Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 June	20 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Syme

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

The subject herself actually contacted me, saying there are apparently inaccuracies here, but with examining this, my searches have found nothing better at all aside from her own articles, no reviews or anything else to suggest notability; searches were at News, browsers and Highbeam which were the only ones that actually gave links. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears to fail WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage. Nothing that really seems to establish why she would be notable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - references are not substantial or indepedant of the subject Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's associated with various notable publications, but I don't see any particular reason to think of herself as individually notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per long-standing policy in edge cases like these. (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE)~~ shoy (reactions) 15:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she never asked this to be deleted, she simply mentioned these mistakes and also offered to fix them herself. SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, but it still fails GNG. shoy (reactions) 18:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Syme is a very well-known journalist. The page may have been created or edited by people who don't check their facts, We deal with that the usual way; it happens to a lot of articles. Symes made her name writing for New_York_Post#Page_Six The celebrity gossip page, The must-read page for power New York. She puts herself into the story [1], she gets written about [2], she becomes the story [[3]] I'll bring more sources, but she is one of the hot journalists of the moment. I am having difficulty finding an argument for deleting this. What it need is improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
″Keep per E.M.Gregory. Article needs improvement but not deletion. There's a difference. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Post-modern profile here: [4] on Amy Poehler's Smart Girls.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references provided by E.M.Gregory. Improvement over deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I consider E.M.Gregory's sources to show that she's very good at self-promotion. I don't regard that as a reason to keep as a notable self-promotor, but rather to delete as an attempted addition to her string of advertisements for herself. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per montanabw. Article needs expansion and improved references, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. GNG requires reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. We don't compromise on that. Here are the sources provided by E.M.Gregory

psmag.com Not an independent sources as the subject has written it herself.
Gawker 1 Trivial mention as she attended an afterparty
Gawker 2 "Daily Beast Editor Sends 'World's Worst Email'" A user submitted tip which talks about how Syme "sent the "world's worst email" in an attempt to get free research for an article she's writing". I'm not sure if I would consider this user-submitted tip for notability. This is also a BLP violation.
Medium.com This is a medium.com blog written by her. Not independent.
amysmartgirls.com This is borderline/disguised promotion of a non-notable Twitter book club, but at least it is a secondary source.

I looked at the article and found that the subjects's own works have been used as references. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (independent of the subject) does not exist. I am willing to change my stance if someone can come up with such sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a second time to allow for evaluation of newly added sources MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle of a relational database

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

WP:NOTHOWTO. Sourced to an OpenUniversity course, so not necessarily copyvio, but could be depending on what's CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed and what is not. Created by user with 2 edits ten years ago. MSJapan (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content should not be merged anywhere, particularly not to Relational model. —Ruud 19:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just an application of Systems development life cycle for a relational database and an incomplete one at that. I will even consider it redundant, thus delete. DeVerm (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss México 2016

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Nearly no relevant information. The Banner talk 23:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The pageant is notable but not enough for yearly articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable event fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Arts Trust – Institute of Contemporary Indian Art

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

Unduly promotional, not notable. There is a little media coverage, but practically all of it consists of routine events notes, not detailed coverage of the gallery itself. I had prodded the article; prod was removed by Filpro with a comment of "Notable enough to have pic uploaded to WP." which I don't feel is based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. By that standard I'd be notable, too. Huon (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I nearly PRODed at the time too, my own searches have found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added one newspaper source, which provides basic verification of existence but is little more than a passing mention in a piece where the founder offers his opinion on the art market. As the nominator says, there are other passing mentions of exhibitions but I am seeing nothing which could go towards meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mole (unit)#Related unit. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demal

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

WP:DICDEF of defunct measure. Literally nothing else to say, but was deprodded to "improve article." Created by a user whose 2 edits (of 5) were to create this, and the other three edits to another article were reverted. Hopefully a SNOW delete, because this one is (and was) an uncontroversial delete. MSJapan (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are your grounds for nominating this article for deletion besides the unit of measure being obsolete and the editor involved having edits reverted? Units of measure are encyclopedic and we have many; ones that are obsolete become history like the inch, psi etc. will in the future, but I doubt they get deleted then. AfD is meant to discuss the future of articles and I find it a bit strange that you call for SNOW deletion in the nomination... you don't want the discussion? I did a first quick search for sources and found those so that can't be the reason for nomination? DeVerm (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:DICDEF was unclear? What else can possibly be said that isn't already duplicated in a dictionary? MSJapan

The criticism that the current article is a "dicdef" is valid, but precisely the sort of thing that a dictionary is not going to go into is the reason for the existence of this unit, which was a valid justification from 1901 to 1964. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination is based upon the thought that an obsolete unit of measure does not belong in Wikipedia but should go to the dictionary instead. I suggest there is no consensus for that and there is nothing to prevent the article to become like that of other obsolete units of measure that we have and clearly belong in Wikipedia. As an example I would bring forward Cubit or any other entry on List of obsolete units of measurement. WP:DICDEF is clear about this: a dictionary is for a word, an idiom, or a term and a unit of measurement is not that and clearly material for the encyclopedia. This is why all the units of measurement are in Wikipedia. DeVerm (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: into Mole_(unit)#Related units - I changed my vote after contemplating Imaginatorium's point of view and reading the Mole_(unit) article. Even though a mole is not a unit of concentration, a mole per volume is and this is an existing section of the article. I tried to find more detail about the Demal but it is hard to make it into a decent article, if not impossible without access to historic documentation. DeVerm (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I despair sometimes. This is a "dicdef", true; it would be much better if there was an article (which I could understand easily) explaining the whole business of molar concentrations, and mentioning the demal as an obsolete term, related to the varying definition of the litre. But WP is stuck on "one word, one article" (yes, in theory it isn't, but in practice it is). So perhaps we should just copy (modulo wikilawyering) the sizes.com article on demal, which already does it better. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do! There's a copyright on that page, and the unambiguous copyvio would solve the problem. :) Seriously though, we have an article on molar concentration. I'm very leery of tertiary sources; I can't tell what part of that sizes.com article is actually from the sources cited and what's WP:OR, especially when it comes to usage. MSJapan (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, because "modulo wikilawyering" means a copy of the information which is not a "copyvio". But anyway: should a reader of Wikipedia be able to find information about the "demal" (in other words general notability): I think yes. Is this best done by having an article "demal": I think no. Ideally, the relevant article, I suppose molar concentration, should have a section "Units", which mentions the current/standard units, and also historical and (e.g. US-batty) other units. Or actually, perhaps it should go in Mole_(unit) under "Related units". Yes, I think I will vote now...

Merge: into Mole_(unit)#Related units Imaginatorium (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say your choice is better, as molar concentration is already loaded down with calculations and so forth that we don't have for demal. However, I think I'll go find a chemist; maybe I can get that. MSJapan (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reminds me of the drama around the importation of some book of obsolete units (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FCalibre.28unit.29_.2F_Articles_by_Shevonsilva and hunt the links if you care). No comment on the merits. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Molar concentration or into Mole_(unit)#Related units. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows other sources discussing this unit. I added three reliable sources and expanded the article beyond a dictionary definition. The sources don't discuss the unit in enough depth to pass notability thresholds, but there is enough verifiable material for a short section on this minor but interesting story in the history of conductivity measurement. Indeed, you can still buy demal-quantified calibration products.[5] As a unit of concentration, it makes more sense to merge it into Molar concentration, but I'd be fine with it going into Mole_(unit)#Related units; the important thing is to preserve verifiable material per our policy WP:PRESERVE. --Mark viking (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Steve Smith (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patenting evolution in early modern europe

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

Article by User:JCiolino, a student editor in a class, so basically a student paper. Uploaded page and abandoned it thereafter. No inline refs, hard to tell what's WP:SYNTH and what is not, as well as the usual issues with student papers. Not really fixable in current state. MSJapan (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a student essay. References are provided but are not inline so nothing is actually sourced. WP:OR in that it draws conclusions, in some cases contradicted by the section title. Not an encyclopedia article. Nothing here worth merging elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus of everybody except the sockpuppets DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsPrompt

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

Non-notable website/browser extension. Fails WP:GNG. Sources given are the website itself, associated media, and user-generated content. No independent reliable sources among them or, apparently, elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software fails WP:GNG. The "Most useful Chrome extensions" references are all the same post, which appears to be user-generated content posted at 3 different places. No reliable independent coverage. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 00:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSOFT, "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." I believe PC Advisor, Softpedia and BetaNews among others satisfy that condition. Hence this article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masky2 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They all appear to be user-submitted content, which fails the "reliable" part of "reliable reviews" - see WP:RS. My opinion is that these don't contribute to the notability of the subject and my !vote is still delete. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, References found on softpedia and softwarecrew that independently reviewed and verified the product. Masky2 (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masky2 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, References found on downloadcrew that independently reviewed and verified the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyushneo (talk • contribs) 10:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSOFT, "It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability." I'm not sure what "reviews must be significant" means, but I'm not sure these are, at least not the one that's on a download site. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, References found on BetaNews which is not a download site and has independently reviewed and verified the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruzbehi (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Ruzbehi and Piyushneo are

Confirmed sock puppets of Masky2. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masky2.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not have enough Reliable sources to pass WP:GNG as pointed out by NickW557. Search results in Google News, Books etc are pretty bare, which again proves that this Chrome extension is not that notable. Davidbuddy9Talk 02:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saifullah Paracha. J04n(talk page) 13:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saifullah Paracha v. George W. Bush

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

This article relies almost entirely on primary sources. The case in of itself is not notable as demonstrated by the lack of secondary sources. The content is already in Paracha and would be undue in George W. Bush. That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I urge nominator, once again, to comply with WP:BEFORE -- it is an obligation that saves the time of uninvolved third parties. Paracha's habeas was in the news again, just two months ago:

Benjamin Wittes (2016-04-27). "Action at Guantanamo?". Lawfare. Archived from the original on 2016-04-28. Retrieved 2016-06-11. All of sudden, however, long-dormant habeas cases are, like the walking dead, coming to life ... Paracha's case now has a status conference scheduled for May 5. He has also asked for arguments on a motion that "various Congressional enactments restricting the executive branch's release or transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, be declared void as bills of attainder."

The following academic paper includes Paracha's name 90 times, it has an eight page section, entitled: "The Paracha Position: The Green Protective Order is Too Restrictive". Several hundred Guantanamo captives had habeas corpus petitions submitted on their behalf. Most of them weren't cited in the petitions of other captives. Most of them were not discussed in scholarly articles, or in books on Guantanamo. There are about two dozen exceptional cases, that were widely discussed. This is one of them.

Brendan M. Driscoll (2006). "The Guantanamo Protective Order". Fordham International Law Journal. p. 897, 917–923. Archived from the original on 2016-06-11. Retrieved 2016-06-11. It also examines a relevant third position, not arising in the Bismullah and Parhat cases, but articulated in Paracha v. Gates, a habeas corpus case, which maintains that the Green Protective Order is flawed because it is too restrictive.

There is a time and place for merging. This is definitely not one of them. If we KNEW, for a certain fact, that every single reader who came to Paracha v Bush was really only interested in Saifullah Paracha, then a merge suggestion would be defensible. But there are a whole other subset of readers who don't really care about Mr Paracha, and the details of his life. Instead, they are interested in the Guantanamo habeas petitions.

When a topic has strong meaningful ties to multiple other topics, which aren't closely tied themselves, then its wikipedia article should not be considered for merging at all. A merge of that article into any of the related articles. No matter which target article is chosen as the merge target, some of the information that is relevant and on topic in an article on the initial topic -- Paracha v. Bush here -- won't be relevant or on topic in the target article. When a standalone article has sufficient references, and is distinct from suggested merge targets, it should not be merged, particularly when it is related to multiple other articles.

Proponents of merging frequently act on a mistaken aesthetic notion. They think one big article looks better than multiple smaller articles. They are mistaken. There are multiple ways we can navigate through the information provided by the wikipedia:

We can navigate by clicking on a link to some information, which has the enormous advantage that, if we read a sentence, or a paragraph, and decide the link did not take us to the information we wanted, we can click on the "back" button, and return to where we started from.
We can navigate by using the browser's built in search function. Unfortunately, the stupid browsers of the last several decades, only remember one search term. And, another drawback, once we arrived at the searched for term, there is no way of returning to where we were before the search.
Finally, we can navigate through scrolling, and relying on the good old mark one eyeball, to find a key term. While this doesn't lose the search term we are saving for more important uses, as above there is no convenient way to return to where we started from, before out search.

So Keep. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Than perhaps you might consider merging all of the Gitmo writs into one article? To call these X v Bush articles redundant is an understatement.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - `ll eachindividual case is notable as a major case dealing with fundamental pricniples.It is admittedly difficult to predict, but 50 years from now these cases wil lall be written about in histories of US civil wight and respect for international law. `` , and. DGG (talk) - 08:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Argument for keeping seems to hinge on the supposition that this case will set a precedent that will eventuate in its being considered as a major precedent to legal scholars looking backward "50 years from now." Perhaps so, but at the moment it is merely a legal case that lacks sources to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory, with regard to WP:CRYSTAL... surely when you did your own web search you found the case had enough references to it so that it measured up to GNG today? You did see that one of the references I included, above, devoted over eight pages to discussing the case? If you don't recognize that the books, academic papers, and press reports that already exist establish that the case measures up to GNG what kind of references do you expect to see, before you would recognize this? Do you expect Roe v. Wade level of coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saifullah Paracha.The case itself - the habeas corpus petition, as a legal case - has absolutely no secondary coverage that I could find. Just primary coverage such as transcripts, and narrowly focused legal sources like scotusblog and findlaw. The man himself has coverage enough for an article, and his efforts to get free are well covered there. There is no justification for a separate article about the legal case. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SEASPRAY

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

Wholly unsourced. Plenty of talk about the program on internet forums and other non-reliable sources. Some mentions in reliable sources, but not significant coverage.. There's no real question it existed, but there does seem to be a lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are available in the edit history for anyone who wants to restore them, and a WP:BEFORE-type search on Google books on [SEASPRAY CIA] shows, on the first page of ten, among many good snippets, sources such as Newsweek and New York Times Magazine. Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the edit history, other sources and Google books show mentions of the program. The existence isn't in question. The lack of significant coverage is. I note this is the second AfD I've nominated where you've mentioned BEFORE, implying that there was no BEFORE done. The wording in the nomination makes it clear that it was done. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, disregard. In looking at your other AfD "contributions", you seem to mention BEFORE everywhere, and leave other editors as confused as I am about what you actually mean. Disregard my request to clarify. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to any other solid sources, Sean Naylor's Relentless Strike has a good discussion of Seaspray, which may now be E Company, 'Delta Force' (CAG, 1SFOD(D) etc) [6]. Shouldn't be deleted, just rebuilt and better referenced. May need a pagemove to E Co Delta. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: Which sources are those? The two from the article merely mention the unit. Have you discovered more? Are you planning to use the Naylor book? It "may" be E Co? Are you going to do the improvements? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether this unit is notable, under WP:MILUNIT and WP:GNG. I and others believe it is, using the sources I mentioned immediately above. Other issues can be addressed at other forums. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not too convinced that it passes MILUNIT based on the size. I'm curious what part of Naylor's book you felt gave significant coverage? And why wouldn't you want to make the improvements? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our general rule is that while organic companies (part of battalions) are not notable, independent sub-units are. We have large numbers of articles on special forces units of company size. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06:. The Smith book is over 300 pages. It devotes about devotes about 4-5 paragraphs (starting on page 42) to Sea Spray and a paragraph in the glossary. All other mentions are brief mentions that they were there during something . Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou; you may have GBooks access that I don't!! I'll add the pp.42-43 data to the reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not GBooks....book. You can see a picture of me holding the book on Unscintillating's page since he tried to imply that I didn't really review the source. It's a library......what we had before Gbooks. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great!! I've only seen it in bookshops, and a library I had access to for about 10 minutes before closing. What does it say about SEASPRAY? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing. It spends a couple of paragraphs giving a little background, but then it's just mentions here and there. There may be an item or two that the book could be used as a source for, but I can't see 4-5 paragraphs out of 300 pages as "significant". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you miss my point. Can you repeat exactly what the book says in those two-three paragraphs? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I type out 4-5 paragraphs? I mean that doesn't strike you as a bit of an unusual request? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:FAIRUSE, the significant, salient details of those five paragraphs, if they had been anywhere near me, would have been in the article long ago. I'm not asking you to copy out 5 (surely you said 'a couple' above?) paragraphs. What I am asking is what are the main points made in those 5 paragraphs? (can't copy out 5, maybe 2, but not five, depending on size). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've clearly said 4-5 paragraphs three times now. Why are you acting like I just invented that? Once more: "It devotes about devotes about 4-5 paragraphs (starting on page 42) to Sea Spray and a paragraph in the glossary. All other mentions are brief mentions that they were there during something." Is there anything terribly unclear about what I'm saying? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the text we're talking about: Longhofer wanted a more covert force that would help mount operations that only a select few would know about. So he set up a top secret unit, called officially the First Rotary Wing Test Activity, but referred during operations by the code name Sea Spray. He equipped it with a mix of civilian and military aircraft. This unit was have been originally to be part of the Activity but Longhofer took it under his control. "The first proposed organizational diagram for the Activity included an aviation component' one former officer said. "General Vaught, apparently with Longhofer's encouragement, elected to start the aviation component separately and stated it would be assigned to the Activity later.'[end page 42] '..Sea Spray was a good idea but Longhofer failed to provide them with the manpower and tools to plan and conduct operations properly. As long as they lacked them, then Longhofer and his Department of the Army cronies could act as the de facto commander and staff."
The problem with your 'no significant coverage' argument is that it isn't just this first two paras. After it, the whole of pages 43-45 detail a mission in Lebanon. Four pages, I would strongly argue, in addition to 'Relentless Strike' and other sources, becomes significant coverage on a covert unit like this. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page 42 contains most or a paragraph about them. Page 43 finishes the paragraph from 42 and contains 1 paragraph about them and starts a second. 44 contains the rest of paragraph 3 and the start of paragraph 4. 45 contains the end of it. Like I said.... 4-5 paragraphs. While you talk about "four pages", you ignore that it's a 300 page book. Slightly over 1% of the book. I don't consider it that significant. A chapter would have been. So riddle me this, if you're looking at the book, like I am, why would you ask me to retype it here? That's absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What ~~you~~the nominator said in the edit summary was "Bibliography: Neither are used as references, nor is sufficient information given to find what they're supposed to contribute". This says that ~~you~~the nominator deleted the references because ~~you~~ he/she didn't like the way that they were presented in the article. Now ~~you say~~ the nominator says that they "merely mention the unit". Does this mean ~~you've~~ the nominator has now looked at the references ~~you~~ deleted? Where did ~~you~~ the nominator read them? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you just said YOU. I thought that was verboten. Yes, I did say that since neither one had a single inline reference that showed how it was being used. One can't just throw books on the page and say "something is in there". As part of BEFORE, I reviewed them and saw they made mentions that wouldn't constitute significant coverage. There isn't a "are you saying now..." to it. I reviewed them before I nominated this. I even said, in the nom "Some mentions in reliable sources, but not significant coverage." Nothing in my position has changed, but nice try acting like it did. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has claimed to have read the references in the article that the nominator deleted from the article. Where did the nominator read them? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak to people in the third person. It's pretentious and unnecessary. And why are you asking where I read a book? Do you want to know where I was sitting? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I provided you with some evidence on your talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added references and removed cn tag and refimprove tag.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. And they all confirm the existence, which was never in dispute. One of the sources you added, however, did have some decent information (ie more than a mention or a sentence). Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following expansion. Delete. I don't see why such operations are inherently notable, so these mentions do not prove that this topic is notable; we need in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: Has my expansion of the article addressed this concern? Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's pretty impressive, Nick-D; thanks. Niteshift36, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sold on the article name, but the coverage in high quality sources looks sufficient to meet WP:ORG. The 1987 NY Times story has good coverage of the topic, and it looks like Naylor's recent book adds to this significantly, and there are other very solid sources cited. I've developed featured articles on topics which have received less than five paras of coverage in any given source, and there looks to be sufficient material to sustain this article and develop it considerably. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just expanded the article fairly significantly. From the sources I can access, it appears that this unit was - at least for a while - an independent unit, which is considered a useful indicator of notability by WP:MILUNIT. The level of sourcing on this unit is pretty significant given its highly secret nature, so I'm confident that notability is established. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Tessellation Day

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

This one-day event is supported by Twitter, a few blogs, and an event listing or two, which does not add up to notability demonstrated in multiple reliable sources through detailed coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This 'fascinating' day was first proposed on March 29 2016 at this blog post. To quote the author, "I am launching: World Tessellation Day: June 17." It did get one mention in El Pais, and a few tweets, but it definitely does not meet the standard of multiple independent sources. it's too bad the PROD was not accepted. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently too soon for an article yet. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources yet. Maybe later. Google results are very limited, and this seems like the sort of thing that would get indexed by Google if it were notable. Quirky news stories can go viral pretty easily if they catch on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks in developed countries

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

This has been proposed for CSD as a duplication of List of Islamist terrorist attacks. I believe it should go through AFD instead, as a merge to the other article. This current version has information the older article does not. The information should not be deleted, but merged into one article. — Maile (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominator. — Maile (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fork that never should have been created in the first place. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Fails WP:LISTN and duplicates content in List of Islamist terrorist attacks.- Mr X 20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork/duplication of List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Also, "developed" is not well-defined, so there is unclear inclusion criteria. Neutrality^talk 23:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments on fork/NLIST. But also the scope of "developed" is debated and not easily dichotomized (which is why the HDI and similar measures talk about degrees of development). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork, per Malik. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect the page. Duplicate list and totally unnecessary. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Teora

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

Subject fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Also, running for political office does not automatically grant notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Kurykh (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. Clearly not notable based on failed Ron for CA assembly. I found no independent coverage as author. MB (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unelected politician. The author hook does not seem to clear the bar for notability on that basis. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOL and AUTHOR both. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vimal T.K.

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- non-notable subject; Google books search returns nothing. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Agreed. Had CSD'd it before, but for a different cause. Although I still think this is being edited by the person of the topic itself. Also, not notable. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 10:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added his interview from Malayala Manorama (the fifth most circulating newspaper in the world, the third largest circulating newspapers in India, and largest circulating newspaper in Kerala). Not sure what else I can add to show notability. :( Sonysimon

An interview with an authoritative newspaper does not indicate notability. The person, in this case a music producer, should have won multiple awards. Since in India, music charts are not a serious thing, we don't know if his music is chart-busting. Sorry. Best, Nairspecht Converse 06:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mini-Cons

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

This an overly in-depth list more suited to Wikia. The series has numerous lists (Category:Lists of Transformers characters), so all of these characters are already covered without the need to categorize them by this one aspect. TTN (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that a substantial portion of this list is not bluelinked suggests that deleting this article would lose content not otherwise replicated elsewhere. I'd be far more receptive to a merge proposal. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per perhaps merge to Mini-Con. A lot of this, as best as I can tell, is hyper-trivial, and none of it is sourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep because the article has a significant number of blue-linked entries to various relevant articles. As such, it qualifies per WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid. The article would benefit from the pruning of unsourced content, and/or with the addition of reliable sources for unverified content that does not have an article. Another option would be to merge to Mini-Con. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 17:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR merge to Mini-Con. Samat lib (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is that the subject meets notability guidelines per available sources about him. Aspects about the potential of WP:BLP1E for the subject in the nomination have been adequately countered in this discussion. Also of note is that the article was expanded with more sources after this nomination for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Cegłowski

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

The subject of this page fails to meet WP:GNG. Subject matter isn't notable for anything other than being the creator of Pinboard, which is a small and insignificant website (Alexa rank as of April 2016 is 24,948). References 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are direct links to opinion pieces to the subject's own blog, this is direct contradiction to WP:PROMOTION. Reference 4 is again another opinion piece by the subject, the eclipsing amount of opinionated autobiographical sources and the lack of "Independent of the subject" sources verifying the claims presented in this article is really worrisome. The logical solution is to push anything of value here into the actual Pinboard article. This is actually the page's third nomination for deletion becuase the article's main contributor, User:Blythwood (85% of the edits), immediately reverts any proposed deletion (less than 20 minutes in both cases) which prevents discussion of the article's issues identified by me; any suggestions to prevent this in the future would be greatly appreciated. OutnumberedArmy (talk) 17:26, 19 June 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 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the article by adding several "Independent of the subject" sources found from searching Google News in an attempt to objectively respond to the AFD reasoning above. In particular (in this version, subsequently re-edited, but the work remains there to retrieve if you like)
- re: "Subject matter isn't notable for anything other than being the creator of Pinboard" - most of the (now listed) talks and writings that external sources have referenced are regarding subjects not having to do with the creator of Pinboard.
- re: "the eclipsing amount of opinionated autobiographical sources and the lack of "Independent of the subject" sources verifying the claims presented in this article is really worrisome." Agreed and thus I have added many more external references. Only 7 of the now 31 references are by Maciej himself. Feel free to edit down the autobiographical sources as I believe they are mostly unnecessary but left them in place for others to consider editing.
- re: "logical solution is to push anything of value here into the actual Pinboard article" - feel free to copy or move anything Pinboard specific, as I feel the majority of the material in the article is no longer Pinboard-specific.
- re: "This is actually the page's third nomination for deletion" - it is my hope that by improving the article we can find a consensus to keep the article rather than debating deletion. Thanks for raising the concerns, as it was this prodding that encouraged the article to be improved. Feel free to note any additional concerns and we can continue iterating to improve the article. Thanks! Tantek (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as article creator. Cegłowski is extremely well-known as a writer and commentator on the internet and on software/web development, I think almost certainly more so for that than for the company he runs. (Full (lack of) disclosure - while I'm a fan of his writing, and have therefore cited it, I have never met with or interacted with him in any way, and am not a customer of his company personally.) Ethan Zuckerman's article on him in The Atlantic is a good example of this - it starts by calling him "an important and influential programmer" and only mentions Pinboard quite near the end. If you look at the sources, what's striking is that most of those quoting or referencing his writing and speaking don't mention his company so much, often really more for background. Blythwood (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is not just famous for one subject (i.e. Pinboard) but is notable as a writer and speaker generally within his industry. A cursory search of Google Books and Google News pulls up even more sources than are cited in the article currently. Steven Walling • talk 07:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviewed references and the subject has been featured in prominent media and books. Aust331 (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7 —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken ghee roast

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

Reason Rhaegartargeryan (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Duplicate Page[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 June 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 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afe Babalola University

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

NN university, WP:TOOSOON at best, WP:PROMO/WP:SCHOOLCRUFT at worst. At least half the sources are inappropriate or misrepresentative. The first source is web ranking, which is irrelevant - 4icu is a search engine [7]. The second claiming the doctorate was for Babalola the person's lifetime achievement, not "for the school." The third source is dead, but it doesn't confer notability on the school, either. The fourth source is tagged to an NN individual faculty member, and three others are not inline. Of those, one is a duplicate of 1, the second is about Afe Babalola the person, and the last is totally irrelevant. The first page of GHits is already hitting LinkedIn, and the departments are a copy/paste of info off the school's website, and are actually incorrect - the article claims 8 "colleges", the website has 5. MSJapan (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a recognized Private University authorized to give degree by the National Commission of Universities of Nigeria, the official body regulating University Education in Nigeria.As per This.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good to me now, but just as a point of order, the ref claimed by Pharaoh of the Wizards was added by him, and wasn't in the article when I nominated it, so the necessary accreditation wasn't there. MSJapan (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary schools (and by extension, universities) of confirmed existence have been long regarded as inherently notable at AfD. Whatever deficiencies there are with this article are correctable through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just clicking the NEWS link in the FIND SOURCES section above the nomination should easily not only confirm existence but demonstrate that WP needs a good article on this institution. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Otsuki

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

Singer only notable for a theme song on One Piece Oricon. Unclear what other things she is notable for. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability in this person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to only be known for singing these theme-songs and fails WP:MUSICBIO. I found a recent mention on ANN news but that's really not much to go on. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only usable mention I found was a brief highlight of her work on One Piece by Manga UK. However this won't help for notability as they publish the series in the UK and the article didn't elaborate on her other work. Ja.wiki has an expanded discography but I'm not sure it helps.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of outlaw motorcycle clubs. J04n(talk page) 13:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Road Runners Motorcycle Club

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator User:Brianhe who added one book cite, hoiwwever I still think this fails notability. The book cite is a mention-in-passing in one sentence in an encyclopedic article on a wider topic, so it fails the in-depth coverage. Out of the Polish news sources two links seem broken, and the one remaining news piece is against a passing mention in an article about orphanage that is being helped among others by this organization. Nothing I can find suggest this passes the notability guidelines. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, this could be selectively merged to List of outlaw motorcycle clubs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of outlaw motorcycle clubs, which will improve that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 16:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavin Turakhia

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

Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Turakhia's article looks like an advertisement & promotion page of the person and his brands, who has done lots of PR done online and not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good business person from India but not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real claim to notability, and promotional to boot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. obvious spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem minaly

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

Promotional article for the person or casino,and the style is overpersonal All references are just press releases DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable casino manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Basey

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

Derived notability only, from her successive fiancés, DGG ( talk ) 14:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG WP:NMODEL like the large number of glamour models out there and because she had minor note for datign a celebrity, WP:NOTINHERITED. Donnie Park (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - Dating celebs doesn't make you notable period, That aside there's no evidence of notability anyway, Fails NMODEL, NOTINHERITED and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NMODEL. Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Presently this person does not satisfy GNG and NMODEL criteria. --Dcirovic (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranja

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

Article fails criteria under WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Ranjha Movie Sudhesh Wasantha Peries Ranjan Ramanayake Himali Siriwardana Sunil T. Fernando Tennison Cooray

Delete. In accepting that this Sri Lankan film was created in 2013 and released in 2014, I did some digging and was unable to myself find reliable sources speaking about the project. So it does apparently fail WP:NF. I would urge article creator Ravindu Navin and major article contributor Ceylonlion to bring forwrd some reliable sources even in non-English. If they can and do, please ping me so I might re-evaluate. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable film. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Osimhen

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Possibly even eligible for speedy deletion as a G11. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFOOTY. This should have been marked for speedy. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. Is it too late to bundle this in to List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards AfD? JMHamo (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These can all be inserted into individuals' and club season articles. This list exists solely to exist. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The kind of nerds who are interested in this kind of thing will happily dig through all the player articles and season articles to find them and probably have nothing better to do with their time. Siuenti (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete As per nomination and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards Coderzombie (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also ~~speedy~~ delete List of New York Islanders award winners Siuenti (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Siuenti: Was that a bad joke? JMHamo (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be silly to delete this one and the Arsenal one but keep that. Siuenti (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Featured List, this is definitely not. JMHamo (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK so delete it slowly. But be consistent. Siuenti (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are showing a lack of understanding about Wikipedia. JMHamo (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti, I don't see any "inconsistency" here. At best, the article you point out is similar to List of Arsenal F.C. records and statistics. Coderzombie (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example it has an "individual awards section. Don't you feel the urge to rush over there and delete it, because the information there can be inserted into individuals' and club season articles. Surely it violate WP:NOTSTATS just the way this list does. There is existing consensus not to have this kind of information on Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per existing consensus. Giant Snowman 07:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could be a notable subject if we were talking the same level of awards as noted in the featured list above. Whereas that list focuses on Hall of Fame entrants, and national awards for players at the peak of their game, this list focuses on lower division player of the month awards and other such minor trophies. If you strip out the few awards won by players for their title winning season recently, there is very little of note that requires a standalone list. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards. No reason the information can't simply be included in the player/manager articles. Kosack (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fail to see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards sets a precedent, but List of New York Islanders award winners does not. Sure, the monthly awards are ridiculous, but that is a matter of article scope - they could easily be removed. On the other hand, having been accepted as a FL certainly does not make a subject notable. Anyway, I have asked the closer of the Arsenal AfD to review the early close, given the importance of the discussion. I am reserving my !vote here until that issue is resolved. (It's also hard to see how the Arsenal article created a precedent without having seen it - it might have been completely different to this one.) St Anselm (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: already deleted one, what's the point of keeping others?¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuuuu1000 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am surprised to see why people dont see a point Siuenti made about List of New York Islanders award winners. I know some will try and teach me about "other stuff exists", but hey, we cannot have double standards. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. I think Wikipedia should be run by rules and not by exceptions. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hrishikesh Pandey (Director)

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hrishikesh (Director)

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hrishikesh Pandey (director)

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

Delete. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Also a clear case of WP:TOOSOON Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nothing in any way substantial in the few refs provided which includes one from IMDB. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is very likely block evasion by User:Hrishi Pandey, who's used socks to recreate various versions of this article in the past, two of which have been AfD'd (but speedied). --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure the creator is yet another sock of Hrishi Pandey but maybe it would be just as well to get a proper AfD discussion about the article anyway. The person does not meet WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG and so is not (yet) notable enough for an article. That he and/or his PR people have been trying to use Wikipedia to promote him for more than a year is problematic, but the lack of notability is the real issue here. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leps World

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

Non-notable videogame. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G5. مجتبیٰ (the creator of this article) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Gadri.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no prejudice against restoration/recreation when sources showing notability have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukie Maeda

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

I'm on the fence with this one. She has supporting roles in Love Hina and Koihime Muso and about 80 credits in GamePlaza Haruka's Voice Acting Database (half are adult roles) but I can't seem to identify her lead ones. News search mentions a museum curator of the same name, but the Japanese search is more promising. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Hina roles are beyond trivial, a few sounds effects for Tama and a line or two for the human character. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is Tama like Ryo-Ohki in that it's a major character? Are there any other major ones she has done? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Tama is occasionally used as device for a joke or to "point" the characters towards something but isn't really a functional character beyond that. There are "minor" characters with bigger direct roles in the series.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all fitting for independent notability, she's apparently had major roles but she's still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I would ask someone in WP:JAPAN if they could translate the info for her as she does have major roles (possibly meets WP:ENT), if in the end it is a bust then you have more of a case for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but would support a recreation if it showed that she was notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NME Awards. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NME Awards 2008

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

This was a free cd given away with NME magazine, I can find no significant coverage in any independent sources. Non-notable. PC78 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NME Awards. Artw (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NME Awards: it was a free giveaway so it won't have any independent reviews or chart action, it's hard to see what reliable third-party sources could ever be found for a non-notable release. Richard3120 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The deletion arguments more accurately reflect GNG/BASIC.

(I note in passing that there often seems to be discomfort on this point surrounding journalists, but the last attempt to establish a special notability guideline for journalists that I'm aware of, circa 2007 or so, failed to gain consensus. See Wikipedia:Notability (journalists).)

-- joe decker ^talk 18:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eromo Egbejule

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

I did a quick search of this subject and I see no reliable source discussing the subject. Fails WP:GNG Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least Google the subject first. Reuters, Daily Mail and US govt. websites are reliable sources. Look here, here and here. Wikimayor (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Wikimayor: those are articles written by the subject. The subject hasn't be discussed in any reliable source. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Oluwa2Chainz: I take it you mean "hasn't been", not "hasn't be". Still doesn't take away the fact that this is a writer who has written for reliable sources. What if his policy is not to grant interviews? A notable writer is not the same as a notable celebrity. One discusses in reliable sources and the other is discussed in reliable sources. An unbiased admin should look at the substance of this logic. —Wikimayor »» (talk to me) 07:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. Writing about notable people or for notable newspapers doesn't make one notable. In order for a subject to have a stand alone article, references must show that the subject has been discussed in significant detail. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both The Guardian and Ventures Africa have confirmed this person as a notable writer. Also in this publication here it says "Eromo Egbejule for YNaija, part of the Guardian Africa network" while here it says "The Guardian (London) reminds its readers that it has been one year since boko haram massacred an estimated 2,000 people and, in effect, destroyed Baga, a city of 300,000 in northern Nigeria. Its correspondent, Eromo Egbejule reports that the city remains virtually empty, with less than one thousand people still living there." This also affirms that he is a notable reporter. The article appears on the Council on Foreign Relations website. All these couple with the fact that he has written for several notable news medias including Daily Mail and Reuters makes him worthy of a page here on the English Wikipedia. Stanleytux (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanleytux: Wikipedia's definition of notability is not synonymous with that of the The Guardian and Ventures Africa. The subject fails WP:GNG and there shouldn't be a page about him. The newspaper sources you mentioned only wrote a sentence about him. This is not sufficient for a stand alone article. The Guardian and Ventures Africa sources cannot be considered notable since they are not independent of the subject. The fact that he is a correspondent for The Guardian newspaper shows that it cannot be considered reliable in this instance. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found another news article that talks about Egbejule being a writer and a journalist. This time it's from the CNN, saying CNN iReporter Eromo Egbejule, a Nigerian freelance journalist, attended a protest concert in Lagos Tuesday staged by musician Femi Kuti, son of the legendary Fela Kuti, and said he was proud to be there. "Nigeria loves peace and this is why we are peacefully protesting, even though the Nigerian police and army have inflicted injuries and in some cases, killed innocent people," Egbejule said. From all the reliable sources presented above, it can be derived that "Eromo Egbejule is a Nigerian writer and journalist who has worked for several well known news medias including CNN, Reuters, Daily Mail, YNaija, Ventures Africa and The Guardian, among others. In 2014, he won a grant from the Prince Claus Fund for Culture & Development to lecture in Mexico." Now lets say this was written as a stub article, there are certainly enough reliable sources out there to support these claims. Stanleytux (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, CNN is not reliable in this instance since he is affiliated with the news source. All of the news websites you've mentioned above are not reliable since the subject is affiliated with all of them. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what you are trying to say is that CNN, Reuters, Daily Mail, YNaija, Ventures Africa, The Guardian etc are serving as WP:PRIMARY but what about the Council on Foreign Relations source? Also note that primary sources are generally considered to be independent or third-party sources when reputably published. You can't tell us that CNN, Reuters, Daily Mail, YNaija, Ventures Africa, The Guardian etc aren't reputable news medias. Stanleytux (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanleytux: I am not telling you that those news websites aren't notable overall. I am telling you that the sources you mentioned are not independent of the subject since he is affiliated with them. WP:INDY is an essay and not a Wikipedia policy. Per WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. None of the sources you mentioned are secondary sources. The Council on Foreign Relations blog source is simply an extension of the info reported by The Guardian newspaper. The subject is mentioned because he is the one reporting for The Guardian. Moreover, the subject is only mentioned once in the Council on Foreign Relations article and is not discussed no where in the article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also links to Mail & Guardian, Daily Mail and foreign-language websites in Italian and French. He was also named in the 20 Influential Nigerians Under 20 in this 2010 report where a whole paragraph is dedicated to him. Wikimayor (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Most of the "sources" presented in this discussion are not exactly articles discussing this subject, more like writer's profile pages for the websites. that's obviously not the definition of GNG.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, re 20 Influential Nigerians Under 20, this website is a movie selling site, similar to amazon (with books and authors) so unable to be used for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Samat lib (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It looks like he's written for plenty of high-profile sources, like Reuters and The Guardian, but publishing alone typically isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BIO. What we need are sources about him or at least citations of peers at other publications (which he does not write for) citing him widely. It may just be a matter of too soon (i.e. we should have an article about him down the road). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) GSS (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lincoln Beckwith

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

You can't WP:INHERIT notability from a (great) great-grandfather, honest. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you can; inherit notability from your great-grandfather. As per WP:INHERIT, read on (below).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single mention in the New Yorker about being a descendant isn't enough for notability. The article about Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith probably ought to be deleted, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INHERIT. Let's not be ridiculous great great grandchildren of a notable person are not notable (unless in their own right) AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. !vote at conclusion of this thought-process edit. I looked at the page, then at the page history, and I'm trying to figure out why a wikipedia page on a "nobody" gets hundreds of hits every day. So, the answer seems to be that a lot of people care about Lincoln's descendants - and about the fact that there are none. In addition to that New Yorker article, Here is a 1994 article in the Chicago Tribune [8]. And one form the Los Angeles Times [9] about the deaths of Beckwith and her siblings - non of whom had offspring, leaving Abe and Mary without descendants.

Next, I ran a Proquest news archives search. This usual standard is that an obit in a major daily signifies notability, multiple obits and it's a slam dunk. Our Mary got obits in multiple, major, big-city dailies when she died. Her son, Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, got obits nationwide when he died without issue. The Philadelphia Inquirer obit was brief, and actually stated "Charles Bristow of the Bristow-Faulkner Funeral Home said he knew little about Mr. Beckwith, except that he was descended from the Civil War president. Records showed he had been married three times but was childless." that is what people cared about. He got obits nationwide, and also in the Montreal Gazette and other Canadian papers. Years earlier, when his sister, Doris Beckwith got married, it was national news. All the descendants were news, but especially towards the end, whenever one died without descendants. Americans care that Lincoln, like Washington, has no living descendants. Dunno why; we just care. And so there are news media, books, reliable institutional websites that cover this woman with copious sourcing to pass WP:GNG.

We do know some things about her, she "excelled at golf and smoked fine cigars, told a newspaper reporter she thought the federal government was pushing integration too aggressively." That story ran in 1963 in the Indianapolis Star [10]], and it was snarky. But the thing is, in 1963 newspapers nationwide carried stories about her set-to (presumably on twitter, maybe Facebook) with Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General in the the Kennedy administration over racial integration (the Kennedy boys liked it, she didn't). Unlike the snark from the Philadelphia paper, the ones I clicked on were straight stories about her opposition to integration. But the point here is that an elderly lady in New England had the ear of the nation because her maiden name was Lincoln.

I could go on, but the point is that at a certain point, coverage is so massive, so extensive, sustained for so many decades that it passes WP:GNG. As for the idea that WP:INHERIT states otherwise, it does, except when it doesn't, as per WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." A clause that reads as though it was written to fit this case. Strong Keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of new points made in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's excellent sleuthing. I agree the subject passes GNG. Here are some other sources from RS over time: Full article from 1963 about her, paragraph about her and her family 1960, paragraph about her and her hobbies 1954, Full article about her 1962, she was an aviator in the 1930s, Obituary 1975, Full article on her 1918, Short article about her 1918, article about her piloting 1930. These are just a few clippings and sources. She seems like an interesting lady! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added more sources and the ones I found to the actual article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is profusely sourced with pre-1976 sources. Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the sources, there is no claim to notability beyond being related to a notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that keeping is in accord with WP:INHERIT provision for individuals whose fame derives solely from a close personal connection to a notable individual when, as here, coverage is extensive, deep, etc. WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible KEEP: We have a serious problem that this article is even nominated. The descendants of Lincoln, now all passed on, are of immense interest to historians-- both who and why. E.M.Gregory does a good job of outlining the basic policy and guidelines involved, but I have to note that the very nomination smacks of "recentism" and historical ignorance of the highest degree. I find it unbelievable that someone could be so profoundly ignorant to nominate this article at all ... SMH... Montanabw ^(talk) 23:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Montanabw and E.M.Gregory have made their case. As a frequent editor of Lincoln related articles I have learned something new and find it interesting. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG, which merely requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphases and links in original), not any remarkable accomplishments on the part of the subject. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For those who love books...(and all on Mary).^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Lourdes 01:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with the arguments above that WP:GNG is satisfied. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly meets GNG requirements of significant coverage, over time, in reliable independent sources. GNG does not require that anyone have extraordinary accomplishments, and as E.M. Gregory, Megalibrarygirl and others have pointed out, coverage is extensive and continues for decades. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Morris, P. (2007). The Scandalous Elopement of Abraham Lincoln's Granddaughter and Minor League Pitcher Warren Beckwith. Base Ball. 3(2), 21. Chicago.
^ Emerson, J. (2009). The Madness of Mary Lincoln. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale.
^ King, C. J. (2005). Four Marys and a Jessie: the story of the Lincoln women. Hildene, Inc.
^ (1930). The Lincoln Grandchildren: Mary Lincoln Beckwith. Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection.
^ Lachman, C. (2008). The Last Lincolns: The Rise & Fall of a Great American Family. Union Square Press.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar 23:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Head 2002

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

Non notable video game, only mentioned in passing in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC) soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I was overzealous and looked over some reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be a few reviews cataloged in the VG/RS search: [11] from GameSpot, [12] from GameZone, [13] from Inside Mac Games, [14] from Gamezilla. Also has a few reviews cataloged at Metacritic. The article's current state does make me want to TNT delete it, but I can rewrite the article from scratch if this is kept. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NinjaRobotPirate:, thanks for your reply. I didn't look closely enough at the sources, and I'll withdraw my nomination. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs copyedit, inline citations and Wikilinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I call this a consensus to delete, but even if there's no consensus, WP:BLP default to delete, particularly given that one of the two editors advocating keeping the article proposes doing so so that it can be a convenient platform for a hatchet job. There appear to have been good faith efforts made by both User:DGG and User:SwisterTwister to source the article, and they found nothing. Steve Smith (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Driscoll (executive)

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

Non notable author: her only actual book was self-published by her foundation when she was president of it. Foundation executive of slightly notable organization, does not prove notability. Most of the 3rd party references deal with an alleged crime that has not been proven, and therefore should not be included according to our bLP policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have unsurprisingly found nothing better but, also, there's nothing at all minimally notably acceptable with the listed information and sources not at all convincing. With that, this all suggests overall there's nothing to salvage at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This person was a significant public person on a national level as the former President of Armed Forces Foundation a 501(c)3 non-profit charity and the former girlfriend of a NASCAR Sprint Cup driver and former Champion of the sport. She later broke up with him and accused him of domestic violence. It was national news. A trial was held to determine if a restraining order was necessary. It caused him harm when he was suspended from racing in NASCAR until the matter was settled. It was when the district attorney said there was no evidence to suggest domestic violence. She later resigned from the charity she worked for under the cloud of accusations that money was misappropriated from the charity. The FBI and the IRS is investigating these charges. Yes this person is significant. She wanted to be famous and now she has become infamous for other reasons. Currently there is no reason to delete this posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriciaAFF41 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. and good sourcing. the users !voting delete seems to vote for only the author claim but forgets that she is a noted businesswoman.BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "former girlfriend of a NASCAR Sprint Cup driver and former Champion of the sport." is a pretty absurd reason for keeping. It's a violation of nOT INHERITED and NOT TABLOID. To keep the article because she filed domestic violence charge which were dismissed, and "She later resigned from the charity she worked for under the cloud of accusations that money was misappropriated from the charity. The FBI and the IRS is investigating these charges" is a gross and outright violation of WP:BLP. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep" This person is significant still. A person who plays a part or a role as a business woman in charge of a charity from which she is suspected as a thief from that Charity in historic and newsworthy. She may not be as famous as Steven Nardizzi and Al Giordano of the Wounded Warrior Project, but like them she is constantly playing the victim in the world of non-profit charity misappropriation. In her case she still plays the part of a domestic violence victim despite the charges being dropped (which she never mentions). Getting a restraining order for Domestic Violence is not the same as being charged and being convicted. But whenever she has the chance she plays the victim to the detriment of the other person involved. She still is in the public eye and playing the victim is her method to obtain sympathy and keep her name relevant. She still manages to convince others she is not what she is and having this page deleted would be to her benefit despite her being the one who started her own wiki page many years ago. She still has others doing her dirty work and convinces other she is not what she is. https://fundly.com/m2/patricia-driscoll-was-there-for-us-now-she-needs-our-help Her story still is alive and ongoing. Do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriciaAFF41 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. obvious consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Pečarić

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

Not notable, factual accuracy disputed, no primary resources. The article written as an advertisement. For details: see the talk page Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:23, 12 June 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 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per prpopsal.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His citation count is good enough for WP:PROF#C1 in a low-citation field, the national awards may be good enough for #C2, and his membership in the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (see [15]) is definitely enough for #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:PROF#C1 says: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Not a single independent reliable source verifies him as a scholar. The opposite is true. In the discussion I gave clear example of the WP:PROF#C1 citing a piece of the Todorcevic's biography. This Pecaric is not nowhere near a serious scholar. The membership in the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts is a third rate institution membership.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. Stunning pass of WP:Prof. Subject's talk page has been turned into attack site by nom. Bad faith nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I see here a blind attack on the deletion proposal. What is stunning pass of the WP:Prof -- see the Todorcevic's biography. The same WP:Prof says: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. As an educated mathematician, I was not able to find source verifying Pecaric's impact on anything academic. We need here people who are professional mathematicians to discuss the issue, not Xxanthippe-type commenters who are capable of spitting out generic and meaningless phrases.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein is a professional mathematician. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

No, he is not.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is presumably paid a salary for performing as such. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It's a borderline case. My appointment is in computer science, not mathematics. But it's very much the mathematical end of CS, and I have degrees in both subjects. And even if one disagrees with our article theoretical computer science's claim that TCS is math, a significant minority of my publications are in subjects like graph theory that are clearly math not CS. Anyway, I don't think it should matter here and I don't particularly care what Vb thinks of me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Stevo Todorčević, then he is also unquestionably notable, but his citation counts on Google scholar are not any more impressive. Comparisons to other notable people make bad arguments at AfD, because there is no requirement that all notable people be equally notable; see WP:WAX. Arguing about credentials of editors here is even more pointless. Anyway, I note that Todorčević is Serbian, and I really really hope that this kerfuffle has nothing to do with continuing Serb-Croat rivalry. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but his citation counts on Google scholar are not any more impressive"!! Since when the Google Scholar counts of the citations something relevant for the academic ranking?

I did not compare Todorcevic to Pecaric, I used Todorcevic's biography to illustrate the idea and criteria of the Wikipedia's notability. Simply put, Pecaric is not notable 'cause there is nothing that can be used to substantiate his notability using purely academic criteria, therefore the Wikipedia criteria.

Editors' credentials are essential to this discussion 'cause unqualified editor is only a burden to the discussion.

Please, do not insinuate bad intentions mentioning "Todorčević is Serbian".

Here is my illustration of academically notable vs. not notable things
Notable:Todorcevic earned his PhD at the age of 24, advised by D. Kurepa, a world renown mathematician
Not notable: Pecaric earned his PhD at the age of 34 advised by anonymous P. Vasic, forced to work three years to fix the PhD dissertation faults.
Notable:Todorcevic got his prominent academic post at the age of 28 at Adolph C. and Mary Sprague Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science on the University of California Berkeley campus.
Not notable: Pecaric got his first academic position at the age of 39 at Faculty of textile technology which was before a two year community college upgraded to a four year study
Notable:Todorcevic's two PhD students got the world-renown Sacks Prize and Goedel Prize for their PhD work.
Not notable:Pecaric mentored Viddosava Simic (61 year old teaching instructor at the same Faculty of textile technology)
Notable:Todorcevic contributions to the mathematics clearly outlined and professionally described at http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/press/11-12/111214Todorcevic.html
Not notable:No one ever clearly outlined and professionally described Pecaric's work. I saw only one place (Dragomir's monography) reviewing professionally Pecaric's (and others) work, based on which I see that this Pecaric has a very narrow perception of mathematics limited to Calculus, Polish spaces and operators with no clear distinction what belongs to him and what belongs to the co-authors of the articles cited.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to have your own idiosyncratic standards for who is a serious mathematician and who is a poseur, but the rest of us here have WP:PROF, which both subjects clearly pass. If you're not going to argue based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you're not going to make much headway here. You might also find WP:IAC relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have my own idiosyncratic standards about this case. This Pecaric, as we see, had a great difficulty to earn his PhD in math, mainly for not being educated as a mathematician. After, he was rejected for five years, when trying to get a teaching position at Belgrade University. At the Faculty of mathematics at Zagreb University his work is limited to two hour weekly Mathematical inequalities seminary which is not part of this Faculty curricula.

He formally meets Criteria 3 and 8 of WP:PROF. But it's highly questionable to call Croatian Academy of Sciences a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or the Mathematical Inequalities and Applications a well-established academic journal in their subject area,

Then, you should read details of the WP:PROF you are calling upon. Your understanding of the Google Scholar does not verify the Citation metrics: A caution about Google Scholar. This caution is against the long list of self-published Non-fiction books in his biography.

I see you are speaking on behalf of "the rest of us here" and about "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" without reading the same.

Now remains to address the core of the problem: what kind of mathematician is this person? I cannot see it neither from the biography nor from 1000 articles written by other people + himself. Excuse me, I'd like to discuss this issue with educated mathematicians, not "with rest of us".--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP: No personal attacks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~, quite an unusual case, but certainly passes WP:PROF, per David Epstein's comments above. Nsk92 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my response to Epstein's comment I elaborated why #C1 and #C3 are not substantiated. Now let me touch the national awards may be good enough for #C2. The Annual State Award for Sciences (1997), and the Order of Danica Hrvatska are awards given by a political body (to Pecaric), not by academia. There is no clear idea publicly given what the Award an the Order given for, 'cause we cannot see even what are original Pecaric's contributions to mathematics, if any. Out of 1000 articles he boasts with, he authored solely no more than dozen of them, all the rest are co-authored. Going back to Todorcevic, we can read inside the Stevo Todorcevic (Toronto) receives 2012 CRM-Fields-PIMS Prize clear academic explanation of his work the prize was given for. Therefore #C2 is not substantiated by strict academic means.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be some additional BLP and WP:FRINGE issues here that are not reflected in the article and have not been mentioned by the nominator but are perhaps worth considering. It appears that the subject may also be a proponent of some WP:FRINGE views and historical theories. There is a news-report [16] mentioning him having signed a petition to the President of Croatia in favor of Croatia restoring the traditional Ustaše salute. I have also found additional reports of the subject making speeches in support of the same position. He has written a book [17] which appears [18] to try to drastically minimize the number of deaths at the Jasenovac concentration camp during WWII. There is probably more here if one digs further. If we are dealing with a significant WP:FRINGE case here, then perhaps the situation needs to be re-evaluated from scratch. It would be helpful if the nominator stayed out of the discussion for the moment, to keep things calm and prevent another escalation. But I would really like to hear what other discussion participants think. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject has engaged in Neo-Nazi advocacy, this would make him more notable, not less. But the material should be added to the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:FRINGE cases are quite complicated, particularly because of BLP implications, and especially in situations where most of the sources are not in English. My general understanding is that in WP:FRINGE cases the notability bar is set somewhat higher than usual, and special care is made to make sure that if the article is retained then sources uses are largely WP:RS sources themselves, that is, non-FRINGE sources. That often proves difficult in situations where the subject is not very notable, and where most of the coverage available is in WP:FRINGE sources, and even more difficult in cases where most of the coverage is in non-English sources. Then it becomes impossible to write a properly balanced and properly sourced article, and to avoid numerous BLP pitfalls, and, unless notability is overwhelming on other grounds, it may be better to delete the article. This may or may not be the case here, I am not sure. I tried to read the google-translate versions of some of the sources in Croatian and Serbian, but it is very hard to understand what's what there. Somehow this case feels very different to me from say Anatoly Fomenko, another notable mathematician with prominent WP:FRINGE views advocacy. In Fomenko's case both the case for his mathematical notability is more clear-cut, and, more importantly, there is much better coverage by genuine non-fringe WP:RS sources (both in English and in Russian) of Fomenko's historical revisionism. In the case of Pečarić, especially on the latter score, I would not know what to say and the entire thing looks like a BLP minefield. To omit a discussion of his books about WWII, views on the Ustaše regime, etc, would seem to violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. However, with the sources as we have them, particularly with the apparent scarcity of English language sources, it would be very difficult to write something that is properly sourced, neutral, and BLP compliant. We may be better off deleting the entire article. Nsk92 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that the discussion of this subject becomes focused to the facts. One of the facts is that "the international journal, Mathematical Inequalities and Applications" Pecaric founded is not the international one, rather a Croatian journal in English funded by Croatian government. Most of the 1000 articles he co-authored are published in the same journal of which he is editor-in-chief. The statement He is considered "...a great name in the theory of inequality" from the article Main work section comes from Pecaric himself. Pecaric claims, in the interview given to one of his students who authored the Pecaric's Wikipedia biography, that the statement about his "greatness" came from some unidentified reference journals from 1990-ies.

Now about WP:FRINGE and Pecaric's Non-fiction books ( "Pečarić has authored numerous newspaper articles and books dealing with journalistic and historical topics" the article says). All his books (or better "books") are self-published. What kind of (pseudo)historic topics he handled in his books is possible to locate from the book titles: Priznajem, Hrvat sam! (I admit, I am Croat!), Serbian myth about Jasenovac, Književnik Mile Budak sada i ovdje (Mile Budak, the writer, now and here) etc. Croatian investigative journalist D. Pilsel wrote in his Sveti Ante Pavelic article that Pecaric, during his unsuccessful career in Belgrade (my words), used to identify himself as a Serb. Moved to Croatia thanks to support and help he got from his father-in-law who was an influential Jugoslav People's Army officer. In his book about Mile Budak he attacked the "haters" of the Croatian people, i.e. all those who were demanding removal of the street named after Mile Budak and the Budak's monuments erected in Croatian towns and cities. Pecaric, in order to substantiate his attacks, claimed that Budak did not sign Independent Sate of Croatia racial laws, Budak just applied them, therefore Budak is not the war criminal. Pilsel referenced the document showing that Budak signed that infamous law ( Narodne novine from 4. june 1941. with full text of the racist law titled as "Zakonske odredbe o zaštiti narodne i arijske kulture hrvatskog naroda" signed by Budak)

I've spent some short time to review his book "Zločinački sud u Haagu" (The criminal Hague Court). One of the book sections contains a short rant against the Hague Court. This rant was earlier a content of some blog, signed by 260 anonymous people, then commented by readers. Some of the comments were unintelligible or meaningless. Pecaric copied the whole blog content and pasted in his book.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the things in your first paragraph is particularly relevant here. This is not about whether he is a great mathematician. It is not about whether he has issued self-congratulatory statements. It is not about whether some of his publications may be puffed up from not much. It is not about the overall strength of the Croatian academy. If those things can be sourced to reliable publications, they can be included in the article; otherwise no. But none of them addresses the question we are actually trying to consider here: does he meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of articles on academics. Please either address that question, or stop leaving your off-topic walls of text here, because you're not helping, and your unsourced attacks are arguably in violation of our policy on biographies of living people. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss the issues of factual accuracy disputed, no primary resources type particular to this biography with someone who is a professional mathematician as I were for 40 years. My first paragraph is all about it. Moreover the WP:PROF#C8 is about the notability and a reason for addressing the "the international journal, Mathematical Inequalities and Applications". This is not the first case where you attacked me accusing me for not following this or that Wikipedia rule, irrelevant to the discussion. I'm going to ignore you here for good.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your apparent refusal to admit areas of mathematics you feel snobbish about as being true mathematics, I don't think you're going to find anyone you recognize as a true mathematician to talk to here. There is at least one Fields medalist who regularly edits Wikipedia, but I've never seen him contribute to deletion discussions and I don't care to bother him about this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think we can separately discuss his potential academic notability from his fringe politics; if he is notable for the one, we can keep the article regardless of the other. I don't have a well informed view on his political opinions other than that the article does not succeed in demonstrating their notability — merely having published books is not the same as being notable for them. If this article is kept, but no evidence for notability for his non-mathematical works is uncovered, we should consider removing the list of them from the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A difficult issue. Subject passes WP:Prof, but should the English Wikipedia be allowed to be used as a battleground for Balkan politics? I disregard the nominator's arguments as I do not see evidence that he has mathematical qualifications. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidence of notability. 23 editor (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @23 editor. I don't see any evidence of notability given. Wikipedia notability criteria called upon above, like WP:PROF, must be seriously substantiated, which is not done. The starting point of that substantiation shall be Pecaric's contributions to mathematics, clearly outlined, verifiable, elaborated, evaluated and written professionally by a mathematician. As an example, I referenced Todorcevic's contributions to mathematics from his biographies. For Pecaric, I was not able to find anything like that. Needless to say his academic credentials in use at the Zagreb university Faculty of mathematics are reduced to a Mathematical inequalities seminary (2 hr a week) what is not part of any Faculty curricula. A long list of "Non-fiction books" is all about the self-published books. The books content is widely rejected by historians in Croatia and outside Croatia. If we accept negative reactions to his 'non-fiction' ideas as a form of notability, then the biography shall include the reactions to his non-fictionalism, not the self-published books.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete his biography, it does not have a valid encyclopaedic content. I think Pecaric is a poseur, extremely vocal in his pro-Ustashe ads and an insignificant contributor to mathematics.--178.223.78.167 (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Pečarić's interview "KAKO JE BILO BITI HRVAT-MATEMATIČAR U BEOGRADU" (What was it like to be Croatian - mathematician in Belgrade). A funny stuff. Read it if you know serbo-croatian. From this interview it's visible that a negative view of Pečarić's math credentials had Đuro Kurepa and his PhD student Miroslav Asic, late mathematics professor at Ohio State University when Pečarić appled for a teaching position at Belgrade University . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is spa 178.223.78.167 a sock of the nom? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Pečarić is a full member of the Croatian Acadamy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU) - more specifically, the Dept. of Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Sciences, which is limited to 24 members per the Academy's statute. I believe that this constitutes a membership in a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association", and that Pečarić therefore meets WP:PROF #3. WP:GNG is met too. (Also, I'm not aware of any previous instance in which a full HAZU member's bio has been challenged - let alone deleted - on the grounds of notability.) Therefore, I'd say Pečarić is Wikipedia-notable (as opposed to just real-world-notable, which we're not discussing here and is something else entirely). GregorB (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wartburg Watch

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. The article has several references, but these are all trivial mentions and/or links. St Anselm (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had encountered and none of this is currently suggesting any better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:GNG is met, as these independent RS'es use substantial material from the blog, even if they don't cover it, in and of itself, in significant detail. And why would they? "Hey, there's this blog and there's all these details about it." is nonsense: blog title, author(s), and URL are about all you're ever going to get anyone to say about a blog, because that's about all you can say about a blog. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep inferior quality page, no links, and new, so I figured it was just another non-notable website being WP:PROMOted on Wikipedia. Still, I searched "Wartburg Watch" + Parsons [19] and "Wartburg Watch" + Martin [20] on a google news search and got RS that describe this blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep (declaration of interest - I created the page) - I would respectfully suggest WP:WEB and WP:GNG have been met, in particular references 6 and 7 are non-trivial. The above comment suggests there are more that could be added. SmilingFace (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current references are all trivial with the possible exception of #7 with it's three sentences. #6 makes trivial mention of the blog in passing as it details the opinions of Dee Parsons. If the most in-depth coverage is three sentences it's not notable. Gab4gab (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Compelling arguments for and against both before and after a relisting leads me to the decision there is no clear consensus here. KaisaL (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Riddell

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

no information about from any indepedent source. Ref 2 & 3 seem to be her own web page. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is a longtime reporter and columnist for a major newspaper. I also added a lot of secondary sources.Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added seem to be items she wrote. That does not show notability. DGG ( talk )

I added additional sources from other publications that cited her and the stories she broke, including Fox News, RT, Daily Beast, Daily Mail, Newsmax, New York Daily News, etc.. Please check again and tell me if that shows notability. Thanks Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as there's by far nothing convincing, only a localized journalist and nothing to suggest the needed solidity. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister talk Not just a localized reporter but a national reporter who broke notable stories. I added some of the stories she broke, which have been featured in many national media outlets. SwisterTwister talk please check the new stuff and see if that adds notability. Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Longtime reporter & columnist for major newspaper whose stories are carried on national news networks. A quick search shows she has been a guest on both O'Reilly & Hannity - both major U.S. political TV forums. This is enough to establish notability in my opinion. MB (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a national figure. Given the lack of biographical material, there is still room here to merge this topic appropriately, but with all of the new sources, after six days the delete views do not refute the new sources. Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to "refute" the sources. The sources don't establish her notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is supported by examples of her work and articles that do not even mention her name. A couple of article mention her, but nothing in-depth. reddogsix (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RT, Fox News, Daily Beast, Media Matters all cited her name, and the others cited her specific report. In depth biographical information is not needed to establish notability, and those citations are enough to show her work is notable. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doing your job (writing news articles) doesn't make you notable. There is a lack of significant coverage about her. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is tons of coverage, in addition, she won the Society of Professional Journalists’ Robert D. G. Lewis Watchdog Journalism Award which is a notable journalism award. If you look at Category:American journalists there are multitudes of people with less stuff than her. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated other journalists for deletion in the past. Your suggestion may inspire me to weed out that pool again. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -As of 6/23/2016 notablity has been established. The entry was originally nominated for deletion prior to much information being added, including her work, which has been cited by numerous national and international sources and her receiving the Society of Professional Journalists’ Robert D. G. Lewis Watchdog Journalism Award, which is a very notable journalism award and the highest award in its Washington chapter. Given that delete supporter SwisterTwister's addition was added prior to much notable information being added, and the other delete posts have not posted counterarguments to responses and that this entry has been two weeks old, I believe a rough consensus has been reached and this discussion ought to be closed. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure a local chapter award establishes notability nor 2 sentences about the individual in that article establishes notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just declare "notability has been established?" Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. reddogsix (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Marquis. "As of 6/23/2016 notablity has been established."

Weak keep--I think this has just enough. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are links demonstrating national prominence: 2016 CPAC speaker [21], appearance on CSPAN [22], live comentary on Fox news [23], O'Reilly Factor [24], Hannity [25]. These are instances of her being interviewed or giving commentary on national news shows. This goes far beyond a typical reporter whose work is merely published (just doing one's job). Clearly meets WP:JOURNALIST MB (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does this meet Wikipedia criteria for WP:N or any of its sub-guidance? I do not see adherence to any of the items in WP:JOURNALIST, this includes item 1. reddogsix (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:JOURNALIST4C says work "has won significant critical attention". I don't know what more critical attention a journalist can receive than being invited to discuss their work on multiple national programs. MB (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people get invited to yak on TV; it's hardly a mark of quality to get on Fox or Hannity or even on stage at CPAC. "Critical attention" means critical attention, which reliable secondary sources should report on; being asked to speak somewhere (with the transcript to prove it) is not "being given critical attention". Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me - there are mentions in all sorts of secondary sources. Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

N does not care about quality of the subject, just the quality of the source. Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relativity of notability: WP:NCRICKET allows only one appearance at international or top domestic level and that appearance can be a complete fail, and does not require any secondary source coverage for them at all (only the match they played in) ! WP:NJOURNALIST is 100 times stronger. Riddell has had multiple "appearances" at top domestic level so would romp it in for N if she was a cricketer. There needs to be some serious comparative reviews and changes to N guidelines across subject areas. Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There has apparently been some significant work on the article since the initial listing for deletion, 400% bigger, so earlier respondents should review their opinion. Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the split and that this has been subject to substantial debate (with a relist to boot), and the historical record of keeping denominations, I believe we are unable to reach a clear actionable consensus on deletion. KaisaL (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Anglican Church of America

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Appears to have only seven parishes about which I can barely find any reference. Graham (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I happen to think that all denominations are notable, but even if they weren't, I think there can be a strong case to be made under WP:IAR. There are so many small Anglican groups in North America now (see Category:Anglican denominations in North America) that it is worth keeping the article to help the reader navigate through them all. ANd that's what we're all about here on Wikipedia - helping readers. St Anselm (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one can imagine, I certainly take issue with StAnselm's assertion that any ecclesial body that declares itself to be a denomination is inherently notable on that basis alone. That level of disregard for our notability guidelines goes well beyond the intent behind WP:IAR.

Regarding StAnselm's other argument, I must sympathize with the spirit behind it – the proliferation of churches formed from various splits in the Continuing Anglican movement may need to be well-documented and easily navigable. As the topic of this particular church does not come close to meeting the standards of either WP:GNG or WP:ORG on its own, would it not be most appropriate to cover it in a section of the article on the Continuing Anglican movement as a whole? As I see it, any denominations of note (which are not necessarily independently notable under Wikipedia's guidelines) could be covered there in an appropriate level of detail and more major denominations that are independently notable could be covered in summary style. What do you think, StAnselm (and others)? Graham (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I mean "presumed to be notable" - as Atlantic306 says below, there are probably sources existing that are not online. As to your proposed way forward, I appreciate your willingness to compromise; I guess I'm not ready to concede that much ground yet. If all the denominations are notable, I prefer to navigate among them via templates and nav boxes. St Anselm (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: If we were to presume all Christian denominations to be notable, then how could one be proven not to be notable? You seem to be suggesting that a negative should be proven.

Regarding the possibility of covering the topic more thoroughly in the Continuing Anglican movement article, WP:NOPAGE states that one of the main criteria we should be looking at is "What sourcing is available now?" [italics added]. Even if the topic is notable – and I have yet to see any evidence in defence of that position be introduced – the article contains minimal information and I see no possibility for significant expansion based on the reliable sources available (i.e, none).

While I appreciate that you have a preference for how to navigate through these denominations, "If all the denominations are notable" is a pretty big "if". If there is any evidence in favour of the argument that all these denominations are notable (or even just this denomination), I would be eager to see it. Graham (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe they also used to be known as the "American Anglican Convocation" - under that name they are on this List of Anglicans Not in the Anglican Communion. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: Thanks for finding the former name. I haven't, however, turned up any additional sources from it. Regarding the link you provided, it is a passing reference in a self-published source that appears to have likely copied and pasted the information from an old version of this page on Anglicans Online. Graham (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they used to be a larger denomination so older pre-internet sources should be extant but admittedly hard to findAtlantic306 (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article and List under "Continuing Anglican" or similar with link to the website. Although it is a convenient administrative practice for avoiding discussions, the idea that members of certain groups are intrinsically notable is highly questionable. For example, it has been claimed that all bishops of the Roman Catholic Church (and others) are ipso facto notable. However in 1517 there were 306 Catholic dioceses in what is now Italy,(Hughes, Philip. A History of the Church - Vol 3 Sheen and Ward pp. 539f) many being little more than very large parishes and it is most unlikely that most of them made any real mark at all on history. The same might also be said of many other people who have been called "bishops" in other denominations. The fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is objective notability, that is notability accredited by responsible independent and authoritative sources which in this case have not been provided so far. — Jpacobb (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many paths to wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree that denominations are, and historically have been, presumed to be notable, what we have here is an article where readers cannot verify the information provided. The unsourced references to living people are BLP violations. Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion that is not germane to this AfD. Graham (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Non-germane zone corrected. Unscintillating (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Unscintillating, a lack of secondary sources didn't stop you from calling for keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno County Sheriff's Office. Why would a church's website about itself not be acceptable, when you do accept a sheriff's office's website? Please uphold Wikipedia policy. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My !vote was not "keep", but based on a policy which I named in bold, and from which I quoted verbatim. If you will recall, I provided a similar response after your similar confusion when you were thinking that I had !voted from the guideline WP:SK. Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I could use some editors to take a look at Hyder, Alaska. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting way to canvas, but I'd love to have @Drmies: come to the Hyder article and explain to you why restoring sources that don't actually support the material is improper. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36, I once, no, twice, tried to reason with this user--here and in this AfD. I'm obviously not being very successful at it. But that is a fun little article about Hyder; that "the Mounties occasionally pop in to say hello" doesn't support what our article claims is of course obvious, eh. Drmies (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not obvious. All sources agree, even if without satisfactory detail, that the RCMP are active across the international border at Hyder. The phrase that foreign police "pop in to say hello" is attributed to Ken Jennings. Three Google book sources repeat the phrase that "the police are of the Mountie variety". A Google book source from the University of British Columbia Press dated in 1975 calls the role an unofficial presence, but an editor in 2006 claims that Canadian judges in Stewart are paid by Alaska to handle misdemeanor cases under US law. Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies We've crossed paths in several. I've noticed a trend in using the same specific (possibly newly discovered) parts of policies in the same day, even when they don't apply. Currently, he's telling me that I can't use the word "you" when talking to him about actions/edits he specifically took and cites AVOIDYOU as his reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak IARish keep. I find myself strangely in support of Anselm, though saying "yeah notable" without much evidence totally rubs me the wrong way. I'll see what more I can find. Drmies (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham11, StAnselm, nothing more has come to the surface, besides my guess that they changed their name because of a dispute with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. I emailed someone who is a bishop in yet another splinter denomination of traditional Anglicans and will report back. In the meantime, I can't in good conscience argue keep, as sympathetic as I am to Anselm's "all denominations are notable". I'm still leaning toward supporting that general statement: denominations are not likely post offices or sheriff's departments, which exist all over the place because they have to; denominations are created voluntarily and play important roles in people's lives. But the problem is that the general statement suggests that every person who sets up a trailer on a county road and calls it "church" gets to have an article for their flock. This one is bigger than that, but we have only their own (terrible) website as proof; I think we need a little bit more than that. So I'll support a merge as suggested earlier by Graham. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My source has nothing to add. I guess I support a merge--even then, a merge will merely consist of just listing the name and a paragraph, with nothing more than a link to the website... Drmies (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- A small denomination, but a denomination nonetheless, one of many splinters which have split from the Episcopal Church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Being a denomination does not in itself establish notability. And given that it is "one of many splinters" off of the Episcopal Church, that seems to be even more reason to cover the subject in the Continuing Anglican movement article if this particular denomination does not and will never (in the foreseeable future) meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability. Graham (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm swayed by the arguments that being a denomination does not establish notability by itself. I don't see any particular reason to keep this article either for some kind of historical purposes or any other reason. Wikipedia can and should help readers, but I don't think that this is really that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references at all ? I will reconsider if it gets properly referenced. Aoziwe (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have normally kept all denominations, and have accepted their website as sufficient documentation. Google also provides documentation for at least one of it's churches, Saint Mary's Anglican Church at Hill, and it is listed in the unofficial directory USA.churches. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Why would we "[accept] their website as sufficient documentation" of the subject's notability when (in addition to the fact that the subject does not come close to meeting any of our notability guidelines) the Verifiability policy clearly states, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"? Surely you don't mean to suggest that their website constitutes a "reliable third-party source"…? Graham (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Also, I just tried to find the website of St Mary's Anglican Church at Hill (which the Traditional Anglican Church of America website indicates is in Las Cruces, New Mexico) that you mentioned. I found it at stmarysathill.com but not only does the website make no reference to the Traditional Anglican Church of America, but it suggests that they're actually part of another small (but still much larger than the TACA) splinter group, the Anglican Province of America, which is separate from the TACA. Graham (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Saqafi Chullikkod

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Zero results in Google News for his last name (well, technically a Youtube video popped up, I suppose). Article currently sourced to a brief mention of his name, two articles that don't even mention him, and three Youtube videos. Created by a now-blocked sock (not blocked/banned when this was created, so not CSD eligible). ~ Rob^Talk 06:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might qualify for WP:Prof#C6, but institution does not seem to be a major one. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-chancellor of a university with 20,000 students. I think that makes it notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University claims to have 20,000 students, but is it notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Number of students is a fairly terrible indicator of how noteworthy the school is. The University of Phoenix has 162,000 students, but it's an awful institution. Meanwhile, Dartmouth College has only 6,000, but it's an Ivy. ~ Rob^Talk 01:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universities are normally notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Uanfala (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether the university is notable. The point is whether the university is notable enough for WP:Prof#C6 to hold and requires it to have a substantial scholarly impact. That is not yet proven here. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, please note that I said "noteworthy", not notable. By noteworthy, I mean so highly esteemed that the holding of a top position at the university alone implies that the subject would meet WP:GNG if one looked hard enough for sources. That's what WP:PROF#C6 is about. For instance, I would consider top administrators at Harvard University or the University of California, Berkeley to be automatically notable based on their positions. But schools like Binghamton University (my alma mater) or Syracuse University wouldn't fit the bill. They're not top universities (as much as Binghamton likes to pretend it is). ~ Rob^Talk 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cree Wikipedia

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

Disputed PROD. This is a Wikipedia language edition with fewer than 150 articles. I can't find any independent references to the website's existence. It clearly fails to meet the standards of WP:WEB and notability is not inherited by virtue of the notability of Wikipedia as a whole. Graham (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cree Wikipedia seems to satisfy WP:WEB's requirement that sites "be notable and of historical significance". I confess that, as a Wikipedia contributor, I am probably biased about the historical significance of Wikipedia. My defense is to argue that everyone else in this discussion probably has similar bias. Regarding notability, it clearly needs third-party sources... such as these:
- Kornai, András. 2013. "Digital language death"
- Dalby, Andrew. 2007. "Wikipedia(s) on the language map of the world"
- Baxter, Robert Neal. 2009. "New technologies and terminological pressure in lesser-used languages" (mainly about Breton, but mentions Cree and other Native American language Wikipedias)

Keep. Cnilep (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Several pages of language versions of Wikipedia with few articles redirect to List of Wikipedias. The Cree Wikipedia may not be notable enough to have its own article. Gulumeemee (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Wikipedias Steven Walling • talk 03:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almafeta (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all this is encyclopedia. This is the only encyclopedia in Cree. — Green Zero обг 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias - Another language Wiki appeared here before and I'm sure there was consensus to Merge or Redirect .... It was a quite sometime ago ..., Anyway no evidence of notability but redirect is always preferred over deletion . –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monagheseh

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

No assertion of notability, so WP:ENN applies. MSJapan (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article even attempts to assert notability that would meet WP:GNG, and I didn't find anything else online. It's just barely past the WP:A7 threshold. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, googling مناقصه+روزنامه gives quite a lot of results. The newspaper website http://monaghesatiran.ir/ and http://www.jaaar.com/archive/monaghese indicates that it is a professional publication. http://www.magiran.com/maginfo.asp?mgID=5405 indicates that it is a weekly newspaper. --Soman (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That still doesn't assert notability. Because it exists isn't good enough, especially when the topic isn't even accessible to a non-Farsi typer and reader. Let's be honest: what use is a local (even big city) real estate newspaper to a general reader who probably isn't there, and let's extend that to what use is an article about said paper to a general reader? MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This newspaper, while it exists, doesn't seem to be notable. It was established in 2004 and changed its website 3 times after that. From what I managed to understand, it publishes a list of tenders every week. There is no claim of significance here and this is almost A7 territory. Following Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals for guidance, I do not see any reason that this is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An online search gave no evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher M. Schroeder

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

Non-notable vanity page Lythalicious (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance: Patriotic Song

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

No evidence that the song is notable; the references just show it exists &was included in a comprehensive anthology. SeeWP:NSONGS for the requirements.

I would have listed it for speedy deletion, except that there is an article on an individual who may have been the composer Julia Smith (composer), though since she was born in 1905, it seems unlikely--but not impossible. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Song is notable, due to context and record of performance and publication which is not yet reflected in this stub. Pre 1923 music, especially sheet music scores, has a different measure of notability that is not adequately reflected in WP:NSONGS. This is a stub in progress. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not surprised the nominator can't find any contemporary internet articles about this song. We have 87 song articles for 1918 songs and 1697 for 2015. Music was just as important, probably more so, and much more song-led than today's singer-led. WP:NSONGS is incorrectly (IMO) geared towards "singles" rather than the crux of the matter, the song. Given the difficulty of establishing the notability of 1918 song, a little more time than one day should be allowed. A notability tag would have been much more useful at this stage. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus needed, only two keep !votes (including the article creator) st170e^talk 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Julia Smith at best because I could've considered deleting but regardless redirecting is something particularly sufficient, still questionable at best for the best available improvements thus still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Community Church

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

Non-notable church lacking non-notable support. reddogsix (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy A7 was declined by another ed. as out of scope. Church buildings are out of scope, but church organizations are not. Sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference, but this is unambiguously an article about the association. In any case it can and should be dleted as Speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence provided that there is a lack of sources (an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). A book source in the article shows that weekend attendance in 2007 was 1700. Given the rapid early growth of the church, this puts it on a trendline to currently be a megachurch without any additional research. 1700 is by itself large enough to be mentioned in a more comprehensive article and retention as a redirect. This puts any remaining discussion in the category of talk page discussion, not AfD discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure I understand your comment. There is no evidence of Notability. Lack of support is not a reason to keep an article. I did mention that the church lacks support, not the article. The author has the WP:BURDEN to support provide support for the article. The only articles (support) out there are related to the resigning of the founder because of an affair and the firing of half the staff because of financial diifculities. Hardly enough to support for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what good this is going to do, but... (1) We appreciate our content contributors. (2) Articles are created with an assumption of good faith, WP:AGF, which as a behavioral guideline is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,". (3) WP:BURDEN is a content policy. (4) WP:Notability is a topic guideline, not a content guideline. (5) WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with wp:notability. (6) Megachurches (2000 weekend attendance) are presumed to be notable, and while a presumption is not a guarantee, nominating anything that looks like a megachurch is a sure way to waste the time of AfD volunteers, because any church that large has a large influence in the region and needs to be retained as a redirect even if somehow not considered outright wp:notable. (7) Had the AfD nomination prepared the AfD community by reporting what was found with the minimal searches specified by WP:BEFORE, it would have reported a solid list of hits both from the Lexington Herald Leader (a regional newspaper), and relevant snippets at Google books. (8) I've never heard of "non-notable support", nor have I a clue what this means. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you would make the comment,"Not sure what good this is going to do, but..." That implies you do not think I will accept your reasons or I am incapable of understanding. If I missed the implied reasoning, my apologies. Thanks for the explanation, sorry you started it out on a negative footing. reddogsix (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of notability. As always, I'd be happy to reconsider if presented with new or additional evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpharock

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

Single sourced (to subject's own website) BLP with no real references or indication of notability. JamesG5 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence of notability. – Editør (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added {{BLP sources}} to this article, so that anyone has to help by adding reliable sources, because this article has not yet been expanded and is single sourced. XPanettaa (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: I think you should give it a try and expand this article too, as you have expanded the article (which I mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvaro (DJ)) back in April, because this article has not yet been expanded and is single sourced with has no real references or indication of notability. And also, the biography sections (which is empty and requires expansion) is waiting for you. XPanettaa (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I like these types of articles. Unfortunately in this case, only trivial English sources to work with, so seems like a textbook case aofwp:too soon, since just being signed to Spinnin' or Musical Freedom isn't enough for notability. Maybe put in draft form until a few reviews inevitably come out later this year? Otherwise, maybe there is a charting dutch single, I can't really tell - [26], or maybe some great coverage in Dutch I missed. Earflaps (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: Okay, I have added some information and added sources on the "Early life" section. Now, I think you should add the rest of the information and sources on the "Biography" section, because two sections has insufficient information. I tried to see if there was a charting dutch single at dutchcharts.nl or other websites, but there isn't? XPanettaa (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good start! Not bad articles for fleshing out content. Unfortunately interviews don't do much to prove significant coverage in most cases, so the page still doesn't have a solid argument for passing notability. But wait a month or two, and I'm pretty sure there will be enough sources to build a nice safe page. Just patience! :) Earflaps (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: I'm afraid that the page may be deleted, for sure, if we don't do something to make the page notable by adding information or something. By the way, I have added some information and added sources on the "Music career" section. XPanettaa (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xpanettaa, may I recommend a quick refresher of WP:Musicbio? I myself try and re-read it every few months, since I tend to forget minor points sometimes - the gist is that just adding information doesn't actually protect a page from deletion, and a page's size actually doesn't matter much for notability. The most important thing (unless there's a charting single) is that the artist has attracted "significant" note in certain newspapers. Publications like YourEDM and DJlist unfortunately don't count act "reputable" in most people's eyes right now, so the list of good publications largely consists of these: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources. I would recommend you request for the page to be userfied to your account, and then add information and references there over time, until there are two or three reviews or feature articles about Alpharock in some of the publications on that list. Earflaps (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Earflaps: The link doesn't seem to work for me. I tried to see if there where sources on websites listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources in order to add information and references there over time, until there are two or three reviews or feature articles about Alpharock in some of the publications on that list, but I couldn't find it anywhere, and it is probably too difficult for me to do it. I think you should do this and find sources in order to add information and references there over time, until there are two or three reviews or feature articles about Alpharock in some of the publications on that list. I'm sure that really should be enough to save the page, though, fits wp:Musicbio. XPanettaa (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XPanettaa, in many cases I'm happy to adopt a page and put the time in to prove it it notable, but I try and hold off until there is at least a chance of survival. Otherwise, I just feel like I'm getting ahead of myself. In this case, I think you are being overly hopeful about its current chances of passing wp:musicbio or wp:notability. Earflaps (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: I don't think that you edited article Alpharock. I want you to find sources and then add information and references there over time, until there are two or three reviews or feature articles about Alpharock in some of the publications on that list. See this and this and find it and then add information and references there over time. XPanettaa (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I did upon entering this conversation was scan google for any articles on that list that mention Alpharock. According to my research, there are none. Earflaps (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: Okay, go to this and this and find it. XPanettaa (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep my in your back pocket to help on pages in the future, this isn't the way to go about it. Earflaps (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: Did you found something? XPanettaa (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, leave me alone please. Earflaps (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earflaps: Then what are you doing? XPanettaa (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbeat (Jeremy Rosado album)

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

The album fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM because the album has not charted, been sales certified or nominated for any awards. The only thing the article has going for it are two reviews from non-reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I thought the sources were non-reliable and had I been pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources in an edit summary or talk page discussion, I would have accepted my being wrong and this AfD could have been avoided, but instead I was reverted with an edit summary of "Nominated it for deletion." Aspects (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are wrong with your assumptions Aspects. This album satisfies general notability guidelines, for the album was talked about in two long-form reviews from highly reliable publications in the Christian music community. The charting criteria is just one amongst a whole host of criteria in the NALBUM framework that is based on these satisfying the No. 1 requirement. @3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, Toa Nidhiki05, Metalworker14, and Walter Görlitz: for their expertise in the subject matter.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 05:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep These reviews (from sources that meet Wikipedia standards for reliability) aren't the only mention of the album; just from a quick google, search I've found the following:
- [27]
- [28]
- [29]
That's coverage from at least five notable sources. Enough to keep, IMO. I don't want to appear like this is canvassing, however, so if this vote is disregarded I understand. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reliable sources in the article and those provided by Toa Nidkiki05.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Although the two sources are reliable, the rest of the article has very little coverage other than critical reception. ilovemusic ^{(Talk To Me!)} 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob (YouTube)

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

Not a notable event - companies do things that customers don't like and backtrack on it all the time. MSJapan (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough media coverage to warrant its own article. This could be mentioned in the YouTube article at best, though I doubt it's noteworthy enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 12:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I mean Bob was everywhere on YouTube and he even has his own Know your meme page. I would say instead of having him as a 'YouTube event' character event, his article should be classified as an internet meme: This is Bob or Bob (meme), besides there are plenty of reliable sources. \☻/ Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 ☻/  This is Bob
/▌
/\

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - No news worthy sources I could find unlike the bigger Youtube channels. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is not all that notable anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London TV

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

A short-lived TV channel of which I can find very little unfortunately. Cloudbound (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no reliable sources that even verify this channel's existence, much less its notability LAroboGuy (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why was the article even created? To give future hotel residents and taxi passengers another viewing option? Also, half the article is about a non-notable, um, "journalist" that most likely just introduced the vid clips. — Wylie pedia 17:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dual q-Hahn polynomials

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

Looks like an under construction article which was never finished. Was afd'd before but some (now retired?) author removed the PROD and then retired (again?) DVdm (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is not a forum for determining how complete an article is, and being "under construction" is not a basis for deletion.Neither is the "active" or "retired" status of the article creator. It looks like an acceptable stub. The issue is whether the subject is notable. I am no math expert, but this specific topic has numerous instances of coverage in apparently reliable sources viewable at the "scholar" and book links above, and has been discussed for decades. It is not something nonnotable which some hobbyist just coined, as is too common in articles about math in Wikipedia. We need input from someone who can access the numerous instances of coverage which can only be seen in snippets or which are behind paywall. Edison (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Askey scheme. This has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Families_of_polynomials there are a number of other very similar articles. These all very similar families which feature in the Askey scheme. They have been largely ignored since creation. I think they could all be merged into Askey scheme, but others on WT:WPM have suggested a more refined system for merging. --Salix alba (talk): 14:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was previously Prodded before (by me), not AFD hence why the there is no 1st nomination. --Salix alba (talk): 15:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Afaiac, anything goes. I just wanted to do something about this odd removal by someone who retired the next day. - DVdm (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the author retirement but that is no reason for deletion... why do you think Wikipedia:There is no deadline is odd? DeVerm (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the essay is odd. Just the combination with the author's retirement(s). No big deal. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I mean. You wrote about the "odd deletion" done by editor but in his edit comment he clearly referenced at Wikipedia:There is no deadline, which is a valid point imho. DeVerm (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But making a valid point and then quicky retiring looked odd to me. - DVdm (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify, then afterwards all the Hahn-articles could be merged into one like discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Families_of_polynomials. I do not see a call to merge them into the Askey scheme article in that discussion. DeVerm (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, articles such as this are sufficiently obscure that it can/will take more than five years before they get expanded. I have noticed that activity on maths articles has fallen off very sharply in the last five years, and that many leading editors are no longer with us, and are not being replaced by newcomers; thus progress is inherently slow. I see no particular harm in leaving this as a stub. User:Edison asked about notability: it seems sufficiently notable to me, I stumbled over this ... all the q-series arise in relation to the affine Lie groups; this was particularly fashionable to study about 10-15 years ago, and the popularity has waned considerably since then, but such is the cruel nature of fashion and trendiness in math and physics. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative for Global Access to Medicines

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

non-notable short lived organization, lacks independent in-depth coverage Gab4gab (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This organization appears to have developed from a fall term course experiment and died as the term ended. There are some notes on notability on the article talk page. Gab4gab (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite literally "stuff made up at school", and the sources are questionable. It seems that they may have actively sought out the media coverage they received. MSJapan (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown

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

Not notable. Not clear that this show exists at all. As an Amazon Prime subscriber, I am unable to find this show's two released episodes on Amazon Prime, nor am I able to find any mention of this show outside various social media posts by the "Phantasmic Ghost Hunters" team that the show is coming. The group's own "official website" only barely mentions in passing that the show is forthcoming. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I concur, I cannot find any RS either. This is unusual for a show that supposedly has aired two episodes already. This is either way TOOSOON or a hoax. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per very low participation herein. Discussion about a merge can continue on a talk page, or can perhaps be boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Afrika Records

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

Record label fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The record label has not been discussed in significant detail to warrant a stand alone article. This is the only convincing source I could find. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ball J for now. Too many promotional wordings that lack reliable citations. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure). clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HealthCare Partners

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

NN company. Only one significant coverage article. They merged with Davita, but there's not enough coverage to warrant a merge here, and a redirect is perhaps not worth it. "HealthCare Partners" is so general a term without "Davita", I got hits for tons of other providers when I tried it. MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Neupane

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

Non-notable rapper lacking independent non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin Valley Library System

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

Non-notable, speaking as the article creator the Library System doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very regretful delete. After an extensive search, I was only able to find trivial mentions of this topic in secondary sources (see, e.g., this book). This is really too bad, because library systems are very important civic institutions, but they rarely receive press coverage (or any coverage, for that matter). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeanIn.Org

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

The founders are notable, and probably the book; there;'s no reason to think this is notable; Further, it's written as a press release "Resources providing information on how to create and maintain a circle can be found at http://leanincircles.org" Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself tagged this for speedy....but it was removed with no other attempts to at least consider deleting or otherwise questioning at all, there's also then nothing else to suggest any actual solid independent notability, with nothing else to suggest any minimal convincing, delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, check out these sources: [30], [31], [32], [33]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the article for the book. The organization is notable as a sub-subject of the book and Sheryl Sandberg but clearly isn't on its own according to the sources provided. Steven Walling • talk 02:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are tons of articles available for leanin.org via Google News to meet notability requirements. If you need more, you can also look up Lean In Foundation. I incorporated a few third party references like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, ESPN to get started. Given what the foundation does + the breadth of references available, this deletion discussion seems absolutely ridiculous. Article needs improved references and expansion, not deletion, merging or redirecting per WP:DELETE and WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Organization is well-known and the article just needs more work. If it's truly a crisis of bandwidth to the wikimedia foundation servers, then propose a merge tag and discuss that way; definitely not an AfD candidate. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST, and also: [34], [35], [36], [37], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pure promo. Honestly, it feels promotional enough to qualify for a WP:G11 deletion. Kolbasz (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article is positive in tone, doesn't make it promotional. However, to be balanced, I've been adding references and critical pieces about the organization, like this piece. There is enough news coverage for the article to pass GNG easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources about the topic. Also keep per improvements to the article after it was nominated for deletion (WP:HEY!). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Leveson

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 9 inadequate for economics. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Co-author of one well-cited work ("The production of health, an exploratory study") but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Lubitz

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article. The book Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick lists a number of people on page 310, to illustrate how different individual human beings are from one another. Raymond Lubitz is among the people listed. I know he is not particularly prolific otherwise. But I'm surely not the only one to read that enumeration and wonder who all these people are. And all of them (other than Lubitz) already had respective articles on Wikipedia. I'll see if I can dig up more about him. Gabbe (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS citations too slender for notability yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough here for WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Turner charlottesville

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

Non-notable unsourced BLP. Claims of leadership appear to be for a non-notable business, with a recent web presence. No news hits or mentions outside of the usual PR locations. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Can't find any independent coverage whatsoever, of either him or the company. Kolbasz (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCabe (economist)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. Only claim made for notability is that he is 'pioneer' in his field, but this is uncited. LK (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable economist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#1 - GScholar shows an h-index of 47, including one paper with nearly 4000 citations and two others with over 1000. PWilkinson (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass of WP:Prof [38]. Nominator is directed to WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. RePEc [39] lists him in their top 5% of world economics authors (actually closer to top 3%) and the top one at George Mason U. That should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per high rank in indexing services.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Run Jump Dev

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

Apart from (ironically) this non-independent coverage for this group of game devs, this article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no other meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 22:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 22:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not seem to be notable. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Stein-Evers

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. very little coverage revealed in gnews and GScholar LibStar (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability seems too slender yet. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She seems to have basically left academia, so I don't think WP:PROF is appropriate (nor that she passes it). Instead we should be looking for WP:GNG-based notability. But there, again, the subject appears to fall short. The references given may be enough to support the factual claims of the article but they are useless for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sang Bleu (tattoo)

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

This page looks to be a WP:SYNTHesis a mix of things. It's not clear if we are talking about a magazine, a tattoo shop, Maxine Buchi, or what. Note that this draft was rejected via AFC at Draft:Sang Bleu by one editor, created again at User:Bilishti95/sandbox/sangb by another editor and now we have this version. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sang Bleu was closed by you as delete, even though there was no consensus to delete, really. Was more procedural thing, I suppose, in that the draft article became moot. I am alerting @Stifle: in case he wishes to comment. Anyway, as for this article, I count at least five reliable sources. Whatever the problems with the article, this company seems to be notable and meet WP:ORG. Plus, I feel odd like saying this to an administrator, but I think you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding WP:SYNTH. If a business venture has a lot of different activities, it isn't SYNTH to try and write one article that mentions all of them, surely. Keep and rename to Sang Bleu. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is if there's no actual sources about the overall business venture that show that the venture is independently notable. This feel like it's arguing for an inherited notability for the business venture based on a mess of sourcing about the tattoo business, about the person and about the magazine and the remainder to shoehorn a clearly promotional page together. As to the MFD, there was support for deletion and one oppose based on WP:BITE which is a moot issue when another week had passed and the content was already been moved around. Otherwise, feel free to discuss it on my talk page further. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the article and the official site, this does seem to be a business project that operates a tattoo franchise, a magazine, a creative agency, licenses a clothing brand, etc. It does seem to be an entity owned by the husband-and-wife Plescia-Büchi team, with a lot of different branches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but is all of it notable? Is the clothing brand notable? I don't see any mention of it in the sources. If the magazine notable? Is the creative agency itself notable? The tattoo shop possibly seems notable. The fact that they want to expand into a multitude of different areas doesn't mean that we should just string together everything to make the conglomerate an article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough significant coverage in the various WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, it seems to me. As for clothing line, it is mentioned in the second ref, l'Hebdo. Collectively, once again, all told, this commercial venture by the Plescia-Büchi seems to me to ~~clearly~~ meet WP:ORG. We have a great many articles on companies with various brands or subsidiaries. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I must add that I too don't have a strong feeling on this one. So please consider my !vote above more of a weak one. (Except for the rename part: if we do keep it, a disambiguator obviously isn't required. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ping noted, but I don't have a strong enough opinion either way. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources seem sufficient. Rename suggestion above may have some merit. Artw (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mission (2017 film)

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

Filming has not yet begun, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 11:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: The Mission Mission Movie Abdullah Zahir Babu Shikari Jakir Hossain Simanto Abdul Aziz Dev Shakib Khan Srabanti Chatterjee Ankush Hazra Imran Mahmudul Jaaz Multimedia Eskay Movies

Comment: the article's current sources speak toward actors known for Shikari (2016 film) coming back together for a new project. But I have yet to determine if the project is to be titled The Mission or not. Still digging. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 19:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khuram Hussain

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

I do not see any reason why the person is notable. The person writes a column at HuffingtonPost and is the founder of some startup. There is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable and independent sources. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Guenther

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

promotional and mildly notable at best. We have no good specific criteria for curators, but borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason.

The style of this indicates writing by a PR agent: putting the prior positions at the end, with the list of current exhibitions as the main content. (and, for good measure, omitting any biographical details and not documenting the material provided) DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable museum curator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several Portland-area news articles are available, sbut they are all regarding his retirement, which makes it WP:BLP1E at most. The page is nauseatingly promotional... I cut a chunk from the lede. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Haydu

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a radio personality, who was known as host only on one standalone radio station in one media market before spending the rest of his career as a technician rather than an on-air voice. This is not enough to get a person over our inclusion criteria for radio hosts; while a single-market radio host can get an article if he can be shown to pass WP:GNG, local radio DJs do not get an automatic inclusion pass just for existing. But the only sources here are a fansite devoted to the station he was a host on, and a deadlink of a radio hobbyist's own self-published radio market history -- which means they don't count as reliable sources. I'll grant that this may have been includable under the standards that pertained in 2005, but the rules have been tightened up considerably in the past decade and he doesn't pass them as they stand today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local radio personalities are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Panar

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

New article, maybe there are some non-english sources, but I can't help but think this isn't stand alone material. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article creator has stated they'll be working on the article to add content and references, something they seem to be doing. Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A more useful Google Books search finds plenty of reliable sources that cover this topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bards of a major ancient cultural area are notable and there are plenty of sources (see the link in 86.17.222.157's opinion above), even if none of them seem to deal exclusively (or primarily) with the panars. Uanfala (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vawamas

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

Sources are not significant coverage, notability from the one band is not inherited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of the page, I'm currently doing my best to update it adding notes and removing non notable elementss. I think now the notability as single musician is good because he released many albums with different bands and under notable record labels (Underground Symphony, Lion Music, Scarlet Records.If you give me advices I'm happy to update the page, I wait for your judgment, thanks for all.
(Demetrio99 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 23:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St Thomas More, Subang Jaya

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

fails WP:ORG. The coverage is extremely limited. Created by a single purpose editor. It would be difficult for a church that has existed for only 5 years to establish notability compared to much older notable churches on WP. LibStar (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am on the fence about this one. But I have previously heard of this Church before (not by name, but rather as "a Subang Jaya Church" where an alleged miracle occurred). See [40], [41], [42]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it is the same church. A news search finds further coverage of this changed statue, as a one-week-wonder which has not yet been confirmed and probably never will be, so I don't think it's proper to add it into the article, lest it turn out to be a laughing-stock. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are sources to confirm the opening, there is scarcely any information on the page that should remain in a general purpose encyclopedia. Most of the content would only belong on the church's own website. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur. After looking at multiple sources, I think it is WP:TOOSOON for its own article. Almost everything I could find was in connection to the "alleged miracle" and this is not enough for notability. However, I prefer a redirect instead of delete. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur lists the churches in the Archdiocese and this particular church is listed as well. A redirect is appropriate here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lemongirl942. --do ncr am 17:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) LibStar (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Alam

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

fails WP:PROF. also an Unreferenced BLP. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, LibStar--apparently they occupy a named chair; see item 5 at WP:NACADEMICS. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A respectable showing on GS too. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep. Named chair at a top-ranked university is enough to get me to stop digging for anything more. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Behn

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

Delete: as non-notable child actor with one uncredited role to his name. Massive OR, cruft rv from article already; clearly created as a vanity page. Quis separabit? 00:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having one uncredited voice role comes no where near making someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Punks

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This is a 2016 indie film. The sources used are basically the only GHits for the film. There are no reviews, and it's not old enough to meet any of the criteria for awards or impact. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage found. Nothing to indicate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I only found local coverage for the film like the source already in the article, which is fairly surprising considering that they have known actors performing in the movie. Most of it is by one newspaper, Mid Valley News ([43], [44], [45]), although I did find one article by KCET, which is already in the article. If someone can find a review in a RS this would push it into keep territory for me, however this is just a teensy bit too light for it to really pass NFILM. If the sourcing was in maybe 1-2 more places that would make it different, but it isn't. I'm going to try one or two more places, but offhand this looks to be a delete on my end. No objection to someone userfying the content, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see on their Kickstarter, it looks like the film isn't due to come out until November, since the reward tiers including a copy of the movie show a delivery date of November 2016. Maybe this could be userfied or sent to the draftspace until then? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply still not enough for the needed solidity, it's a new indie film with none of the coverage actually being convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 23:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karissa Staples

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

Non-notable person - fails WP:PERSON. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Userfy or Draftify – I've added some sourcing to the article... but it's on the weak side. I think Staples falls just under the threshold suggested by WP:NACTOR. This one might be a candidate to Userify/Draftify, actually... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC) (OK, you guys won me over – changing !vote to "Userfy\Draftify"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC) ) [reply]

@IJBall: Based on the discussion so far, this could become a strong candidate for notability later. It is probably a case of posting this article too soon. So I agree that userfy or draftify is probably the best option. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, userfy or move to draft: This one might be worth keeping; taking the pageant wins with the acting gigs might get us there in combo. Worth at least moving to the creator or lead editor's userspace. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with userfy or moving to draft. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Morris, P. (2007). The Scandalous Elopement of Abraham Lincoln's Granddaughter and Minor League Pitcher Warren Beckwith. Base Ball. 3(2), 21. Chicago.

[2] Emerson, J. (2009). The Madness of Mary Lincoln. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale.

[3] King, C. J. (2005). Four Marys and a Jessie: the story of the Lincoln women. Hildene, Inc.

[4] (1930). The Lincoln Grandchildren: Mary Lincoln Beckwith. Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection.

[5] Lachman, C. (2008). The Last Lincolns: The Rise & Fall of a Great American Family. Union Square Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]