedia's coverage. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete: As a puff piece that looks like a resume and possibly containing false claims. That said, my mind could be changed; there are three non-linked print sources that someone needs to check on, some of the Las Vegas sources are independent, and they may be (barely) adequate to confer notability. But the article itself needs serious fact-checking for exaggerating claims... This one is a howler: "In her youth, Tenner was a member of the New York City Ballet from 1957 to 1963, dancing annually on its visit to the West Coast, under the direction of George Ballanchine. She attended Van Nuys High School, graduating in 1965..." Um OK ... the New York City Ballet is a very big deal, as was George Balanchine. Doing the math and assuming a high school grad is usually 17 or 18, the argument would be that she was a professional ballerina from age 8 or 9 until age 15 or 16. If it was only "dancing annually on its visit to the West Coast", she must have been a munchkin in a children's Corps de ballet at best. Really? That's in a resume? Sheesh! Montanabw(talk) 05:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No good faith on the articles, eh? You have to verify? I've never seen anyone else asked in AfD to produce all the print publications. But okay. They are below. Also, Lisa is reading your comments and finds your mockery hurtful. She said "I danced from age 9 to 18 and was paid. I performed in his West Coast dance troupe at the Greek Theatre."
    I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, what does this have to do with her notability? Heck, I was in an ice-skating show when I was 4 years old that also featured an olympic skater. I don't put it in my resume because, among other things, not only do I no longer ice skate, it has nothing to do with my current work. This is not a resume nor is Wikipedia an advertising outlet. Sorry if her feelings are hurt, but are you being paid to create this article, Tony?? Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Information is included in encyclopedia articles to provide a well rounded view of the subject. Most encyclopedic biographies include information about the subject's early years. I included the ballet experience because a nine year activity with professional affiliation at a young age seemed like it would speak to her focus and drive, which would help the reader have a better picture of who she is. That information has been edited out of the current version however, so the point is mute unless someone puts it back. I cannot do so, as per WP:COI.
    I do appreciate you providing the sources. First, a statement from the subject's interview should be attributed to the subject clearly. "In an interview in Foo Magazine, she stated that...". Regarding sources: [44] does not have much in-depth coverage of her, but it does state she won some awards which the publication claims are big deal in the industry, through it would be good to see a more independent source confirm this award is indeed significant (this could help with WP:ANYBIO#1). Gaming Today is a trade magazine ("Weekly newspaper founded in 1976 covers all aspects of the industry."). [45] from Las Vegas Weekly does seem like a more in-depth coverage. The other three sources suggest that the EAT'M UP event may be notable, through notability is not inherited. Overall, the LVW reference is pretty helpful, and does push this closer to being notable. Not close enough for me to withdraw it right now, but close enough I'll ping User:FoCuSandLeArN and User:Montanabw to see what they think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Piotrus' comments above, as well as Montanabw's. I'm Tony Ahn, you need to calm down with your outrage. Nobody's asking you to produce "all the print publications". Checking sources is the whole point of an AfD discussion; we must therefore review what's available, the whole point of this is guaranteeing the subject sees appropriate consideration. Your tone indicates you might have other intentions at play. Nobody made hurtful comments; your COI is showing. Finally, the subject's opinion has no place in this discussion. They might be sure they're fantastic dancers who've changed the way the world sees the art form, but without extensive coverage about it they just don't meet the criteria for inclusion. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Will make the change. If you want to confirm the award is significant, why not do some research instead of asking to be waited on? FoCuS, he asked me to produce them all for Martin Shirran. ALL. Here just half. My point is, asking an article creator to prove something you can verify yourself (Hoof it to the library and get on LexisNexis) lest the article be deleted is a Bad Thing, in my opinion. It shouldn't be on that person. Notice nobody is saying "Does anyone have access to this periodical?" or "I'm hoping someone can provide scans." I'm being asked. Just me. That's not right. Also, your interpretation of my emotional states is off (and attributing outrage to someone is a marginalizing tactic, so thanks for that), but I'll help you. I don't feel outrage. I feel contempt, which doesn't stem from anger, it stems from disappointment in what is happening to Wikipeida. Contempt (as I feel it) is defined as "the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn." And I feel this process is worth less and less as it changes. It wasn't like this before. I preferred the way it was to the way it is becoming. And that's alright. I'm entitled to my preferences and to my contempt. Hurtful is defined as "causing distress to someone's feelings," and the subject was hurt. Do you not see how saying the line was "a howler" (which the means "something to laugh hard at" i.e. worthy of ridicule) and alleging false claims would hurt someone's feelings? And I didn't share her opinion. I told you her emotional reaction in a bid to get you to realize that the things you say affect other people that aren't parties to this process. In a nutshell, be less insensitive. I'll go dig up some of what I've been asked to provide. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The sources provided by Tony Ahn in this AFD discussion (especially the Gaming Today and Las Vegas Weekly scans and the article in Global Gaming Business Magazine) convince me that the subject meets notability guidelines. clpo13(talk) 17:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional sources:

    I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pokernews is not a reliable source. Bahamas Weekly piece is clearly a press release. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, on reading the article i can't see how the subject meets WP:ANYBIO, although WP:BASIC close to being met. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Women's Poker Spotlight: Lisa Tenner is exactly the kind of in-depth coverage of the subject that WP:GNG requires. It is further strengthened by GGB Magazine's piece on the 25 visionaries to watch, and also Event Planner Takes Industry's Oscar. Las Vegas Weekly and Las Vegas Sun both ran stories as well. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC appear to me to be satisfied. Wilipino (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as still none of this is at all actually convincing, I see nothing else suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as the Poker News, the Gaming Today, and Global Gaming Business Magazine articles provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and so she meets GNG. The article needs cleanup, however. Ca2james (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The article reads like a resume and strikes me as promotional. I don't find most of the sources given to be independent and neutral, and what might be are not significant coverage. MB 01:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but Rewrite. The article needs fine tuning. Split25 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- promo content and the sourcing does not suggest "significant coverage" to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    POOLSAFE[edit]

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

    No independent third-party sources about the organization. Fails WP:GNG. Note that there are other products and organizations named Poolsafe so be careful when finding sources. Contested prod by article author. shoy (reactions) 12:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete appears to be an advertisement. Ajf773 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Effectively a posting of information underlying the proposition for an EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development funding project, some of which have previously featured at AfD. All projects commence with aspirations, the question here is whether they have attained encyclopaedic notability rather than great expectations. In this case, the given independent references are to research preceding the project itself, and much of the content is promotional text on the consortium partners (which would require removal were this article to survive). The project was due to conclude in June 2016, so may be WP:TOOSOON for delivery of any substantial practical consequences to become apparent (such as from the Lardelo pilot mentioned in the article, but not in the offered reference). As things stand, though, I do not see demonstrated notability. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete under A7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 13:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hacksurance[edit]

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

    Fails WP:NCORP. Sources say nothing about Hacksurance as a company, they're just three copies of the same two-minute CNBC piece about cyberattack insurance that happens to use the word "hacksurance" in their headline. McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Cherrybelle. Jujutacular (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hasunal Miftah Israfani[edit]

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

    Unreferenced article on one member of a pop group, in a business that rotates the talent frequently in the groups. No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO outside of her association with the group, and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages on Cherrybelle members, for the reasons given above:

    Christy Saura Noela Unu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Novi Herlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Not notable and fails WP:MUSICBIO entirely. Redirect to main group page. Karst (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete For the same reasons as previous comment. Engleham (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the main group via {{r from member}} per unsourced BLP and above. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and then Redirect only if needed as this was actually reviewed by a now-uncovered and kicked user, I would've certainly nominated for deletion had I been the one to find it....because there's simply nothing actually convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect for the time being. When I search the other name this singer is known by, "Miftah ChiBi", I do see some sources but not in any languages I speak so I can't persuasively establish notability. I'll note also that the equivalent page on Wikipedia Indonesia https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasunal_Miftah_Israfani is presently unreferenced as well--looks to be the same page, in fact. Until someone comes along to provide sourcing for literally anything in this BLP, I think this search term should go to the group's page. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as any notability any of these three have are related to their membership in this group, and there aren't sources to establish notability independent from the group. Ca2james (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vasundhara Metro Mall[edit]

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

    Trivial mentions in news article, claiming no notability, failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find anything that shows this mall have gained significant attention. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Freewire[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Freewire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    This has been re-nominated in hopes of coming to a consensus.
    This article seems to lack notability seeing that no news sources have seeemingly reported on it in years. Also the website doesn't even exist so there isn't really a way for us to find out what has happened to it. Which could harm its factual accuracy. Furthermore this article could be confused by an American start-up also with the name Freewire technolgies. TheUSConservative (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I'm fixing the nomination since this came up with the old AfD content. The prior AfD can be seen here. I have no opinion on the AfD at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I was neutral in the earlier nomination, but absent any sources coming to light depicting this topic, but rather everything I found pointing to a different and unrelated company, deletion is in order. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. After three relists, mixed comments in the discussion, and lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Goyenda Ginni[edit]

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

    Non notable tv serial. There are numerous tv serials broadcast in indian tv like this. This is not a special one. Also there is no reliable secondary source for notability. Mar11 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience. --Lukerian (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep "Zee Bangla is a Bengali language Cable television channel in India." It aired nationally, no matter how geographically isolated most of the audience was. Nationally aired, WP:N met. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Agreed Zee Bangla, (like Star Jalsha) is a major Indian Bengali-language cable channel, and would seem to meet WP:TVSHOW. We're not going to penalize the show (or the channel) for not attracting, say, Hindi viewers for a Bengali programme. Bengali is spoken by 200+ plus Indians, if I understand correctly, and has official language status. We seem to have a cookie-cutter mass nomination of Bengali-language soaps whose principle sin, it seems to me, is that they're not Hindi. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a popular series broadcast to a large population, West Bengal has a population of 91 million people, and passes WP:TVSHOW Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. After three relists, mixed comments in the discussion, and lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ovation Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

    I've been watching this article for quite some time and concluded it was time to nominate, my searches have frankly found nothing better than pieces of news and PR, certainly nothing to suggest an actually better article, however. The current 2 sources are simply PR themselves. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:CORP and lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There's actual quite a lot. Ovation was one of the earliest companies to make money by buying the licensing for old inexpensive drugs and greatly raising the prices--besides the two sources in the article there's [49] primarily about the proprietor but with a good deal about the company [] NYT also with a good deal about Ovation aand the 2008 congressional hearings about its practices. And a good deal more in the G news search. Obviously, the article needs to be rewritten to cover the stuff the company is actually notable for. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't have time to work on the article right this minute, but there are sufficient sources to sustain notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    sufficient sources? the article only cites press releases. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was talking about the additional sources that have been mentioned here and that I found in searching. I intend to add them to the article before the next round of discussion expires. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I don't normally relist for a 3rd time but I think this would benefit the discussion — Music1201 talk 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association[edit]

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

    NN local film critics group. To evaluate the statements made about the group's reliability would require WP:SYNTH, and still only apply to one of many awards the group hands out, which aren't even mentioned in the related articles. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I PRODed this on the basis that the references were simple parroting of press releases or own web-site. I can see no notability here.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:ORG should be considered here, in particular WP:ORGDEPTH. This kind of organization tends to have their output reported by independent sources; Variety does it for this organization here and here. Not sure if that is enough to get beyond a very brief, incomplete stub. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yeah, there's coverage at Variety, Indiewire, and Highbeam Research. The problem is that coverage outside of awards is sparse, even in the local papers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Notability established by the cited sources I highlighted when I deprodded this: Dallas Observer and Miami Herald. This coverage clearly goes beyond the awards if that is considered a notability requirement (I'm not sure where that idea comes from). The Miami Herald piece directly addresses the nom's WP:SYNTH complaint. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for reasons given by Kvng above. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Kvng. This critics' group has sufficient indicia of notability to warrant an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Satisfies GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of C-TRAN (Washington) bus routes[edit]

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

    I don't think it's notable to have a list of bus routes for a suburban city. In addition, Portland's list (close to here) was deleted also. CouvGeek (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:NOTDIR. Many similar lists have been deleted.Charles (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 talk 00:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Treedom Group[edit]

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

    Repeatedly tagged as A7, placing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as there's still actually convincing and the user has not listed enough convincing sources , but even then there's also then nothing else for any notability overall. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep According to The Nation, The Treedom Group is "the No 1 manufacturer and exporter of oud oil in Thailand, has hit full speed in its bid to become the leading oud oil producer in Southeast Asia." [50]. So, how is this company not notable? By the way, that's a long article. The National also has impressive coverage, and there's no doubt that this is a huge international company [51]. Trade Arabia has this article [52]. Again from The Nation there's abundant coverage [53]. This is an incredibly notable company. Someone just has to improve the article. Dontreader (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion with good enough references. LaMona (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found an article with very significant coverage in the Bangkok Post [54]. So, in this AfD I have provided sources from two newspapers in Thailand (The Nation and the Bangkok Post), a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates (The National), and a business news portal in Bahrain (Trade Arabia). I also found articles that are press releases issued by the company, so they don't qualify as independent sources. However, in my opinion the articles I've provided show that the subject easily passes GNG, and I suppose that there are additional solid articles in Thai and in Arabic, but I cannot yet think of a way to find a translation for "The Treedom Group" into those languages for further searches. Dontreader (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I suspected, there are sources in Arabic, such as this shorter article in Al Bayan newspaper from the United Arab Emirates [55], and this longer one in Al Arabiya news channel [56]. Those are on the first two pages of Google results. No point in looking for more. Now, in Thai, I found an article in Khao Sod newspaper [57], and in the Siam Turakij semi-weekly business newspaper (according to Media of Thailand#Newspapers) [58]. There's at least one more. Just search for "เดอะทรีด้อมกรุ๊ป" Dontreader (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Dontreader's sources and analysis. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of subsequent improvements, I'm withdrawing the AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vermont Woods Studios[edit]

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

    Sources consist of a HP item that,as is typical for them, is basically a disguised press release, and inclusion as one of a number of companies mentioned in a USA Today Home article. That's not enough for notability . DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I have found and added a significant depth of independent secondary coverage (not evident on a preliminary Google search), satisfying WP:GNG. I have to go to sleep, but quite a bit more remains to be incorporated: [59][60][61][62] Because they seem to have a significant and reasonably savvy marketing team, I feel I should state that I've never heard of them before today and am not affiliated with them. FourViolas (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I meant to come back to this article and beef it up a bit more, but FourViolas has done the deed instead - thanks! (And for the record, I live on a different continent to them and wouldn't know them from a hole in the ground..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After this discussion has been relisted twice, it seems there's is no apparent consensus to delete this page. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebecca Masisak[edit]

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

    I couldn't find significant coverage of Ms. Masisak in independent, reliable secondary sources. Moreover the tiny amount of coverage I did find was all about her position at TechSoup Global. (See WP:BLP1E.) -- Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thought. I haven't done a completely thorough review for Ben-Horin but he does appear to have received significant coverage in Google Books. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. 0 of the 2 references cited in the Daniel Ben-Horin article indicate adequate notability for inclusion on Wikipedia per policy. Hmlarson (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge to TechSoup Global. That said, Hmlarson makes a good point, Daniel Ben-Horin should likewise be kept or merged on the same standard, as the only real difference is that he's a bit older and so there has been a bit more time for coverage, but in essence, if leading this company is notable for one person, it's notable for both. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Montanabw, what material would you merge? Also, I'm not sure that's what Hmlarson's point was, but maybe she can explain. Of course the notability of all BLPs is based on the same standard (WP:BIO). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much all of it, for both of these CEOs. Or keep both, depending on how notable being the CEO of the company is. My point is that if we don't think one (female) CEO is notable, then we do need to look at whether the previous (male) CEO is notable. Both bios could be merged into the TechSoup Global article, but if one of them is notable enough for a stand-alone article, I don't see much of an argument that the other is not equally notable, save for length of tenure. Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the text in this article is identical to the article on the World Public Library. How do we know which article was first and which was copied from the other? World Public Library MurielMary (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I vote keep as she has won a couple of awards/prizes for the company's achievements. MurielMary (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep there are a few decent quotes in the the media, a few awards and some decent pubs in article refs. I've seen a lot worse voted keep.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • HappyValleyEditor,MurielMary I'm curious. What awards has she won? From what I could find, the coverage is really sparse and every single one refers to the fact that she is a CEO. I have not found anything which shows she is independently notable. We usually do not keep articles if the subject is covered only in relation to their job in a company. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dev Randhawa as a recent example. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will not cast a vote; I work for Rebecca, so a vote seems improper. However, two points: (1) To MurielMary, the World Public Libarary appears to be a content farm that pulls info from Wikipedia (not the other way around). Check the links at the bottom of the article you linked. And (2) I have added a number of possible sources, which may or may not better establish notability, on the talk page of Rebecca's bio. Perhaps useful for expansion. (Not all will meet Wikipedia's reliable source definition, but perhaps some do.) -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 00:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (but keep for now). I know this is very much a non-standard closure, but there is a reason for it - numerically the outcome of this discussion is clearly in favour of merging, but we have to go deeper than that as AfD is not a vote. The reason for the merge !votes is almost universally because the subject is notable only for one event, although various policies and guidelines were mentioned they all boil down to not having notability outside of the context of the attack in Nice. A good proportion of the arguments to keep were based on comparisons with other perpetrators with articles of there own, particularly Anders Behring Breivik, but those were refuted based on the much more extensive (in terms of both volume and scope) coverage in their articles. One argument, made by both keep and merge voters was WP:SIZE - the latter basing their view on the size of the article at the time of their comment and the former based on predictions of article length in the future. Predictions of article size are weak arguments when dealing with articles that are not about scheduled events or clearly foreseeable coverage, for example if Lahouaiej-Boulel had survived the attack it would not require a crystal ball to know there would be extensive coverage about a trial or reasons why he could not stand trial. However he is dead and so this coverage will not happen, and so the future shape of the article is much less clear so I found the "merge now, possibly split later" comments the stronger. In total I found that around half the keep votes were either successfully refuted in whole or in part or were so weak as to not need refuting (there were only 3 explicit delete comments, and one of them was, while tragic, not relevant here).

    Had I left it there, I would have just closed this as "merge" and moved on. However, there would be little point recommending a merge if it would just overwhelm the target article, particularly when most of the merge votes were actually "merge now, split again later if needed" so I had a look at this article and the target article, and a straight copy would clearly overload the main article. However there is quite a bit of duplication, and so I mentally subtracted that and the result was very borderline - so much so that if this were a merge discussion I probably shy away from offering an opinion one way or the other. Closing this AfD though doesn't give me that luxury, so I am swayed by E.M.Gregory's last comment to the discussion from 2 days ago changing their !vote from merge to keep on the basis of then-breaking news. Accordingly I am closing this AfD with a note that there was a clear consensus in favour of merging, but to hold off merging for a few weeks or so. If after that time the article is still about it's current length and there isn't significant additional coverage, of e.g. subject's relationships with the (alleged?) accomplices, then a merge discussion will be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    PS in case it is not clear above, there is consensus that Lahouaiej-Boulel is not notable independently of the attacks in Nice, but it is borderline wheher there is enough written about him in that context to justify a spinout article from 2016 Nice attacks on article length grounds. If the amount of non-duplicated content increases in the next couple of weeks the article should almost certainly not be merged, if it does not then a merge discussion to confirm the consensus arrived at here (there could be other significant changes in the meanwhile) is recommended. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel[edit]

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

    The subject is not notable outside the context of the 2016 Nice attacks. No need for his own article; delete and redirect to 2016 Nice attack. GSMR (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put the following on the article Talk page too:
    My view is that considering the high death toll of the Nice attack and its corresponding significance, this justifies having a page solely for the attacker. I think this is the general rule that has been followed. For example, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Khalid El Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui and Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem all have their own individual Wikipedia pages despite being only involved in a single attack (Brussels)
    Amedy Coulibaly also has his own page even though he was notable for his involvement in a singular event.
    These are clear precedents for an individual page. The proposed deletion should be removed/rejected
    Dave8899 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
    --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep perpetrator is subject to have committed a mass killing which is noteworthy, per CRM#2. Jim Carter 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per the CRM#2 as follows: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11]
    obviously fulfills that description exactlyDave8899 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    CRM#2 also says "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It's WP:TOOSOON to know about persistence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This person killed over 80 people, and wounded 200 more, do you really think that nothing more is going to come out regarding this person? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know there will be? WP:CRYSTALBALL--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that when this AfD runs its 7 day course we will know for sure by then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing my opinion to (Merge to 2016 Nice attack#Perpetrator) based on WP:SIZE. It has been a few days now, and nothing major has come forward to expand the article beyond its current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per CRM#2. Very unusual way this attack was carried out etc.BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not particularly unusual: see Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. Neutralitytalk 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So everybody that has ever been described as "strange" and "unusual" should be allowed a Wikipedia article? That isn't exactly what WP:NOTABILITY means.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the type of attack being notable which falls under CRM#2. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the caveat "Where there are no appropriate existing articles"--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can not have a AfD and a Merge discussion going on at the same time. One is ongoing at the articles talk page. Either close this or the merging discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break[edit]

    • Keep. It was the deadliest attack in France committed by a single perpetrator. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel is obviously notable as well as the infamous mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.Russian Rocky (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Breivik had a notable trial, and then a notable imprisonment. Still could do more. This guy's done doing things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The key difference between Bouhlel and all these other attacks is that these other perpetrators' articles actually offer a comprehensive biography of the subject, not just four sentences about what they were doing before the attack. There simply isn't enough known about Bouhlel to warrant his own article at the moment (WP:TOOSOON) (WP:RECENTISM).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    " ... but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ... not only. Not if the event he is associated with is significant and his role in it was both substantial and well documented. See WP:BLP1E Erlbaeko (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple paragraphs is not "substantial" or "well-documented". Most of everything that is known about him is already in the main article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now - I suggest that we keep the article and see if it becomes any more substantial, and if not merge it with the main attack article. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: If the only thing he is famous for is the Nice attack, then just keep it in the Nice attack article. FabulousFerd (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong merge per WP:PERPETRATOR. 70.51.84.138 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Purge: Bastard killed my friend, I don't want to read about him. --Merzouky (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep perpetrator is subject to have committed the worst mass killing in Europe which is noteworthy. APayan (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PERPETRATOR. Once enough info is obtained about the perpetrator (e.g early life and other stuff), then it would be applicable to create an article about the killer. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. No need to have a separate article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with 'attack' page as per WP:PERPETRATOR, any estimation of how much biog info will materialise is pure guess work, WP:TOOSOON applies and as a purely practical matter we know it will make keeping the 'attack' and 'perp.' articles harder to patrol and keep aligned. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Extensive media coverage. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Unless something changes radically, there seems to be no content here that would not already merit inclusion in the attack article. So I cannot see the point of a separate article. Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have 3 further concerns about the fork article. Firstly it uses immoderate language not allowed in the main article: as an example the subject is described in the lede without sources as a terrorist, while investigations are still in their infancy. Secondly standards for WP:RS have been relaxed to allow salacious details into the article, none of which appear even in summary form in the main article. Thirdly a large amount of content in the fork is still being created by copy-pasting new content from the main article without any attribution. the flow has not gone the other way so far. Mathsci (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge The subject of this article is not notable outside of the Nice attack, and the Nice attack article has not reached the 50KB size to justify a WP:SIZESPLIT. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Nice attack article is currently 28 KB.[68] If we expect the article to grow twice the size then a size split may be justified. WP:SIZESPLIT Waters.Justin (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DUPLICATE and WP:OVERLAP are both valid reasons for merge.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there precisely to show that "other stuff exiting" is not a valid rationale for anything on Wikipedia, unless the other stuff exists because it is backed by policy (in which case, the rationale is the policy, and the stuff is just an example)? LjL (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I used OTHER STUFF EXISTS with full knowledge that it is listed as one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The addition of the words "in high numbers" was also deliberate as a demonstration of the extensive biographical coverage of those who have no other notability than as perpetrators. In addition to the hundreds of entries under Category:Assassins by nationality or Category:Murderers by nationality, some of whom, such as Jan Kubiš, are considered heroic figures, there is also Category:Mass murderers and its sub-Category:Islamist mass murderers, although subject's categorization as an Islamist has not yet been determined. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, no. This deletion hasn't even been open for 24 hours. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is pretty stupid having a big afd banner on a prominent article for seven days especially since there is mainly keep or a merge. Close the discussion and reopen the merge discussion on the talk page. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It gives time to improve the article though, if anything new comes to light it will be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing that an AfD can do to improve this article when nobody wanted to delete it in the first place. It seems more like this AfD was an accident, and instead was meant to be a discussion about merging (see the original user's comments at top about "deleting and redirecting").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break[edit]

    • Snow keep and continue the merge discussion on the talk page. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't "snow" anything since there are conflicting opinions. Kylo Ren (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (for now) Sure, the article currently may not contain much more information than in the article for the Nice attacks, but it's only been a short while since the attack. Perpetrators of major terrorist attacks will often gather more media coverage for a long time after the attack, so trying to judge somebody's potential future notability only a day after the attack seems far from productive. If given time and the article still doesn't have any information that warrants an independent article, it wouldn't be hard to just merge it back. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Did one notable thing, then immediately died. Summarize in article about the notable thing, do not merge everything. If precedence means anything (and it shouldn't), follow that set by Andreas Lubitz. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing decision at WP:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination) was to merge/redirect, not delete. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge there's plenty of WP:POLICY above. No need to reiterate, but right now there is not enough information to justify, or split attention between two articles, and most readers are going to land on the event article first. Inb4 Breitbart posts an article about how WP wants to delete the page on this guy because they misunderstood the banner at the top of the page. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/redirect: WP:ONEEVENT, WP:PERPETRATOR. This terrorist is not independently notable; his noteworthiness is inextricably bound up in the atrocity he committed. Moreover, splitting content is unwise because it creates duplication and forces readers to go to two pages when really they could just as adequately go to just one. Neutralitytalk 00:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/redirect: The incident is notable, not the person (basically what User:Neutrality points out regarding WP policies). I think delete votes should be counted as being in the same camp. If Keep, it shouldn't disqualify future re-evaluation since this is a recent event. --Makkachin (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect: Standard practice with articles about crimes and articles about their perpetrators. There's no indication this individual meets the standard for a standalone article. In the unlikely event that more information is uncovered unconnected with the attack in Nice, we can revisit this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious merge, WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. ansh666 05:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (and Redirect) into the 2016 Nice attack article. Only notable for committing the attack. - Csurla (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think people will be looking for information about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect with 2016 Nice attack as per WP:ONE EVENT: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Irrelevant person prior to the terrorist attack. Vs6507 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep The attack is of sufficient magnitude that the perpetrator is clearly notable on his own, per clear prior precedent of other perpetrators like Amedy Coulibaly and Anders Behring Breivik. In fact, the case for this article is even stronger than for those aforementioned perpetrators, since this attacker was responsible for even more deaths. —Lowellian (reply) 13:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They're stronger because they were central to more than one big event. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No they weren't. Amedy Coulibaly and Anders Behring Breivik are both also known for one event, the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 2011 Norway attacks, respectively. —Lowellian (reply) 15:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Coulibaly had the Porte de Vincennes siege. Breivik had the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. His manifesto was also widely covered and analysed, making him a notable author. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which are all related events that are part of or arising from the aforementioned core events. These are not independent events. And the fact that we have all these articles just further goes to show that, when an event is of sufficient magnitude, it is common Wikipedia practice to have multiple articles treating different aspects of an event, such as the subject of this AFD, the perpetrator of an event. —Lowellian (reply) 03:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What about the other terrorists then? Cexycy (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other terrorists? How about Adolf Hitler? Please IP read WP:NOTCENSORED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I was getting at. Adolph Hitler has his own article, doesn't he? Doesn't mean he is a decent worthy person Cexycy (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even in that case, I think he should only have an article in Wikipedia if he is relevant enough. I don't think he is. For example, in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, I would also tend to think it should be merged, but I understand the Tsarnaev brothers became relevant for reasons derived from the Boston Bombings and not only for the Boston Bombings. Same with Anders Breivik. I think 84.161.244.187 was trying to imply the perpetrator was nobody previous to the attack, and has not done anything relevant apart from that. Per WP:TOOSOON and other reasons mentioned in this discussion, I think this article shouldn't be deleted, but rather merged. Ron Oliver (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As upsetting as this person may have become, the article mainly relates to a tragic event which should never be forgotten. As time goes by, more information should become available to make the article of a better in depth standard. Cexycy (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's speculative, is it not? Since the man is dead, he will never face trial, and although some details of the investigation may shed some light on his pathetic life, these would almost certainly be able to be included in the attack article in a paragraph or two, or less, yes? Neutralitytalk 19:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More and more information can be obtained overtime and before you know it, you will have enough information to create a lengthy article. It would be interesting to find out more about what his aim was, considering he wasn't a strict Muslim, according to the information currently known. He may not stand trial but does that really matter? Police caught him in the act and shot him, so he didn't get away with it. Mark David Chapman only killed one person and he has led quite a simplistic life but he has an article. One of Wikipedia's qualities is consistency, so if you get rid of this article, you will have to get rid of articles for other terrorists or certain other killers, which would be pointless. Cexycy (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – I actually think this is a "Snow Keep". There are plenty of terrorists who have articles. He is among the "worst", if you will (by simple body count alone). I don't see how he is not notable enough for an article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of opinions so far are against keeping, so, by definition, this is most definitely not a "snow keep", as that would mean that virtually everyone opined for keeping. They did not. LjL (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I understand that. I am saying that I myself think it's so obvious as to be a "snow keep". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard for that sort of thing is "Strong Keep". Not saying you have to use it, but it's less likely to confuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per WP:PERPETRATOR. The attack is relevant. The murderer is not. Ron Oliver (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, for the same reasons as many other editors' state in postings above. Ref (chew)(do) 21:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Clearly notable. Anders Behring Breivik has a page. --Franz Brod (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't this comparison rather inapposite? Breivik survived his crime and was put on trial; more than half of his biographical article covers his criminal trial, a civil trial, and his prison life. Breivik also left a detailed manifesto, and discussion of it takes up significant space in his article. Bouhlel, by contrast, is dead; there will be no trial to cover. And he left no manifesto or other writing, as Breivik did. Neutralitytalk 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, as WP:PERPETRATOR does allow for WP:SPINOUT articles for reasons of space, and this article is pretty long and comprehensive to the point that it would be unduly inappropriate to just paste it all back into 2016 Nice attack. LjL (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This tragic event was one of the most important events to occur this year and a page that covers the perpetrator's information in-depth is definitely necessary. Hammill Ten (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge – At the moment, both this article and the 2016 Nice attack article are relatively small. There's also a lot of overlap, so little would be lost. FallingGravity (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break[edit]

    • Merge as per WP:PERPETRATOR PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep No reason to delete. Reaper7 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - The content in the Bouhlel's article can fit into a section of the 2016 Nice attack article. In response to rationales above, we are not deleting valuable information via a merge, the attacker has no significance outside of the event, and merging just changes the location. Also suggesting a merge based on comments above and WP:CRIM. Upjav (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think this relatively large article can easily be slapped into a section of 2016 Nice attack without deleting anything and yet without making that article unduly centered on the perpetrator? The WP:CRIM you mention does say that it is allowed to create a WP:SPINOUT article of a main article about a perpetrator if this is made necessary by reasons of size (like with most spinouts). Is this not the case here? LjL (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (for now) – If the media keeps on giving this issue more coverage such as the Orlando shooting or the Paris attacks, then this article should be kept. If the perpetrator had other suspicions such as terrorist connections or previous threats in the vicinity then I think it should be kept to provide thorough information about his motives. De88 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Some reports say that he was a suicide trying to pass off his death as a so-called Islamic attack. This kind of disguised suicide is not unusual in Western societies, but it does not have much of a media presence in Muslim cultures or with regard to Muslim people. If these reports prove to be true, it would also be relevant to discussions on terrorism elsewhere. Definitely keep for now until we know more. I would argue, keep period. Pufferfyshe (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - He is only known for the attack, absolutely everything about him that is notable is related to the event, and so should be found on the event page. Mattximus (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now, it's probable that the media will produce significant coverage for the individual similarly to the individuals behind the 2016 Orlando shooting and the 2015 Paris attacks, as mentioned already by several above. If this is not the case (which I doubt but I'm not going to WP:CBALL here) then by all means a merger would be acceptable. Davidbuddy9Talk 02:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - Not know outside the attack in Nice. Just combine the information. Reb1981 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Article is quite large.--Alcoaariel (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge in to 2016 Nice attack, Nothing to say as all what I had to say's already been said. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: It may be instructive to review the arguments submitted at last month's discussion/vote at Talk:Omar Mateen/Archive 1#Separate article not needed. The closing decision was No consensus to merge. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion should've closed by an admin but either way consensus here may be to Merge.... –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Usually with articles like this it's more or less a paragraph on the "incident" and that's it and I assumed this was the case ... Turns out I was wrong & should've read the article first, Anyway the article looks to pass GNG so I don't see any valid reason for deletion and plus technically Merges should be discussed on the talkpage so Merging should be out of the question, Anyway keep. –Davey2010Talk 21:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - There is a reason the public is so interested in the terrorist, his migration into France in recent years, etc.: the guy is the deadliest single terrorist in France. He is the Osama Bin Laden of France. Of course he should get his own page, just like Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC terrorist group does. Have people forgotten 9/11? XavierItzm (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like false equivalence, as the names you list were influential leaders of major terror attacks, and this is a (mostly) independent attacker apparently influenced by jihadist propaganda. FallingGravity (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    84 dead and 303 injured, but some think this is not a major terror attack. Wow. Just wow. XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to say it's not a major terror attack; the difference I'm trying to bring up is that the perpetrator here is different from the people you list. FallingGravity (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:XavierItzm, the attack was major, it's just that when an attack is a coordinated, group effort, it can be functional to have separate articles about the leader, and sometimes about the other attackers. Here, there is no functional reason to separate out this bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect and Merge to the attack on Nice page as per WP:PERPETRATOR The only reason not to do so is length, not a problem at this point with either article. A merge has the great advantage of putting all of the information in a single space; this murderer is notable for nothing else; and separate articles on murderers can lend themselves to use by people inclined to glorify criminals of his ilk, merging keeps the crime he is known for in context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It is clear that the delete option is off the table... Whether this should be merged is outside of AfD's purview. A proper merge debate elsewhere after a little time has passed is what the doctor calls for. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - substantial and useful article on a notable topic. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Changing my iVote. Reason is: today's news makes clear that he had accomplices,which makes a separate article functional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_15&oldid=1142622396"