Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 June	10 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. Not surprisingly, there are strong opinions on both sides. Also not surprisingly, the arguments on both side cite a smorgasbord of policies. I don't see any egregiously weak arguments on the delete side, nor do I see any killer arguments on the keep side, so the overwhelming weight of numbers (roughly 4:1 in favor of delete) rules the day here.

The existing consensus of Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies and Alleged Clinton Controversies being deleted by wide margins also weighs somewhat on the side of deleting this (although less so with the first one, due to the large amount of time that has elapsed). The argument that this is a list and those weren't lists doesn't impress me very much; they're all fundamentally the same topic, just with a different packaging. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hillary Clinton controversies[edit]

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

Articles that are lists of controversies about a person are an inherently bad idea. All notable controversial material should be, and with this subject already is, included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in the main biographical article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section has long been considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism, and is a red flag for BLP violations as well. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here — and the same was subsequently done for some other political figures' articles, including those running in the 2012 presidential election. I hope it was also done for those running in the 2016 election.

Specifically with respect to HRC, there used to be a "Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies" article, that was merged out in 2007 as per Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Proposal_to_dismantle_this_article. Then there was an "Alleged Clinton Controversies" article, which was created and snow deleted last year, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies.

This third go-around suffers from many of the same ills as its predecessors. It is a dumping ground for all kinds of things, lumping in the serious (e.g. Travelgate, emails) with the poorly sourced and lurid (Foster) with the frivolous (OMG, a politician's memoir was ghosted and lacks candor!). It is a toxic stew of slanted presentation (e.g. mentioning that someone was indicted without also mentioning they were acquited) and guilt by association (e.g., things that Bill did). It contains tautological criteria for inclusion (making "disputable public statements that attract media attention" is what politicians do – they say things in public that many people will disagree with). Most of these entries are dealt with appropriately in other articles, in the context in which they occurred, which is how it should be. Much as it has often frustrated editors and readers, WP is not meant to be a one-stop shop for reading all the bad things that have been said about someone. Accordingly, this article should be deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pages that are a coatrack for negative material about a living person are pretty much auto delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the Alleged Clinton Controversies AfD, this is pretty much an obnoxious WP:COATRACK that doesn't belong here in any form. The insidious text in each entry basically is beyond the pale of WP:NEUTRAL or civility. Hiding it under 'list of' rather than 'alleged' makes it no better at all in my eyes. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a useful navigational aid to the many many many Wikipedia articles about Hillary Clinton; the main BLP is completely chronological and does not offer any consolidated summary of this set of information, and this list also provides a useful and concise collection of historical information about her including a brief one-sentence description of each controversy. For better or worse, lists of scandals and lists of controversies are common at Wikipedia. See, for example, the lists described at Category:Lists of controversies. This particular list of controversies supplements ~~a longstanding category, namely~~ Category:Hillary Clinton controversies. The latter category by itself is insufficient, because (like all categories about controversies) it is difficult to annotate with explanations, and also is not easy to wikilink to within article text.[1] There are hundreds of lists of controversies at Wikipedia, beginning with List of Wikipedia controversies. Many of these lists deal with specific people. See, for example, Controversies of Kirill I of Moscow. It is very common for an article about a person to include a list of controversies that is not big enough for its own article, for example Alan Pardew#Controversies, and if it is acceptable to have a section about controversies in a BLP (as innumerable BLPs have) then it is acceptable to have a separate article for them if the controversies become too numerous for a mere article section. A list of controversies in the Clinton case is especially appropriate because the BLP on her is chronological with literally dozens of other articles spun out for each controversy, and no section in the main article is devoted to linking to those other pages. So, the present list is useful as a navigation aid, in addition to the historical information it provides, including concise one-sentence summaries of each controversy. Incidentally, I wrote the list. P.S. This is not a "third go-around" as alleged, given that the first two "go-arounds" were not lists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catch-all "Controversies" sections within BLPs are also bad, for pretty much the same reasons. The 2007–2008 and 2012 efforts for presidential candidates merged all of those out too. I'm not sure about 2016 – I merged one out for Martin O'Malley a year ago with this edit but after that my participation in WP became much less. I'm sure there are examples like the Alan Pardew one but they are bad form; if I were working on that article the first thing I would do is merge the important items in that section into the mainline narrative and discard the unimportant ones. And there is no requirement that there be any navigation aid to find out everything bad about a person. People should just read the biographical article(s). Then they'll find out the good, the bad, the in-between, the indifferent. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also have an error of fact. Category:Hillary Clinton controversies is not a "longstanding category". It was created only late last year, by a drive-by SPA editor, and only barely survived a CfD via a 'no consensus' decision (I was away from WP at the time, just seeing this now). I don't think it should exist either. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive criticisms in your initial nomination above, which led me to make these improvements to the list. Thanks also for the correction about the error of fact, which I've struck through above. I emphatically oppose deleting the category about her controversies, given how common such categories are, see, e.g. Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. This list will have no effect on the chronological nature of the main HRC BLP. It will also have no effect upon the many articles that each focus on a particular HRC controversy. It's just a list. There's no requirement that such a list exist, but there's also no prohibition, and there's certainly lots of precedent. Reagan administration scandals. Political scandals during the George W. Bush Administration. Political scandals during the Clinton Administration. Et cetera, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as noted above, lists of this kind are just WP:COATRACKs for negative BLP info and magnets for POV pushing. We should not have these kinds of lists for any politicians, from whatever side of political spectrum, no matter how tempting a target they present. For the record, if somebody tries to create a list of Donald Trump controversies, I'll vote to delete that one too. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating a special exception for Hillary Clinton. There are hundreds of articles and lists like this. Reagan administration scandals. Political scandals during the George W. Bush Administration. Political scandals during the Clinton Administration. Et cetera, ad infinitum. And unlike the Hillary Clinton BLP, the Trump one already has sections devoted specifically to aggregating controversies, like "Allegations of business links to organized crime" and "Trump as plaintiff or defendant" and "Bankruptcies of four businesses". The Hillary Clinton BLP does not aggregate anything, because it's purely chronological.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Administration is the keyword here. Those are fine because those have actually been a part of presidencies and other individuals and are well sourced. This is attacking an individual who has not been elected yet to the presidency. No special exemption is being sought; it's a WP:COATRACK with major BLP issues, plain and simple, and you just screened past Nsk's statement that no matter who this was about, they would vote delete. Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "screened past" means, but Nsk mentioned Trump so I did too in reply. Every entry on the list wikilinks to a Wikipedia article that includes reliable sources. People throw around the word "coatrack" whereas it means an article that "ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". The nominal subject here is Hillary Clinton controversies and I have yet to hear what the other subject is aside from the nominal one. By the way, I've inserted footnotes for every item on the list, per comments above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete as obvious WP:COATRACK. Creator should be beaten soundly with a trout and told that Wikipedia is not a right wing blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COATRACK, what's the nominal subject, and what's the tangential subject? Do you realize that the Trump article, instead of being chronological like Clinton's, has sections devoted to Trump as plaintiff or defendant, alleged links to organized crime, and bankruptcies, respectively?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has the Trump article got to do with this piece of garbage? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People are saying this is garbage, but no one objects to the same sort of thing at the Trump article which I helped write.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so what? What goes on at the Trump article has nothing whatsoever to do with what goes on in this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per that essay, "other stuff exists arguments can be valid or invalid". Merely citing the essay is not useful. Just like citing WP:COATRACK is not useful without identifying what the nominal subject is, and what the tangential subject is. And just like citing WP:CHERRY is not useful without identifying any items within scope that were not picked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Controversies should be included in the main Hillary Clinton page. I agree that this seems like POV pushing, and would not support the creation of these pages for any politician. Some of these are real controversies, which are discussed in-depth in their own articles and are linked to the main Hillary Clinton article. However, the inclusion of many of minor gaffes/controversies (Speech patterns? Adoption of Clinton last name? Really?) seem to give the impression that they are on the same level as Whitewater and the email scandal, just by being listed on the same page. Thus, the article creates the impression that there are more serious Clinton scandals than there actually are.

Additionally, the short summaries after every link seem very biased to me. If the page is kept, they will at minimum need re-writing for NPOV. For example, "Clinton took responsibility for security lapses but allegedly engaged in blame-shifting" is not at all a good summary of the Benghazi attack. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the Benghazi summary so it says "Clinton took responsibility for security lapses at consulate where fatalities occurred". Regarding accent, the summary says "adopted southern drawl when speaking to southern black audiences". I think the racial component makes it more significant, but you're right that this has not received as much press as other things in the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I think, at the very least, this listing is an example of WP:CHERRY – it's completely one-sided, the listing is only negative and hence the definition of a coatrack. I will also note that this listing sounds awfully like an attack page: non-neutral, and considering when it was created (during an impending presidential campaign) I regrettably believe that its purpose may have been to disparage the subject. Now, the creator may continue to bludgeon their point that "there are similar articles on x, y, or z" – but I'm actually referring to this article and this subject. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without bludgeoning anything, I would like to deny that the purpose was to disparage the subject. The purpose was to list a bunch of Wikipedia articles that address controversies in which the subject was involved. And that purpose was accomplished, no more, no less.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anythingyouwant, and:
I see nothing wrong with a list of controversies, provided it conforms to policy including NPOV (assertions that NPOV precludes the article's mere existence are very subjective interpretations of NPOV, in my view). It's hardly inherently an attack on the individual, considering that no high-level politician has been without an abundance of controversy. Lincoln and Kennedy had their shares of controversies, and they both paid for them with their lives. To the extent individual controversies have been pure unadulterated politically-motivated bullshit, the list of them makes Clinton's attackers look worse than her; such is the nature of politics. The "insidious text" argument above is completely without merit. If the text is insidious, we fix it, we don't delete the article.
Any perceived motive on the part of the article's creators is irrelevant to this question, not to mention being unprovable. In any case, there is no policy that says good content must be erased because of POV motive on the part of its creators; this is one of many "rules" many editors have invented without demonstrated community consensus. It amazes me how many very experienced editors fail to grasp the full meaning of WP:AGF, or choose to ignore it. It ain't about being nice in a discussion.
I give our readers, at least the readers of articles related to politics, credit for knowing the difference between controversy and guilt. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is provable that my motives are neutral here, even though it shouldn't have to be proven. I created the article Legal affairs of Donald Trump, which is chock full of controversy just like this list is.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, who cares? What matters is this article. There's absolutely no legitimate reason to have a list of controversies, particularly as almost all of them are right wing bullshit. I would argue, in fact, that it is a BLP violation as well as a COATRACK (per MelbourneStar's rationale). Please stop pretending this is for the good of the project. It's clearly designed to disparage the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think it's a COATRACK, then why won't you say what the tangential subject is that differs from the nominal subject? Have you ever actually read WP:COATRACK?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

right wing bullshit shows who is allowing their bias to influence their editing judgment. It's clearly designed to disparage the subject shows who understands and observes WP:AGF. Kindly stop throwing POV accusations at established editors who have no documented history of POV-pushing. Basically, please observe well-established principles of discussion behavior. You do not have inexperience as an excuse. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, who cares? What matters is this article. No, what matters to you is loudly asserting POV-pushing despite concrete evidence of the editor's neutrality. Actually this is so transparent that I am not going to debate it any further. For the record, I find Trump quite repugnant, but per WP:AGF I should not have to say that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Trump. Why do defenders of this page keep mentioning Trump? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:LISTN, WP:LSC and WP:CSC the set of "HRC controversies" is notable and has been discussed in numerous reliable sources, as well as sourcing for each individual controversy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See here, just as another source. I believe the brief blurbs attached to each controversy are as neutral as realistically possible, but I think some of the "controversies" are indeed minor gaffes (Speech patterns?) that sit poorly next to the big ones (email scandal, Benghazi). For instance, the White House FBI files controversy, where she was cleared, and the Vince Foster "affair," which seems unfounded (she was cleared, and the Atlantic calls the whole controversy "wholly spurious"). While a "controversy page" is inevitably and inherently negative, I can understand the concerns of other editors that there may be COATRACK and BLP issues. I'm still on the fence about this one. GAB^gab 00:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on the speech patterns. If there's consensus to remove it then fine, but it's well-sourced and shows she used an accent that depended upon the listeners' race. The racial component really bumps up the significance, in my view, and maybe that's why there was so much coverage in reliable sources. I won't reply further unless you want me to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Various WP:FRINGE theories, most of them fully debunked, an attempt to smear a figure who is controversial to some, and a big BLP fail. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN; sourced, notable, and too expansive for merge into extant WPBIO LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but for some specific reasons. I think a fully-formed article on this subject, if it presents information that is more useful or relevant than a simple list or category, could add to the encyclopedia's mission in terms of organizing and presenting information. However, this article is a mere 1-2 days old at this point, and is no more than a very brief list. It would be better presented as a category. Whether it is this or anything else, we do need to face the organizational problem of compiling and directing readers to lists of controversies about a given subject, in this case Hillary Clinton. I would give some deference to how we treat this question globally across the encyclopedia, not a case-by-case deletion discussion, and not just about American politicians. What is the policy / guideline / consensus about "list of controversies" articles? Sounds like a category to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth repeating that since 2007 there has been a consensus at WikiProject United States presidential elections that these kinds of articles, and sections within article, are a bad idea. Earlier I wasn't sure how 2016 presidential candidates have been treated but I've now looked at all 27 'name' candidates and ticket nominees (6 Dems, 17 Repubs, 3 Libertarians, 1 Green). Of these, the only ones with "Controversies" sections or articles are Mike Huckabee (a "Praise and controversy" section that is mostly the latter) and Ben Carson. Take a look at the Carson section – it's a long list basically intended to make the man look like a liar, a fraud, and an ignorant fool. Is that the direction we want WP articles to go in? Be aware that the HRC controversies article that Anythingyouwant has started here is way incomplete. There are at least 25 additional entries I can think of off the top of my head that meet the same low bar for inclusion and that people will inevitably add: origin of her name, Black Panther Party, working at Commie law firm, memo on Watergate committee, joining the Marines, State troopers, Arkansas slur, defense counsel for rapist, Stand by Your Man, baking cookies and having teas, yelling at Secret Service, seances with Eleanor, removing the Foster files, co-enabling Bill, bringing Dick Morris unto the world, White House gifts, always a Yankees fan, 9/11 funerals, booed at 9/11 concert, St. Louis gas station, under fire in Bosnia, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, put coal miners out of work, Wall Street speeches ...) I'm sure there are at least a dozen more than I'm not thinking of right now. The point is, once started, these things become magnets for every bit of slop that can be thrown, just as those Huckabee and Carson sections are now. Is that the way to go? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Carson and Huckabee are the only ones. See, for example, Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Virtually everything described there is a controversy, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't looked at that one before. It's also a bad idea – too much numbing detail, too little context, end result inevitably skewed against the subject. It would be better to merge parts of it into The Trump Organization, into the articles on the various casinos and buildings, and maybe into a new Business career of Donald Trump article, since almost all the lawsuits occur in the context of his businesses. The main Trump bio article should of course discuss the general pattern of the legal affairs he's been engaged in. The only thing that doesn't have an obvious place is the Bill Maher orangutan thing ... Wasted Time R (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem at all with that legal affairs article. Legal affairs is a perfectly valid topic for a living person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Hillary Clinton controversies. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is an obvious WP:COATRACK, and consists almost entirely of WP:SYN. We have Category:Hillary Clinton controversies, and that should suffice. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LISTN. Obviously the articles listed must be able to stand on their own merits.CFredkin (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Clearly coatrack, POV, BLP violation and goes against long-term consensus regarding Presidential election articles that such "controversy" articles are to be avoided - as is well-known to the creator of the article. Tvoz/talk 01:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's not well-known to me that there's any long-term consensus against articles like this, which describes a set of information that has been discussed as a set by many independent reliable sources (see external links in this list). I also have no expectation that there will be any AfD on Legal affairs of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you feel there's little to no expectation there will be an AfD on the Legal affairs of Donald Trump – how about instead of complaining: you start said discussion? Otherwise, your reasons for keeping this article on basis that there are similar articles, is subject to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete that other article, or this one. I and others have cited policies and guidelines above for keeping this article, such as WP:LISTN. But I don't apologize for also comparing to other articles. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "While these comparisons [to other articles] are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically noted that there would be no AfD of Trump's article, and hence, why ought this article be deleted? --WP:OTHERCRAP. And might I add, those of us supporting a deletion, have cited WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, other AfD discussions on this matter and consensus reached on WikiProjects. If you wish to continue bludgeoning your point, go right ahead – consensus in this discussion, is starting to become quite clear. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way up this page you accused me of "bludgeoning". Now you do it again. Maybe that's bludgeoning? I will have no more replies to the questions you ask me, User:MelbourneStar. Please note that this particular thread started when an editor specifically referred to me ("the creator of the article") and so I make no apology for politely and briefly replying to that, as well as replying in this thread politely and briefly to a question you specifically directed at me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No clear inclusion criteria. Almost any political position in the United States will be "controversial," for example. The list is a mishmash: some of the entries involve actual investigations; some involve criticism of perceived "gaffes" in the media, and still others are run-of-the-mill political criticism or smears (the "accent" and "adopting last name" bits are particularly silly, and the inclusion of one author's speculation that Clinton and Vince Foster had some sort of romantic relationship is not a "controversy," only an unverified and irresponsible assertion by one author). I also agree with others that have pointed out that it raises BLP concerns for a list entry to give an allegation of misconduct on the part of an individual without also noting that the individual was subsequently cleared. Neutrality^talk 05:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Foster comment. I've improved that entry accordingly ("books allege that her relationship with Foster somehow contributed to his suicide"). The list for quite a while has not mentioned any indictment against anyone who was subsequently cleared while omitting the exoneration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding inclusion criteria, I have added a hidden note that says, "Please do not list a controversy here if you cannot link to a longer treatment of that controversy elsewhere at Wikipedia."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added a not yet published book (which is a primary source) to claim a plural on this fringe? Seriously? Desperate.--TMCk (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to add further sources. For you, I have just added this footnote: Kessler, Ronald. The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, p. 21 (Crown Publishing Group, 2014): "Hillary had attacked and humiliated her mentor from their former Rose Law Firm in front of other White House aides."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that is supposed to support what part of content and/or concern exactly? or are we simply doing some OR here?--TMCk (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is as well-sourced as anything at Wikipedia:

“

1993: Suicide of Vince Foster (books describe allegations that her relationship with Foster somehow contributed to his suicide^[1]^[2])

References

^ Book reveals Hillary's 'passionate affair' BBC News August 4, 1999
^ Kessler, Ronald. The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, pp. 21–22 (Crown Publishing Group, 2014): "investigation had concluded that Hillary's rage had led to her friend's suicide."

”

In any event, WP:AfD says, "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted". Even if there was some deficiency regarding this list's description of the Foster controversy, it has been fixed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is you being evasive, not responding to what was said. Sounds familiar. (And just now (ec) you removed the book from this post above).--TMCk (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's outrageously absurd. You said the Byrne book was not a good source, so I replaced it with a better one (Kessler). Please see WP:AGF.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna play this game. I'm not here to win an argument but to get answers (I apparently won't get).--TMCk (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I haven't seen much evidence that closers give much weight to these extended, extra-policy back-and-forth bickerings. I'd suggest that those of us who know the relevant policy follow the example of Gaijin42 and some others. Make your best policy argument and STFU. Those of us who don't know the policy that well, including me, should make our best partial-policy argument and STFU (I recognize that I failed to follow my own suggestion to some degree), and expect the closer to give less weight to our arguments. But the bickering is unproductive (how often do you see it change someone's mind and !vote?) and probably counterproductive, and certainly makes things harder for the closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another election season coat rack lowering WP standards even more than usual. The pretends of being something else is what annoys me the most.--TMCk (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Violates WP:BLP.--Proud User (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coatrack, and the very nature of this article is really just lots of undue negative weight on a living person. Any big controversies involving Hillary are best discussed in her main article and sometimes subarticles (i.e. Hillary Clinton email controversy) as Wasted mentioned above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "coatrack" and frankly, undue weight. As another stated above, "[c]ontroversies should be included in the main Hillary Clinton page" or even a sub-page. And it is worth noting that there is already a cat which directs readers to topics included on this list. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per the obvious coatrack arguments) -- and then grab the article creator firmly by the ear, take it to Arbcom and cut the legs out from under this shit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, and per TMCk. This is basically opposition research masquerading as a list (the fig-leaf justifications for its existence are sort of insulting to our collective intelligence). The material violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in that there are no clear inclusion criteria. There is also no attempt to present context or assess the credibility of the controversies, which creates a significant WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT concern. The list is redundant with Category:Hillary Clinton controversies, and provides little or no additional context or information. It is unnecessary as a navigational aid, given the existence of the category. Finally, the "keep" arguments seem to boil down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the particular latter comments suggest this as examining the article found nothing particularly convincing to suggest its own current article and thus any controversies are still subject to questionability for this article. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 16 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Companion[edit]

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

Non-notable web-based software. No indication of meeting WP:PRODUCT or WP:WEB. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's really odd to find absolutely nothing on google, and a web site that says nothing at all, (at least, nothing until you sign up for it, which I am not about to do for something where there's no information) Prod was declined,and it's a products so speedy a7 isn't applicable, but perhaps G11 ? DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not spammish enough to speedy delete but clearly fails WP:NSOFT. Pichpich (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticed this earlier and was going to comment, nothing at all for any applicable notability and there would be nothing else convincing given it was started only this month, nothing at all acceptable any time soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly failing GNG. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 15:50, 11 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 Hesitant Alien. (non-admin closure) SST flyer at 03:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millions (Gerard Way song)[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not pass WP:MUSIC/WP:NSONG criteria. Sekyaw (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a single by Gerard Way and he is a notable musician. Nothing wrong here. 2.163.138.252 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the artist is notable himself, the single is not by any means. A single requires its own notability. See WP:NSONG. Sekyaw (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really want to discuss it. Janclash (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to album as I would've accepted Redirecting alone but there's also still nothing to suggest its own better article, now or the future. S'wisterTwister talk 18:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete..and the other songs from him as well, god damn it. Terrible Music!!! I do not see any good in the future either and for this article too. 'Janclash'...just go straight to hell. 2.163.123.81 (talk) 23:56, 16 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 is that Joe does not reach the notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Seunghyun Cho[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Out of several sources sited on this page, some just mention Seunghyun in passing, and some do not even mention him. Google News search returns just 4 hits, none of which contains significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Autobiography of non-notable head of a notable company. Someone should write an article about Marvelstone, but definitely not with him involved in the writing, it was speedied as spam. OnionRing (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And yet another article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speaking as a local, there has been literally no mention of the subject in Singaporean media. The best is this and this where the subject is mentioned (in passing) in the context of the company. This is not enough to pass GNG. Delete, as subject has no independent notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's sufficient consensus here, examining the article clearly showed no minimal signs of any basic notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:54, 16 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towers Alliance[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG - only sites three references. Does not establish long term notability. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 22:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better and this obviously is not going to be better known as anything else than a local group for the towers, nothing else convincing to keep and improve. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 16 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 that Kristin does not meet the notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Richardson[edit]

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

Actress and dancer with little or no indication of independent notability, sources relate to her marriage to Kevin Richardson. There are some moderate guest appearances, but there appear to be no recurring characters on her resume.Much of the article is devoted to details of their wedding. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, a look at the Gnews/newspaper results show that this person falls far short our notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN individual, advertisement, vanity page. Lacks non-trivial support for article. User:Reddogsix (talk)
Delete as there's by far nothing actually convincing of any solid independent notability, several works....but nothing convincing of her own article. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:47, 16 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Porterfield[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television news anchor associated exclusively with a single media market. This makes and sources no substantive claim (e.g. winning journalism awards, etc.) that he's more notable than any of the other thousands of people around the world who hold comparable jobs without earning a Wikipedia article for it -- the content really offers nothing of substance beyond "he started at this station, then went to that one", and the sourcing (one local newspaper article, one blog, one blurb in a magazine and one recording in a non-media archive of personal interviews) isn't strong enough to get him over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As creator of the article I may be biased, but I just added an awards section and plan to expand the article when I get the chance. There is more information, such as Porterfield being one of the main figures in a CBS boycott, that I will add when I get the chance. Andise1 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Fairly new article. I added an Emmy source to his talk page that can be used to word his article better than "worked here, worked there". — Wylie pedia 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Emmy wins are local news Emmys, and if you know anything about local news, they give those out like candy on Halloween. In any case, the sources for the Emmy wins aren't what I would call reliable, they're both basically personal websites. Agree with nominator that he's a guy that had a job in TV news and didn't really do anything to distinguish himself from the countless other local news anchors in this country over the last 70 years; reliable secondary coverage is almost nonexistent, and it appears his only claim to fame is that his face was on a TV screen for his working career. Not enough to meet notability guidelines, in my opinion. LAroboGuy (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I waited to comment but at best there's still the thoughts of the only regional Emmys which are commong and overall the article is still not better convincing of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a section on the CBS Boycott with two New York Times references and plan to add more info/sources in general. Andise1 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note One article's about Lester Holt, Porterfield is barely a footnote in it.The other two also mention him in passing; he's not the subject of any of them. LAroboGuy (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Porterfield had a very long career in one of the largest media markets in the USA. Wiki pages with similar sources have survived AFD in the past, and there is additional information to be mined from the Chicago Sun-Times archives - e.g.: "Porterfield keeps rolling along with Ch. 2 news -- at 82" (August 6, 2010); "Porterfield back at WBBM - Will co-anchor 11 a.m. news after 24-year absence" (August 4, 2009); and many articles about the boycott. Robert Feder describes Porterfield's career has "legendary". Zagalejo^^^ 16:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some WP pages on similar people have survived in the past, but not all; we should probably revisit the ones that have. Trivial local information. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anchor in a very large media market. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for having received significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune, Adweek, WLS-TV, and The Times of Northwest Indiana, all of which are sources already in the article. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 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. The page evidently fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. We do not normally merge unverifiable and unsourced content. SwisterTwister, you have !voted twice; I considered your comments together as one. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meyrem Ayşe Sultan[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax though perhaps not flagrant enough to qualify for speedy deletion. Nevertheless, the article provides no references and none could be found online. As I indicated on the article's talk page: "The current content of this article is at odds with the content of Murad IV, Haseki sultan and Valide sultan. Given the complete lack of sources, this is enough to seriously question the validity of this article. Note also that a Google search for "Meryem Ayşe Sultan murad IV" finds nothing (beyond a few versions of Wikipedia articles edited by the creator ValideSultan (talk · contribs) to match this questionable content!)". Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invention for the most part, mixed with elements copied from Ayşe Hatun (wife of Murad IV)--Phso2 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches have found something to at least confirm it apparently exists but the current article is so questionable, there's nothing to suggest anything convincing and is thus best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article already exists in WP (see Ayşe Hatun (wife of Murad IV)). It should be merged to the former article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to merge if "Meyrem Ayşe Sultan" is an invented name which appears to be the case. Pichpich (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely imaginary person. The article is also unsourced. None of the books or historians mention the existence of such woman. Keivan.f^Talk 11:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I intended to comment sooner, I was able to find some sources but nothing to finally clear the current questionability. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 16 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 Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks#Veteran services. I will merge what little information I could find. MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Hope[edit]

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

Not clear that it is actually a separate organization from the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks § Veteran services, which this is affiliated with. This will improve the merge target article, which presently only has a name mention. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. Source examples include: [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as this is only an organization thus there's no inherited notability and there's overall still nothing actually suggesting its own actual notable article, nothing else to suggest better anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 16 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Guerra[edit]

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

Reason Synergism1 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Low notability and not enough reliable, unbiased sources are available. Article is also written like something that I would expect to see on this guy's website as opposed to a wikipedia page.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I do agree with Synergism1 that article needs a lot of work. The only page that is explicitly listed as a reference on the article is its own webpage. There are other sources listed that could be used but should be properly cited. In addition to the listed interviews, I could find this article from Music Nashville. So there seems to be just barely enough in depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines. If the article is kept it should be either improved or tagged. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Again, the page needs cleanup and currently reads like a puff piece but the subject is somewhat notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article satisfies WP:N's "General principles". Whilst the article does need work, that is not a proper deletion rational (See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:HANDLE, WP:IMPROVE, etc). Dan arndt (talk) 06:41, 13 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. Uncontested, a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexitude[edit]

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

The references amount only to press releases--or straightforward advertisements . No sign of any actual reliable coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's still only 5 years old and localized so any available coverage is going to be imaginably local, nothing else convincing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did a Google search to find only sources related to the subject. There does not seem to be a lot of national exposure, or local sources even. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:47, 16 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. Uncontested, consensus is that Jane does not meet the notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Gilmer[edit]

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

Three editors tagged thgis as A7 under CSD . The only refs show that she exists and has a role as a teacher and that she has written a book. Nothing indicating any notability has been produced and searches do not show anything. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The references actually show even less than what Velella says. One reference shows that she has a job as a teacher, and the other shows that she wrote a one-sentence comment about a book, not that she wrote the book itself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single independent source, and nothing in the article or anywhere else to indicate any notability. In my opinion the speedy deletion nominations were correct, but since an administrator has decided to decline the speedy deletion, we will see how this discussion goes. (Incidentally, no reason was given for declining the speedy deletion nomination, unless you count "has sources" as a reason, but since "no sources" was not the reason given for the nomination that is irrelevant.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far still nothing minimally convincing of any basic notability, there's information and sources here but still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:47, 16 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, criterion G7: deletion requested by sole contributor. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meryem Ayşe Sultan[edit]

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

This is a fantasy article made from patches copied from Ayşe Hatun (wife of Murad IV) mixed with the creator's own (unsourced and source-contradicting) theories. There was no historical character with this description. Phso2 (talk) 20:03, 9 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 Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quaggoth[edit]

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

The article only has primary sources, and there do not appear to be any that could be added to properly establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. This was already merged to that article once before, and no new third party sources were added when it was restored. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Torchiest. TTN, did you try re-redirecting it before coming to AfD? Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 14 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 Riverside, Iowa#Star Trek. MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Voyage Home Riverside History Center (Riverside, Iowa)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Most of the references don't mention the museum, but are about Riverside, Iowa and its links with Star Trek. There is a great deal of unreferenced detail about the exhibits. I can't find any significant coverage of the museum online, GNews yields only a passing mention in the Chicago Tribune and a press release from Walter Koenig. There should be a section on the museum in the Riverside article: the history section (and the photos) could be merged to Riverside, Iowa#Star Trek. But a separate article for this is unnecessary. OnionRing (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Riverside, Iowa § Star Trek, which presently has no mention of this topic. This will improve the merge target article. Not finding coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the only mention as needed at that section as there's still questionability this will ever be solidly notable as its own and if it ever actually is, we can revisit it. For now, it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the article is first deleted, mentions of the topic at the merge target article I suggested may never actually be performed, because users wouldn't be able to access the content of this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 17 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Dunphy[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. World titles are in brown/black belt age group divisions of a minor organization. The results page shows many divisions without enough competitors to even fill out the top 3 places. Neither rank nor halls of fame are considered to show martial arts notability. Lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some tournament results, IMDB listings, and local coverage (by someone who thinks kata is a martial art) are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. He also doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and, as Mdtemp mentioned, rank and martial art halls of fame do not confer WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I also concur with the above, there's information and a Hall of Fame but it's all still questionable also, along with the fact there's nothing else aside from that to have suggested anything otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 16 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 is that Sam does not meet the notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Just a note that google hits, Twitter following, own website and sponsorship are weak arguments to put forward. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Crossed[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Previous article was deleted 3 months ago. Since then he's had 1 minor fight. Fails WP:NBOX with 3 minor fights. Claim to fame is still appearing in the one local Super Bowl ad with Mike Tyson. Being one of 14 heavyweights invited to the Olympic Trials doesn't show notability, especially when he didn't compete. Coverage is either for appearing in the ad or routine sports reporting so he fails WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Db-repost for this article was declined on the grounds that the issues raised in the AfD were addressed. I don't think they were - subject does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you google Sam Crossed boxer 630,000 results pop up. He has a very large fan base, has a cult like following on Twitter from the boxing community and has had a featured story done on him before his last two fights by prominent boxing writer Steve Kim which isn't routine sports reporting. He has his own website, sponsored by Everlast, a prominent boxing equipment company. Most well known 3-0 boxer in the US and that is a fact. until the next batch of Olympians turn pro and even then he will be more well known then a lot of them. Wbballplayer13 (talk) 3:51, 10 June 2016

The number of google hits doesn't matter (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). Plus, you get almost as many hits if you google his name and super bowl ad so at best his notability falls under WP:BLP1E. Having your own website isn't a sign of notability and what notability criteria does being the "most well known 3-0 boxer in the US" meet? And do you have a source for that claim, besides WP:ILIKEIT? Kim's articles talk about the ad, tonight's fight, and how to buy tickets for his fights. That seems more like routine sports coverage and makes it questionable that the source's coverage is significant, independent, and from a reliable source.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence that he's done anything in the last three months making him notable per WP:NBOXING. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He wasn't notable earlier this year and nothing has really changed. He obviously doesn't meet WP:NBOX. I don't think that appearing in a local ad with Mike Tyson is sufficient to show notability via WP:GNG. I agree with the comment about WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's information and sources but still nothing to suggest otherwise better for the current questionability, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 16 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New District[edit]

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

Article, relying primarily on primary sources and blogs, about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC -- the strongest claim here is that their newly-released debut single is "sure" to become a hit in the future, and the whole article is striking exactly the advertorial, rather than encyclopedic, tone that a notability claim like that would imply. As always, a band is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist, or because a user predicts that they'll pass WP:NMUSIC in the future -- an article is not appropriate until after something that would get them over NMUSIC has already happened, and even then it has to be written in a neutral tone rather than a marketing/PR tone. Delete, without prejudice if and when the song actually does become a verified, rather than merely predicted, hit. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the crystal-ball aspect of the entire claim to notability, the sources in the article simply aren't good enough to sustain any such claim. If that's really all there is, then there's a clear-cut failure to satisfy not only the music-specific notability guidelines, but the general ones, as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far clearly too soon, started only this year with only imaginably expected coverage...with there nothing else convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, just for the record, that I've also had to pageprotect the article because there were multiple attempts on June 13, by both the article creator and an anonymous IP number, to remove the AFD template from the article while this discussion was still active. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 16 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. Sandstein 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RagTime (software)[edit]

(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 and is only sourced to self-published press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's keep and improve upon this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmer Jamil Khan: Thanks for your feedback. Can you provide a reason why you think the article should keep? Meatsgains (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's too soon at best and searches found nothing particularly better. Delete as this is still too soon and there's nothing enhancingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Obendorf, Hartmut (2009). Minimalism: Designing Simplicity. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 194. ISBN 1848823711. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  The book notes:
  
  A small german company, Brüning and Evert Softwarepartner GmbH, produced in 1986 one of the first word processing applications for the German market, running on Apple Macintosh computers. Already in 1989, this softare integrated office and publishing tools: Ragtime 3, as it was now called, quickly captured a share of also the French market. In 1999, Ragtime 5 was released for Microsoft Windows and in 2003, a version for Mac OS X became available (Ragtime, 2005).
  [Caption for photo]: Fig. 6.39 Ragtime 3 introduced the different content types still in use today. Screenshot Courtesy Ragtime.de
  6.3.6.1 Analysis
  Ragtime never aimed to compete directly with Microsoft Office, unlike other products such as StarOffice/OpenOffice.org, KOffice, or Abiword. What makes it an interesting example here is its very different philosophy: it does not try to accumulate features from domains, such as spreadsheets, drawing applications, or DTP layout software, and integrate these into a simple word-processing software. Instead, the basis for integration is not the continuous text but the layout of the page: In Ragtime, frame elements are positioned on the page. A frame's type defines both its rendering and applicable tools—there are frames for word processing, frames for spreadsheets, for diagrams, for bitmap and vector graphics, and for movies, pictures and sounds. When a frame is selected, the accessible functionality is adapted to the content of the frame: click and selection semantics change, context menus contain only useful commands (some general and some content-specific), and toolbars are exchanged to provide useful functionality.
  Ragtime exemplifies the combination of different tools within a single application. Each single tool is much simpler than its competitors, e.g., the spreadsheet tool cannot create diagrams by itself like, e.g., Excel, and the word processor cannot create tables. This is compensated by a close integration of the tools. Ragtime's basis is the spatial layout of content areas on the virtual page. Each area is assigned a content type (Fig. 6.39, 6.40) that determines the tool responsible for rendering and manipulation.
  The data in individual tools can be linked to create sophisticated renderings: the graphing tool takes numerical input from a spreadsheet, automatically updating the graph when the numbers are changed. The layout functionality uses direct manipulation for the content areas, much as special DTP programs do. This makes it possible to graphically combine, e.g., a spreadsheet table with text (Fig. 6.41). Each tool is responsible for strictly delimited tasks and can thus be functionally very simple.
2. Cohen, Peter (2002-01-17). "RagTime business DTP software goes Solo, for free". PC World. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17 – via Macworld.
  The article notes:
  
  ComGrafix Inc. today announced that it has made RagTime available for free, for private non-commercial use.
  RagTime, developed by RagTime GmbH, is a suite of business publishing applications that combine word processing, spreadsheet, pictures, drawing, charting and slideshows. The software started life on the Mac and is now available for both Mac OS and Windows. The new package is being distributed as RagTime Solo and can be downloaded online.
  The company noted that RagTime Solo's principal difference to its commercial counterpart is a dialog box that appears when first booting the program. The window asks the user to acknowledge that RagTime Solo is to be used for non-commercial purposes only.
3. Ehrmann, Stephan (2007-07-03). "Office-Pakete: RagTime ist tot, es lebe RagTime" (in German). Heinz Heise. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
4. Software Reviews on File. Vol. 6. Facts on File (Infobase Publishing). 1990. p. 731. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  The Google Books snippet view notes:
  Version 3.0 adds charting capabilities and support for 24-bit color. RagTime also supports four scanners: the Siemens, Agfa, Logitech's Scanman, and Apple scanner. With RagTime you can create a form, a business report, charts for
5. Sorensen, Karen (1986-08-18). "Mac Program Joins Graphics With Text, Spreadsheets". InfoWorld. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
6. Kellner, Mark (2002-01-07). "Publishers receive quality music with RagTime". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  The article notes:
  
  Making music with RagTime: From Germany comes RagTime, a rather powerful desktop publishing program that also works well with spreadsheets and databases. It's on a par, in many respects, with Adobe's PageMaker, but there's a crucial difference that might perhaps appeal to those who want a high-quality program but are on a limited budget because they are a nonprofit group or hobbyist: the software is free for such purposes. Details can be found at www.besoftware.com, the Web site of the program's creators. It's free for individual, not-for-profit use; if you want to use it in business, copies sell for $500 from www.comgrafix.com, Web site of the program's U.S. distributor.
  RagTime offers the professional look and feel of other desktop publishing programs, and is fairly easy to learn. In fact, a tutorial is included with the program and it launches each time the software starts, although you can learn to turn it off if desired.
  ...
  While RagTime is easy to learn, make no mistake: there is a learning curve, and you will want to spend a fair amount of time with the software before attempting things that will go out to the world at large.
7. Barker, Garry (2004-05-06). "Publish and be praised". The Age. Archived from the original on 2016-06-17. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  The article notes:
  
  RagTime comes from Germany, shrine to solid engineering and source of such benchmark stuff as Graphic Converter and Toast. It runs on Mac OS X Panther as well as Mac OS 8 and 9, (oh, all right, and Windows, too).
  The professional version, touted as a Quark killer, costs $1337 but, incredibly, there is a consumer version called RagTime Solo that is free. It is a 43MB download, and you need an equal amount of free disk space for the installation.
  ...
  Take a run with RagTime Solo (ideally while playing Scott Joplin, on iTunes). It is easy, functional and, bless the beer-drinking souls of those German engineers, free.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow RagTime to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:46, 17 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 02:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soka Gakkai Italian Buddhist Institute[edit]

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

Pointless additional of article as this article can be added into Soka Gakkai International and Buddhism in Italy. Adding new article serve no purpose at all. Kelvintjy (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Otherwise we should delete all national religious denominations or national parties because there are already articles on their respective international federations or political internationals. That would be non-sensical. The SG-I is an organization under Italian law and has even signed an agreement with the Italian government, which will be converted into law sometime soon. The article should be expanded, not deleted.--Checco (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Checco (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a few more opinions on this one. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 12 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay White (wrestler)[edit]

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

Pro wrestler with no significant independent coverage. Coverage is either from his promotion or routine sports reporting of upcoming fights or results.Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Has done nothing of note in his career yet. Try again in a couple of years. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 17:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Zewdie[edit]

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

Non notable boxing trainer. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Appearing in a film about someone he trains is like a passing mention in an article--not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Not enough to establish WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG or any SNG. I agree that appearing in a documentary about a fighter he trains is akin to a passing mention in a written article. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 13 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. Uncontested, agreement that the subject does not meet notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ketchup Onyido[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. The subject of article hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. Several source searches only provided this single source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:46, 16 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acadia Realty Trust[edit]

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

Non notable company fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Mostly trivial and insubstantial coverage/press releases found, besides this. Nothing to establish notability. GAB^gab 16:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've pursued PROD, by far nothing at all convincing and nearly also speedy deletion material but it may removed because of the stock exchange listing. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 9 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 Walford Davies. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Walford Davies[edit]

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

No indications that this member of the British peerage is notable for anything other than whom she married or other connections. But notability is not inherited. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Walford Davies per above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate independent notability, unless offline sources can be found. I don't see anything to merge into the Walford Davies article that is not already there and the name is not a likely search term that would justify a redirect. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article was tagged for speedily deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7. The speedy deletion tag was removed with the edit summary "decline A7, WP:INHERITED is not a CSD criteria, what would User:The Lady Catherine de Burgh say?" Now "WP:INHERITED is not a CSD criteria [sic]" is irrelevant, as nobody had said that it was, and I can only assume that the reference to the editor known as "The Lady Catherine de Burgh" is a joke. The article tells us nothing whatever about its subject apart from listing people she was related to, which is not a claim of significance. Can anyone give any good reason why I should not carry out the speedy deletion for which the article was nominated? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: No complaints from me. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, I declined the CSD with a specific reference to WP:INHERITED because it implies there is a credible claim of significance (in this case, there indeed is, being married to a notable person) meaning the article does not meet the criteria. As I have !voted "redirect", I do not believe you have consensus to delete without the discussion, unless perhaps 5 other people turn up all !voting delete and it is closed per WP:SNOW. I see nothing wrong with taking a sentence or maybe two from what is written here and putting it in the main Walford Davies article. As a by-product, I find new editors tend to stick around longer if you don't smack their first article with a CSD-hammer. Just sayin'. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Dear, darling Connie was one of my closest friends; in fact, we came out together - that alone makes her more than notable. I can only assume that she has been nominated for deletion by the Bolshevik section of Wikipedia and it's very bad faith indeed. Connie was a very beautiful person inside and out which is a great deal more than can be said for most of the people here! She was married to two very notable men, I admit that does not make her quite as notable as me, who has been married to several, but if we are going to have the likes of Hilary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Mrs Mandela and that woman who married one of the Beatles who have all only been married to just one singular notable person, then Connie has done more than enough to deserve her own page. I don't wish to hear any more on this matter. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sarcasm noted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sarcasm..? Anyway, my dear Lady Catherine, it's a bit of a pity that none of the famous people Lady WD was connected to, other than her first husband, have their own Wikipedia article. A sad oversight. Maybe it would help if you created articles for the rest of them? I do agree your coming out together is enough to make her notable. However… you realise the Bolshevik section of Wikipedia won't understand the term "coming out" as anything other than a reference to LGBT people coming out of the closet? I've linked your (to any refined sensibility of course self-explanatory) term above to the article Debutante. I did this after some hesitation, indeed, as the notion of you and Lady WD exiting "the closet" hand in hand might raise a flood of excited "Keep" votes for the bio of this intriguing woman. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you Mrs Bishonen, I am disappointed that you have brought smut into this conversation. I don't hold with all the gayness and whatnot, far too much of it about - in my young day, a jolly good dose of cod liver oil used to cure all that sort of thing. All these people have far too much time on their hands, no wonder they are all fiddling about with each other - reintroduce conscription that's what I say. Returning to subject: I note that Lady Walford Davies is Godmother to Bridget Jones. What more has the poor woman got to do to be notable? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this day and age a spot on reality television does the trick. Well it worked for this lady and this lady. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Walford Davies or Delete. Not notable Paul W (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as there's still nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as appropriate, but there is nothing notable here. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walford Davies as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 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. Clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Granit Ademi[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Ademi has not yet played at the level (top tier professional or top tier international amateur play) required to merit inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hardly any mentions of Granit Ademi online — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Islington (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere near satisfying WP:FOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Apart from that, the article is completely unsourced BLP and written in a promotional (broken English) language.No longer a penguin (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:18, 9 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) 15:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:43, 16 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 Zooropa. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babyface (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS in every possible way. No third party independent notability, no major chart placements, no indication that the info can exists independently. Deletion is not detrimental to the encyclopedia. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zooropa. My search showed no coverage independent of the album. Since the article on the album already has due coverage of the songs, I don't think there is much to merge either. Most of the other songs on the album can be nominated for deletion in a similar manner. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zooropa no quality independent coverage, and nothing of value that isn't or can't already be in album article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:28, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote counting in the Philippines[edit]

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

This is wholesale copy and paste from Philippine general election, 2016#Counting machines, as apparently that section was overly detailed. If {{PanchoS}}, who, in the reversion of my edit removing the cleanup tag there, said that "these (or other) machines were already used in 2013." even read what he copied, he should've read the following: "On August 13, the commission agreed to lease 94,000 new OMR machines for 7.9 billion pesos, while the old machines used for 2010 and 2013 elections would be used for the 2019 elections."

As for the introduction "that goes back to 2010", when it was originally written, the scope of the section was on how these machines were acquired for 2016. For some reason, something about 2010 made its way to the article, for reasons I dunno. As that subsection was well within the scope of the article, which was about the election in the Philippines that happened in May 9, 2016, it makes no sense to wholesale copy and paste the section to a new article (this one), and hope someone writes something about the 2010 and 2013 elections. Acquiring these machines is as important in the preparation (of which this is a subsection of) as the other things that were being done such as voter and candidate registration, which are also described in the article.

If someone can guarantee me that sections about 2010 and 2013 will be written on this article in the near future, I'd gladly rescind this AFD, but as it stands, this is completely redundant to the subsection linked above. –H T D 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: Stop your continued disparaging rants. As I told you, this is a proper WP:SPLIT from Philippine general election, 2016#Counting machines, with initial, basic attribution being given in the edit summary. Following your PROD, I informed you about this and the proper (although optional) attribution badge I had added to the talk page in the meantime. So your continued titling as a "wholesale copy and paste" stinks a bit.
Now to the facts. Philippine general election, 2016#Counting machines is the right place for an overview of all relevant events that are related to the 2016 election. It however isn't the best place for intricate details about old and new counting machines, their leasing contracts and the whole background of electronic vote counting in the Philippines. Splitting the article allows focussing the election article on the actually relevant events, which may include new procedures and widely covered problems with the new machines, but not the whole context of voting machines on the Philippines. Splitting the article also helped produce a halfway acceptable article on the general topic of Vote counting in the Philippines which can (and should) be further improved, expanded and linked by future election articles. Instead of producing wastelands of one-off content, we're trying to condense content on specific topics. Finally, that's what a Wiki is all about. --PanchoS (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry for calling your wholesale copy and paste edit as a wholesale copy and paste edit.
- As for details on how these are acquired; for each and every election since 2010, the reliable sources cover this acquisition of voting machines. It may not be the most exciting part of the election, but we have sources to back these up. This is done in every election, just like voter and candidate registration, results and aftermath, of which we have sections about. This is indeed, in your words, a "one-off" event; now, on whether the commission would use these machines in the future, we'd discuss that in an article about the future election, just as we'd be discussing voter and candidate registration, and everything else that's done in an election.
- As for WP:SPLIT: This was done, and I'm sorry if this offends you, and if this comes of as a "rant", wrongly. If this was a split, this would've went to a more "specific" article, like "Vote counting in the Philippine general election, 2016". As it is, the split is for a more general article, with no guarantee that similar content for what happened in 2010 and 2013 will be added. I know Wikipedia is not finished, but that's not how split works.
- Again, that section isn't about "Vote counting in the Philippines" in the same way that the "Voter registration" section is about "Voter registration in the Philippines" (from 1907 until now). It is about "Counting machines" in the 2016 election.
- As the article stands, it's redundant, with no guarantee of expansion, unless copying and pasting is expansion. –H T D 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is an added benefit to have all information about Vote counting in the Philippines collected in a single place, where it may be linked from more general articles such as Elections in the Philippines or Vote counting, or from future Philippine election articles. I agree that there is still much to be merged in from the 2010 and 2013 elections, as well as the pre-electronic voting period. But IMHO that doesn't invalidate the fairly decent start. Now let others decide, instead of exchanging further spiteful remarks. --PanchoS (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements to the article by PanchoS and WP:HEY. An alternative would be to merge this back to Philippine general election, 2016 § Counting machines. Regardless, deletion of this content from the encyclopedia would make no sense. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but (a lot) more work needs to be done re WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY on the split and main/s. Aoziwe (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re @Northamerica1000:, @Aoziwe:: No content would be deleted, they'd just be merged back... actually there's nothing to merge as these are all direct copy-paste of prose from the respective general election articles. Unless the creator of this article blanked the pertinent sections on the general election articles (I haven't checked). –H T D 17:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I last looked there seemed to be too much detail in the parent article and the new split main/s needed to be double checked that they had all the detail and there needed to be better summarisation in the parent article with less detail. Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there's enough here to suggest its own acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Lee Bouvier[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to be independently notable enough to meet WP:BIO requirements. Most if not all credible works discussing her largely pertain to daughter Jackie, and family affiliations alone simply aren't enough to warrant a standalone article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We concern ourselves with whether someone is notable rather than why they are and having their obituary in the NYT suggests to me they are notable. A book about her and her daughter adds to this. I'm not clear that it is any more appropriate to argue that she is only notable because of her daughter than to argue that, without her, her daughter would not have been born. I can't help but think that in covering royal families such as the Kennedys the mother-in-law is worth an article if there is verifiable material (which in this case there is). Thincat (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having an obituary does not on its own make one notable. Neither does being connected to the Kennedy's or any other family. WP:BIOFAMILY states being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. The problem with trying to use that bio to justify keeping this article is that much of it is about her daughter and not Janet herself, and even if it did, being her mother isn't some automatic free pass for notability. She needs to be noted for her own merits rather than her family's. From what I've seen, she isn't independently noted for anything meaningful of her own merit (failing WP:ANYBIO) that doesn't have to do with family connections. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course having an obituary doesn't make someone notable. However, if you have an obituary perhaps it is because you are notable. The subject clearly meets our standards for the topic to be "presumed to merit an article" on account of coverage. But you seemed to be suggesting that, despite this, the subject should not be considered notable because the coverage is not really about her or would not have been written except for who her daughter was. And I disagree. I think you are not taking sufficient account of her own life and what she did. That is my opinion and it is different from yours. Would we have an article about Jackie if she hadn't married Jack, or Aristotle? Would we have an article about a book editor? We need to take account primarily of whether there is adequate coverage and, if there is, taking things overall, is this person reasonably important so that it is fitting for there to be coverage in an encyclopedia. We should not be inserting our opinions on whether the person "deserves" to be considered important. Thincat (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that she doesn't meet WP:Notability (people), the basic criteria used for determining whether biographies warrant articles. It exists for very good reason and should be put to use. I don't deny for a moment that there are sources talking about her, but they aren't really enough to show notability in this case. People don't warrant articles solely based on their connections to other people. Notability is not by any means inherited. Jackie on the other hand is someone who is noted for her merits outside of family connections. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia articles are not rewards for some kind of perceived "merit". They are a means for organizing encyclopedic content in a way that makes them best accessible to users. Janet's biography is certainly encyclopedic information, organized clearly and succinctly, and notable in the Wikipedia sense given the book and assorted news items about her. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is already over 105K and I see no good reason to force a reader who is looking for information about Janet to dig through Jackie's article. As so often happens in these discussions, inherited notability is invoked but misses the point: Janet is not notable because she is Jackie's mother, she is notable because there is amply significant coverage about her in multiple published reliable and independent secondary sources, and she accordingly passes WP:BASIC.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie's article size is irrelevant. Also, WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper states even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be, so being mentioned in sources doesn't necessarily mean something is worth a page. Again, no denial that there are credible works discussing her at all, but "presumed notable" doesn't automatically equate to "is notable". The fact that most if not all of the good sources that do mention her are largely about her daughter is also a red flag. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be enough to substantiate an article here, independant of Jackie O. It would come down to her being a famous socialite, and there is little here to substantiate that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although her contributions are not notable in themselves, certain online references and the article's sources indicate that this page could be a useful addition to Wikipedia. Star Islington (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The contributions themselves would actually have to be noteworthy to truly warrant an article, which is far from the case here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To cite WP:NOTINHERITED, "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". Is she known solely for her connection to her daughter Jackie? Yes, but it does not matter. She generated enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, even if that coverage was not due to something substantial that she contributed to the world. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually DOES matter per WP:BIOFAMILY, which states that being related to someone famous is not in itself enough to establish notability. Even if she did have enough independent meet GNG, which I seriously doubt since most if not all good works even mentioning her is largely about Jackie, she isn't independently noted for anything meaningful of her own merits. Also, the point of WP:NOTINHERITED is that you CAN'T make good arguments for keeping by saying they're related to someone famous. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, all it says is that the relation is not in itself enough to establish notability. But that no one is arguing that it should. However, if she gets sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG, then she is notable in her own right, even if her main claim to fame is having a famous daughter. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really enough quality material for even that since there are very few (if any) good works available that go into much on her without lots of focus on Jackie. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be "without lots of focus on Jackie"? Nowhere in the WP:GNG does it say that the coverage has to be exclusive, only that it's significant. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent coverage is needed so a subject can more clearly be assessed for quality and quantity of material. The bulk of good works that mention Janet at all are really more about Jackie, whether it's biographies or news reports on her daughter. Any coverage available outside of those is far from significant except maybe her obituary. One good source alone simply isn't enough to warrant an article regardless of claim to notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG on her own. Please notice, too, that she had a role in the White House, as standing in for Mrs. Kennedy as the hostess. If you look her up on Newspapers.com, there are a ton of hits about her--especially in regards to horsemanship and as a socialite. A lot of the hits are for premium subscribers, however. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Search engine test#General, the sheer number of results from searches isn't an automatic indicator of notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps rather than simply arguing that she does/doesn't meet the GNG, people could mention which sources they believe show that she meets the GNG? Just looking at the article, the obvious one is Janet and Jackie: The Story of a Mother and Her Daughter, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. As far as I can see, nothing else cited in the article helps establish that the article meets the GNG: there are two wedding notices, two obituaries (all routine and run-of-the-mill), some articles about people related to her who aren't Jackie O; a biography of Jackie O, and Where the Bodies Are: Final Visits to the Rich, Famous, and Interesting. I don't have access to all of these, and so haven't actually checked them, but I would be surprised to find that they help establish Bouvier's notability. On the other hand, there may well be other stuff out there, and if anyone can show that there is more than what is given in the article, then the case for notability could be made stronger. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:01, 16 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyNotex[edit]

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

No independent refs provided and a search fails to find any other than the usual software listing. Fails WP:GNG and is just one of very many similar applications . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Did your search not turn up references such as [7] or [8] which are clearly reviews and not software listings? DeVerm (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notable sources. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by cited sources: [9], [10] ~Kvng (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability as per listed sources. I have fixed the referencing in the article and moved the manual to external links. DeVerm (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does seem slightly promotional but the added references seem to be reliable reviews which, to me, satisfies WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:N. - Pmedema (talk) 16:05, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farrhad Acidwalla[edit]

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

Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Looks like an advertisement of the person with lots of PR done online, no physical presence and not even done any notable work or received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems only a speaker who has done lots of PR. Vinay089 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Indian businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Class Manufacturing:[edit]

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

Meaningless term, ised as a general superlative. To the extent it does have a meaning, the relevant policy is NOT DICTIONARY. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. -NottNott|talk 09:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a WP:DICDEF that tries to be an encyclopedic article. Original research is present in a synthyness way with the statement "many publications could be considered as advancing the cause of world-class manufacturing" which is in the "Concept" part of the article and extends into the "see also". I am dubious with the addition of Lean and Six Sigma manufactoring methodologies to linking a manufacturing process/methodology with a manufacturing title. - Pmedema (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:42, 16 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. Uncontested, agreement that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Azad[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. He doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria as a poet or journalist either. If the article is kept it would need a substantial rewrite to clean up the poorly written English and remove all the puffery and trivial content. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable in all his various capacities. I have to admit it is so badly written trying to read it gave me a headache.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:40, 16 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Development Group, Corp.[edit]

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

Nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better until finally a few press releases at the end with that not being surprising considering the company is still newly started and nothing at all convincing (note the apparent 7 employees count). SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 7 employees. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete At first glance the article seems to have many references. A closer examination reveals that some of the references [11] do not even mention the company once, others [12],[13] are nothing but reprinted press releases. Hardly any independent reliable secondary sources exist which even talk about this company. I doubt this is notable in any way. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:14, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIP Broker[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's nothing at all currently convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reviews that are WP:RS and nothing notable about it. Other then WP:ITEXISTS I don't see that this is encyclopedic. - Pmedema (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was created in 2005 when notability requirements were way lower. No independent sources are available to verify or attest to its notability. The article was created by COI user possibly linked to the company (see this). Delete as Wikipedia is not for promoting a business --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:09, 11 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) ansh 666 01:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hickox[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all and I would not consider merging to the father's article a viable option as any current information there can suffice, examining the listed sources including the best ones showed nothing else convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO criteria #1 at this time. The first three articles listed below provide significant coverage, one is paywalled, and others are short articles, but are devoted entirely to the subject and his works. Regarding the short articles, of note is that WP:BASIC states in part "... multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Some source examples devoted entirely to the subject and his works are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

musicOMH (published by musicOMH)
Paste (published by Paste)
musicOMH
The Sunday Times (subscription required)
The Telegraph (6 ¶ about the subject)
Spindle Magazine (published by Spindle Magazine, short article)
The Journal (around 5 ¶ about the subject)
The Telegraph (3 substantial ¶)
Clash (published by Clash, 4 ¶)
Clash (4 ¶)

Keep Has been the subject of enough coverage in independent third party notable publications to pass muster. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:48, 15 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marianela Szymanowski[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. Lengthy interview in Marca already in the article plus a quick google search suggests more could be added such as this interview and this interview. I don't speak spanish but they don't seem to be the same duplicated. Fenix down (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks to meet GNG, which trumps NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - played for Argentina in the 2014 Copa América Femenina [14], so passes WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:GNG. 5.70.13.148 (talk) 12:24, 12 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. Looking at the keep arguments, all I see are an assertion that 4 million likes on facebook means something (it doesn't, at least not here), an IP citing that argument, and a WP:SPA saying, of course. None of which carries any weight. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Pimenova[edit]

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

Delete on grounds of notability. The notability guidelines for people in this category (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers) have the following requirements
* Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
* Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Pimenova has had a moderate level of exposure for a child model. There is a potential concern that Wikipedia is being used by agents as an advertising base. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:16, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I acknowledge the point that Ordinary Person makes about WP being used by agents, it's unclear if that's the case here. Even if it is, though, I think Pimenova meets the "large fan base" criteria given that her Facebook page has over 4 million Likes. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 07:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A model is an artist, not an entertainer. Famous models go on the cover of magazines. And she didn't even have an agent until this year. But the article is old. She has been on television now, and moved to America. Lyrda (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia chooses to group them under the heading "Entertainers", so Ordinary Person was simply following the established guidelines there. See WP:NMODEL. Also, it's unclear: are you suggesting that the article should be kept or deleted? – Robin Hood ^(talk) 02:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, of course! Lyrda (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious how you see a fan base of over 4 million as failing Point 2 of NMODEL. (That wasn't meant to sound snarky, btw, it was meant as a genuine question.) – Robin Hood ^(talk) 23:17, 6 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) 05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL Not notable - references seem to relate to the one event where she was called "the most beuatiful girl in the world".Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed that she has more than 4 million fans, and everything else too. Lyrda (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per robin hood. Also, i'm not even into the modelling world and even I instantly recognized her name, this instant recognition seems to make her encyclopedic. Also she has more google returns than half the models wikipedia has articles on. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have never heard of her. Aoziwe (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as regardless of the apparent "world" claim in the first sentence, there's still nothing noticeably better for solid independent notability and it's simply imaginably too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on with you? You are commenting on all articles for deletion and you want all of them deleted, all thousands of them, no exceptions. Lyrda (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL.~~ Magnolia677 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already said so above, but you still haven't answered the question. Lyrda (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What question? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677: I had asked, above, why you feel that this fails NMODEL, specifically point 2, when the subject's Facebook page has 4 million Likes. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 05:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have no need to contribute to her PR campaign, which is all this is, and all that the references are. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if 4 million people represented a significant fanbase, which it doesn't, even if the source supported the 4 million figure, which it doesn't (its inflated by 100% from the number in the source), followers on Facebook do not equate to a fanbase, so the subject of the article fails NMODEL, and there are enough NPOV, PROMO and V problems to make the article not worth salvaging even even if she were. At best, WP:TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NEON BLUE[edit]

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

An article that has been around since 2005. They are an indie band from Canada that self-produces their own records. I'm unable to find any reliable references. The Neon Blue band from Kansas City comes up first on Google. There's also a record called, Neon Blue Bird by Ollabelle that also comes up frequently. So, the name is common. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes claims of touring and charting that could get it kept under WP:NMUSIC if they were properly sourced, but the sourcing here is entirely nonexistent and I can't find anything better on a ProQuest search either. NMUSIC is not passed just because its passage is asserted, as PR flacks can and do make inflated claims of notability for their clients that actually prove unverifiable or outright false when we look for verification — NMUSIC is passed or failed by the quality of referencing that can or can't be shown to support the NMUSIC claim. So although I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually locate much better sourcing than I've been able to, in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CaptainCanuck101 has found some links which they posted on the article talk page and my talk page. This one showing that they had a number one single on the Australian Christian music chart, and this one showing ticket sales for a festival they are playing at. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket sales websites do not assist notability at all, because that constitutes a WP:ROUTINE mention of their existence and does not represent substantive coverage about them. The touring criterion is not passed just because someone can point to ticket sales platforms and concert listings as proof they toured — the proof has to be editorial content being written or broadcast about the tour before the tour can confer notability in and of itself. And a chart has to be IFPI-certified to count as conferring notability under NMUSIC's charting criterion — but the website that's been linked is a blog, which offers no way to properly verify that the charts in question are IFPI-certified, or even what their methodology is for ranking the hits (i.e. is it a chart that every Christian radio station in Australia reports to, or is it really just one station's own self-created chart?) So no, neither of those links aid the case at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't passing judgment on the validate of the sources or the notability of the band, just passing along the message. Sorry, I probably should have mentioned that in my comment. I haven't looked into this article in depth and have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, and wasn't challenging you on them at all. I was just evaluating their quality and reporting back accordingly, because other participants (and CaptainCanuck) need to know where things stand too. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 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) 05:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. For what it's worth, I checked the Australian ARIA charts site. Nothing there about this band. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per researchers above. (I would be quite happy to see all the no hit wonders never heard of by 99.999999% of the population get deleted. Aoziwe (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better which is not surprising and there's nothing at all minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bavaria women's national ice hockey team[edit]

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

Not an official national team. I can find no evidence of notability either like the previous proder. DJSasso (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same reasoning as in my contested PROD before: Bavaria is not an independent country and the IIHF does not list the team as an official national team. The team has not played in any noteworthy international competition and lacks notability.. Calistemon (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above, Bavaria is not a country, so can't have a national team Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep in mind non-countries can have "national" teams if they have their own federation - see Puerto Rico national baseball team, Tahiti national football team, etc. That's just not the case here, so delete it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they may not be an "official" national team representing a sovereign state, but the games the Bavarian team competed in, including at the Cergy International Tournament in 2009, were legitimate and received press coverage (I rarely edit here anymore, so I don't have time to look for specific sources on the '09 tournament), but the Cergy Tournament has been played for a long time and was one of the more prominent European women's tournaments). The exhibition against France in 2010 was definitely covered too. Arguing that this article should be deleted because Bavaria lacks an official governing body or as the IIHF does not recognize the team, etc. does not make much sense. Those rationales are weak. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 00:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything on the team on the website of the Bayerischer Eissport-Verband, the Bavarian ice sports federation who allegedly the team represents. I did a search in both German and English but have not found any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability. Your argument that such coverage exists but you don't have time to provide it is weak since, as the creator and main contributor of the article, it is up to you to Prove it. Calistemon (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the motivation and enthusiasm to do much here nowadays, so eh. If the article gets deleted, then so be it. I was just stating my opinion and what I felt would be best for the project. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 13:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Once again, the anti-women bias of Wikipedia rears its ugly head. An unknown pro team from east nowhere sails through, a championship women's team is AfD. Passes NSPORTs. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS doesn't cover teams. WP:ORG does. If you can find any sources that cause it to meet GNG or ORG then by all means provide them. Also the article does not indicate they are a championship team. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such unfounded accusations of bias do nothing to assist the important work of improving our coverage of women. Yes, there is a gross imbalance between our coverage of women and men, but that doesn't mean that no articles about women can be deleted or be subject to deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:ORG - not because a women's hockey team is inherently non-notable or because Bavaria isn't a country, but simply because the citations provided at present aren't enough to establish notability for the organisation (and I can't find any better ones). ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 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) 05:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the significant, in-depth secondary coverage here. Neutrality^talk 20:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're not recognized by any major organization and they've mostly played a handful of exhibition games. Deadman137 (talk) 22:05, 14 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. Uncontested after two weeks. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza Sonora 2012[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, year version of a preliminary round of Nuestra Belleza The Banner talk 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 1 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) 05:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:37, 16 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza Sonora 2011[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, year version of a preliminary round of Nuestra Belleza The Banner talk 12:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 1 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) 05:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:36, 16 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza Sonora 2010[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, year version of a preliminary round of Nuestra Belleza The Banner talk 12:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 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) 05:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:36, 16 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algemene Nedersaksiese Schriefwieze[edit]

(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" It was deprodded by User:Prisencolin with no rationale at all, which violates WP:PROD procedure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding without giving a reason is bad style but it's not against policy, Piotrus. As WP:DEPROD states, giving a reason is "encouraged, but not required". Uanfala (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Too soon, if nothing else. The cited magazine piece and this Wikipedia article are the only places I can find that refer to the orthography. (And to forestall sticklers who object to me citing an essay: the article has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources", which is policy.) Cnilep (talk) 00:47, 2 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) 05:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not official but developed by the Nedersaksian community of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 06:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article Algemene Nedersaksiese Schriefwieze states clearly: (in translation) 'The Algemene Nedersaksiese Schriefwieze (short: ANS) is in 2011 developed by the Nedersaksian Community of Wikipedia'. It has no official status. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 06:54, 12 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 International Society for Ethnology and Folklore. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous consensus to not keep as a stand-alone article. Less clear on the alternatives; the merge seems like a reasonable middle ground. I leave it to whoever does the merge how much material should be moved. In any case, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Analysis[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no significant independent sources. "Runner up" (not even winner) and "nominee" for non-notable awards (claim now removed, but accessible through the article history). Only other claim to fame is a ranking by the European Science Foundation. However, their selection criteria clearly indicate that this is not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. The article also contains claims that the journal is affiliated with UC Berkeley and Pennsylvania State University, which are not substantiated on the journal home page. Whatever may be the case, here WP:NOTINHERITED applies. In sum, this does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a recent article update pointed out, the journal is indexed in the International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance. This is an EBSCO database, which is described as "the definitive research tool for theatre and dance studies. In addition to all the comprehensive indexing of the International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance (IBTD), it contains full text for the top performing arts journals." Found here. Information about the affiliation with Penn State is found here: and, aside from the fact that the journal is clearly hosted on UC Berkeley servers, its affiliation is noted in the front matter of every volume, for example. The AfD request also fails to note that the journal is an official partner of SIEF (the International Society for Ethnology and Folklore, Europe's premier scholarly organization in this field). A reference to this affiliation is mentioned in the article text, and can be found here:. Finally, the AfD request misreads the ESF criteria, which are "criteria for inclusion" not an explanation of how the indexed journals are ranked. The rank of INT2, is the same rank given to the Journal of American Folklore. A clear explanation of this ranking system is given here: though it appears that the ESF may have abandoned this ranking system in its 2014 iteration of the index. In sum, this article clearly meets WP:NJournals. Hence: Keep. Abbuccitelli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Abbuccitelli (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but EBSCO databases are not selective, regardless of what EBSCO themselves may say. As explained in the nom, the affiliations with universities or a society do not confer notability. As for the ranking system, ESF has indeed completely abandoned those (as the Guardian article explained, there was a lot of criticism of these rankings). I have also checked Scopus and the Thomson Reuters databases and the journal is in none of those either. So in short, no, this does not meet NJournals at all... --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Society for Ethnology and Folklore or redirect to Valdimar Tr. Hafstein . The generic name of this journal makes searching for general sources very difficult. This means that I need to rely on indexing as a proxy for notability and the nom is correct that the journal seems to fail notability criteria per WP:NJournals. The existence of and basic facts about the journal seem uncontroversial and sourcable from nonselective indices, so perhaps a selective merge or mention in another article is the best course. Since Valdimar Tr. Hafstein helped found the journal, a redirect to his article might be appropriate. Or since the journal is in partnership with International Society for Ethnology and Folklore, perhaps a selective merge would be warranted there instead. Neither of these are perfect targets, so my recommendations should be considered weak. --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:05, 1 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) 05:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge into International Society for Ethnology and Folklore. Encyclopedic content is valid for Wikipedia, just not enough GNG for its own article. Aoziwe (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this one is not explicitly needed for deletion as there's enough to at least keep at the history logs, but still nothing to suggest its own article improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariat Nasasira[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not worthy of notice: she is not remarkable or unusual enough in Uganda or elsewhere, and creating a Wikipedia page for her is an abuse of this platform. Cartney23 (talk) 16:14, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches have found nothing better at all, there's nothing suggesting any particular notability at all for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 8 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) 05:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resumé with nothing that jumps out to pass notability. — Wylie pedia 18:53, 10 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shabani (gorilla)[edit]

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

I don't know whether this is some hoax or not. I don't believe that these sources establish notability for this gorilla who seems to be the subject of momentary internet fame. And the implication that women find a gorilla "sexy" is tabloidish, offensive and unsubstantiated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did you even check the sources? This is not momentary fame, the gorilla has been steadily popular for the past two years to the point they are selling chocolates shaped after him. Women finding him sexy is not unsubstantiated, it is supported by actual claims and the zoo itself reporting higher female patronage during his stay. He trends on Japanese media to the point of it inspiring news coverage. So much so that this has spawned western coverage as well. Nikki Glaser has also mentioned finding him attractive on her talk show. I do not see what is offensive about this, that sounds racist against non-hominid simians. Ranze (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Ranze (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Keep As bizarre as this is, there is certainly plenty of references to indicate notability. It would seem, he is one sexy, notable, gorilla. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG. For what it's worth, WP:BLP1E does not apply to gorillas! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's absurd but not a WP:HOAX. Strangely passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and the sources are adequate. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:GNG is easily met referencing reliable sources. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 06:42, 14 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. Agreement that the subject does not meet notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brainturk[edit]

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

Page was created by User:Palguay who is a SPA. Looking at his history [15] shows that he either edits this page or adds external links to Brainturk on other pages. A search for Brainturk on Google News shows 1 result, the company's website. The tags has been on for a year with no improvement. There aren't even references in the article. Obviously fails WP:N and is obvious promotionalism. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that a google search shows up is comment bombing by palguay on various websites. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all for any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing convincingly better. I myself would've also found this randomly and likely pursued PROD before AfD. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I noted the same editing pattern noted by other editors. I research on closely related topics, and I have never found a neutral, reliable source that mentions this commercial enterprise. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:28, 16 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 per WP:TOOSOON, as there is no official confirmation of an 8th season. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winx Club (season 8)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALHAMMER no verifiable information besides a rumor announcement back in September by various fan clubs. This should not be created until there are secondary reliable sources showing production and when an airdate has been announced. Nothing on official website as of this post to indicate this is ready. [16] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources found outside rumorage. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this was on the horizon, I would say redirect, but it is crystal-clearly not. — Wylie pedia 17:58, 10 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 and redirect to Nephew and niece. This is a difficult discussion to summarize, but the consensus seems to be that we need to only have one article for nephews and nieces. Given that this article existed but the material was copypasted by a now blocked editor, restoring Nephew and niece and redirecting the other three there seems to be the most reasonable solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nibling[edit]

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

Non notable Neologism - Personally I've never heard of the word but anyway It's not a common-use term and it's unlikely it ever will be, Fails WP:NEO & WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgot to say but I have no objections to any merges or redirects if that's preferred. Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is really about the word itself, not the "niblings" so it's against "not a dictionary." If it could be redirected that would be OK, but there probably is not an article about nieces and nephews collectively to redirect to. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was, until 7 April 2016, an article called Nephew and niece. On that day, currently blocked User:Hawaan12 added much of the current content to Nibling and essentially created Niece and Nephew, which until that day were redirects to "Nephew and niece". Currently Niece and nephew also redirects to Nibling. It seems to be the sensible thing would be to restore this version of Nephew and niece and make the other titles redirect there. (I would actually favor putting it at "Niece and nephew", but that may be another discussion.) The neologism is used there, but its 1951 coinage is not noted, so merge some of the "Nibling" content to the restored "Nephew and niece". Cnilep (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge nibling, nephew and niece to nephew and niece per Cnilep. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged the pages Nephew and Niece for merger, and linked them here for discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wikipedia afaik encourages brevity in terms of article titles. The current title seems to meet that precedent. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you are referring to the Article titles policy section WP:CONCISE, or at least to the spirit of that policy. That section suggests, "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." Elsewhere on the same page it suggests, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Nibling is more brief, but as a neologism I don't think it's sufficient to identify the topic, nor is it commonly used. Cnilep (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge nibling, nephew and niece to nephew and niece per others. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Cnilep. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no objection to merging nephew and niece, but there's nothing in the nibling article outside the definition, which also exists, properly, at wikt:nibling. I don't see that there's anything to preserve here. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and combine with redirects all of nibling, nephew, niece. Aoziwe (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as I see nothing to suggest this can become its own solid article anytime soon and there's nothing else convincing from there, can be mentioned there as sufficiently needed and that's all. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whoa whoa whoa. First of all, we have way too many articles on this :) Second, there does exist a genetic term which encompasses both niece and nephew: second-degree relative. It's in use in scientific literature and seems a lot better than having separate articles for each -- and a whole lot better than going with a neologism. I noticed that we had a flatly incorrect article on third-degree relative which claimed to include nieces and nephews (now redirected to extended family). It seemed weird that we didn't have one for second-degree despite having first-degree and third-degree, so I went ahead and created it: second-degree relative. It's a common term in talking about heredity/risk of disease. So I'd say the other various articles on nieces and nephews, or nephews and nieces, should be redirected there, but we don't need to keep this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I'm holding off on e.g. adding the new page to the navbox until this AfD is over (one isn't necessarily dependent on the other, but it's a relevant discussion, of course, and it's possible people may disagree that the genetic term is the best way to go). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic, WP:DICDEF. The mess of articles aside, when the first set of hits is Wiktionary, Urban Dictionary, and WP (as opposed to an actual dictionary) that should indicate something about its lack of use, especially when it;s an uncommon word. The dictionary entries are all user-added content, by the way, so there's no RS there either. The content is basically the Wiktionary entry as it is. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhibagh.com[edit]

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

This was reviewed at NPP but it should've been better closely examined including for AfD because aside from the apparent claim of significance in the first sentences, my searches have found nothing better. Also by closely examining this article, it shows that although there's the apparent claim, there's nothing else actually convincing and simply insinuates it's locally known thus not yet acceptable. Also note related articles and connected AfDs, Swetank Gupta and Swetank gupta. Notifying the nominator of the other AfD, AKS.9955. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly non-notable and highly promo article. Honestly, I think it could be speedied G11. Waggie (talk)

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:WEBCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:06, 17 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abington Art Center[edit]

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

Local arts center with local references. Most of the article is a quote from their own publicity.The article describes the museum as "non-collecting" ,a term I am not familiar with but which I assume means either that it takes whatever people give it, or that it doesn't even do that. The Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center mentioned in the headnote as an Annex is quite notable, but it does not appear to be connected in any manner DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a local art center. Many references have been updated, and errors corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CecilyK (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Possible) Selective Merge to Abington Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which presently only has a single, very short 11-word sentence about it. This will improve the merge target article, per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I have modified my !vote above, by adding "(Possible)" to it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abinton Art Center has existed for 75 years serving the Northeast cultural community through exhibitions of notable artists, educational programs, a sculpture park, performance series. It is a not-for-profit cultural institution, not a blockbuster glamorous museum. It's dedication, longevity, serious curatorial philosophy, and sheer tenacity to exist as a non-profit in the bloated money driven, post-80's art world is proof, in my opinion, of its importance and notability. Not sure if I am posting this comment in the correct place or if it should go on the talk page, nevertheless I vote to keep. The article does need much better citations, tho. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shosteck, Robert (2004) [First published 1969]. Heland, Vicki; Heland, Ken (eds.). Weekend Getaways Around Washington, D.C.: Including Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company. p. 274. ISBN 1455613967. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The book notes (my bolding):
  The Abington Art Center is located at 515 Meetinghouse Road in Jenkintown. The art center is housed in the Lessing J. Rosenwald estate, and its art-deco style art gallery (one room of which has been recreated at the Library of Congress) dates from 1939. Now one of the largest fine arts centers in Pennsylvania, Abington Center features changing fine arts exhibits from the United States and abroad. In addition to its regular fine arts, dance, and crafts curricula, the center periodically holds lectures and workshops. Open Monday through Friday, 10 A.M. to 5 P.M.; Thursdays, 10 A.M. to 7 P.M. For special events, contact the center. Free admission. Charges for some tours and events, as well as for classes. Telephone: (215) 887-4882. Web site: www.abingtonartcenter.org.
2. Donohoe, Victoria (2009-05-01). "Abington Art Center celebrates with its own". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Abington Art Center's occupancy of Alverthorpe Manor began in 1970. And what seems quite relevant as we recall its litany of consistently held, low-key group shows - and most recently, its solo shows - is Abington's proven ability to retain its diversity, exhibit formats, and professional standards. The marvel is that the center has done this through the years without losing its grip and becoming hollow.
  ...
  Amid the fast pace of gallery exhibits, the Abington Art Center is providing a welcome period of stock-taking. The occasion is the center's 70th anniversary year, highlighted in a special exhibit, "Forever Young."
3. Freeman, Jarreau (2014-04-30). "Abington Art Center celebrates 75 years". Glenside News Globe Times Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Abington Art Center is not your cookie-cutter community art hub, according Executive Director Betsy Kilkenny.
  For 75 years, AAC has been a staple in Abington Township with an evolving scope of programs, events and opportunities focused on its vision to allow the “benefit of cultural enrichment for individual and community life be derived from creative, artistic expression.”
  ...
  Established in 1939 as the Old York Road Art Guild, AAC became the Abington Art Center in 1965 after the guild decided to incorporate its programs under a separate nonprofit identity, according to AAC’s website. AAC moved to its current location at Alverthorpe Manor at 515 Meetinghouse Road in the Jenkintown section of the township in 1969, after rare book and print collector, Lessing Rosenwald, and his wife, Edith, donated their estate to the township for community use, it stated.
  AAC serves an estimated 35,000 people a year through its five areas of focus: exhibitions, on-and-off site studio classes, community programs, the sculpture park and art programs for special needs. AAC is working to “refresh and re-energize the community art experience” thanks to a grant provided by the William Penn Foundation that has helped fund a strategic plan, Kilkenny said.
4. Von Bergen, Jane M. (1984-01-05). "Attracting Handicapped Not So Easy". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Talk about disappointing - the Abington Art Center spends $12,000 to make itself more physically accessible to the handicapped, the program directors work out an "Art Sampler" class to introduce disabled people to the spectrum of visual arts - the center does all this and more to attract handicapped people to the center, and what happens?
  Not too much.
  Ronald Rothman, the center's director, says there are "some wonderful stories" about handicapped people and their experiences at the center, "but I can count them on two hands. I'd like to see dozens of handicapped people here."
5. McGroarty, Cynthia J. (2005-02-27). "Natural match at art center - With indoor and outdoor spaces to fill, an environmentally aware curator seems just right". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Amy Lipton and the Abington Art Center met last year when both were searching for a significant other.
  Lipton, a freelance curator and former New York gallery owner, wanted to settle into a full-time professional relationship. The art center, with a William Penn Foundation grant under its belt, was looking to hire its first full-time curator.
  ...
  The mansion at Alverthorpe has housed the art center for more than three decades, providing an elegant home for the cooperative that began life as the Old York Road Art Guild in 1939 and evolved into the Abington Art Center in the 1960s.
  The center has been a mainstay of the Philadelphia-area art scene. It exhibits the work of local and national artists and offers a full range of programs and art classes.
6. Von Bergen, Jane M. (1983-01-06). "Abington Center Lets the Disabled Show Their Talents". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Considering the work that it has done (with the help of Rose Marcus), Abington Art Center is an appropriate site for the exhibit. Today and tomorrow, workers will put the final touches on what has been a $10,000 to $12,000 project for handicapped accessibility at the center, which is housed in the mansion once occupied by Sears, Roebuck & Co. executive Lessing J. Rosenwald.
  The project began in 1981 when the center, housed in one section of Alverthorpe Manor, expanded into a larger portion of the house. The manor is also home to the Jenkintown Music School and Alverthorpe Park, part of the Abington Township park system.
7. Scavuzzo, Sam Fran (2009-04-25). "'Give people a creative, personal experience' The Abington Art Center, turning 70, deals with recession". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The art center in Jenkintown handles crises well, from skunk punks to dealing with a struggling financial landscape.
  As a small nonprofit with a budget of less than $1 million, its finances are always in flux. "We don't have an endowment," says executive director Laura Burnham. "Like most Americans, we have to live on what we earn."
  The 27-acre center, celebrating its 70th anniversary, has a gallery, six studios, classrooms, and a sculpture park, and stages outdoor events year-round. Forty teachers and six full-time employees manage the complex.
8. Thompson, Will (1985-03-10). "Abington Center Reaches Out for the Art in Others". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The Abington Art Center, however, is more than Artreach and an umbrella for handicapped artists. In its efforts to provide a viable arts center for residents in the Philadelphia suburban area, it also enrolls students of all ages and economic backgrounds who come mostly from Philadelphia, Delaware and Montgomery Counties.
  ...
  Growth there has been rapid. Since 1977, a year after Rothman became executive director, the operating budget has gone from about $65,000 to a current $300,000. Student enrollment has climbed from 445 students a week to 825 students a week, overseen by a professional staff of 36 artists and administrators.
  ...
  The center was founded in 1939 by group of local residents who wanted an arts center in the area. It didn't find a home, however, until 1965, when it moved into Briar Bush Nature Center and named itself the Old York Road Art Guild.
  It moved to Alverthorpe in 1972, with the permission of Lessing and Edith Rosenwald, and changed its name to Abington Art Center.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Abington Art Center to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after working all of the above and the references into the article. Aoziwe (talk) 15:27, 18 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. Agreement that the subject does not meet notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Miller (newscaster)[edit]

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

zeroevidence for notability � DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all actually convincing of any solid independent notability, nothing else expected to be convincing. SwisterTwister (talk), 7:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local market news caster with no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:25, 16 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] Book reveals Hillary's 'passionate affair' BBC News August 4, 1999

[2] Kessler, Ronald. The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, pp. 21–22 (Crown Publishing Group, 2014): "investigation had concluded that Hillary's rage had led to her friend's suicide."

[1]

[2]