Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 April	17 April >

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. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatophonography[edit]

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

A personal project that does not have significant secondary source coverage. The external links in the article do not establish notability of the subject. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- pretty blatant violation of WP:OR. Reyk _YO! 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches across all found the same links listed here, not significant or notable links. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knight In Babalon[edit]

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

Self-published book. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (books). It is dubious whether the author meets Notability also. maclean (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sir Mark Bruback. Wgolf (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 16 April 2015 (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/2015 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Actually, I'm filing an AfD on the Sir Mark Bruback article; there's not a damn thing I can find as far as a genuine reliable source. This book, of course, is likewise non-notable. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not even certain whether Bruback and his alleged ouvre were a hoax of some sort, or just a very short-lived and over-hyped career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he's not a hoax -- the blog and supermarket weekly sources in the article are enough to hit "He exists" level. He's just a local busker who's a heavy self-promoter. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't qualify him for a Wikipedia article. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been reverted to the 2014 version which is significantly different than the version nominated for deletion. Please re-nominate should you feel it's still a candidate for deletion. Nakon 23:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innodata[edit]

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

corporate promo and advertising The Banner talk 23:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Innodata for the corporate response to this AfD. The Banner talk 10:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to 2014 version before spamming by the company marketing department. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, as suggested by Mean as custard. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service! Pyrop e 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mean as custard - please link the version you are referring to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version: [1]. . .Mean as custard (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but neutralize, the article has been reverted as proposed by Mean as custard, there is enough sourced information from independent sources to keep it, but I think that there is still promotional unsourced information that needs trimming. I will add some citation needed tags to the article.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added the tags and removed much of the promotional and superfluous content.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Dar[edit]

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

Article has been around for eight months but nothing in it really establishes notability. Neither of the newspapers he writes for seem to be very significant. ... discospinster _talk 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to improve the article and these links don't seem to be establish significant and notable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister. Note for nom: even if the newspapers he writes for were indeed significant, notability is not inherited. - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search of the English language Pakistani media only showed reference to Nida Rashid Dar, the cricketer. I don't have the spelling of his name in Urdu, but I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON (or maybe just never at all). Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

<anofollow" class="external free">http://www.journalismpakistan.com/myprofile.php?profileid=MzM5&msg=1">Reference</a>

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Riser (Fear Cult)[edit]

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

On first inspection the article contains a number of sources, but many of them only contain a passing mention of the subject, or sometimes no mention at all. The sources that do mention the subject in a non-trivial manner are themselves unreliable. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to meet WP:ARTIST. I can't turn up any reliable sources discussing the subject - only a few catalog-type listings. Kolbasz (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. The references all seem to be about Fear Cult, which was speedied A7. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Ryde[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail to meet the notability guidelines. Achievements do not include any awards, references are not independent of the subject, does not appear to have attracted sufficient independent substantive coverage to warrant an article. KDS4444^Talk 06:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

undecided This new article appears to be self-promotion and is overwhelmingly sourced to stuff written by Robin Ryde; even the citation to "reviews" of his book is to a page of blurbs. As an article, it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. However, there are real articles that mention him in the trade press: Civil Service World [2], The Mandarin [3]; and a real review of his book in the Irish Times [4]; and his book was short-listed for a prize [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written in a heavily promotional style and poorly sourced, nothing in the article as written adds up to notability, and even if evidence of notability can be found it would need significant rewriting to become encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edited thanks for the comments and additional references. these have been included and irrelevant refs deleted. copy also toned down. any other suggestion to avoid deletion, appreciated. user: roller1001

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added authority control: He has profiles in numerous indexes. I also deleted the section of puff. It just needs to be rewritten in a non-promotional way. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, nor WP:PROF. He has published stuff, but we don't have enough reviews or other secondary sources to show that his publications have had an impact. The Irish Times review is a good source, but by itself it's not enough. Re "profiles in numerous indexes" from the comment by Wikimandia: being included in a library catalog is not notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. Diran[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also fails WP:CRIME. David.thompson.esq (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed. Might be notable in Burmese wikipedia but that's not up to us english speakers.~~ Popish Plot (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Popish Plot: If it's notable on the Burmese Wikipedia, it would be notable here—it's perfecty acceptable to use non-English sources (some en.wp articles use nothing but). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. That Burmese sources are OK doesn't mean Burmese WP standards apply here. Notability on another wiki does not guarantee notability here. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there doesn't appear to be a Burmese page, so the point is moot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to retract my "agreed". Bottom line is I don't know. Popish Plot (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a strikethru of my comment above because I wanted to retract it. Popish Plot (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. fails WP:CRIME.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - leaning towards keep at this point, as just a couple quick searches brought up some more significant mentions in RSs, possibly meeting standards of GNG. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the effort, but publishing a book is not enough to warrant notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on the book. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well sure, that's true, Cwobeel. But I had hoped to demonstrate that there is significant coverage of that book and exhibit in reliable, national sources - not just to demonstrate that the book exists. Also, I've found some preliminary information saying that the issue with the statue has set new legal precedents in the U.S., that may satisfy WP:CRIME, which others here have pointed to. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the impact of this book; Google scholar gives 27 citations for the work (and a translation). Don't see any reviews in Jstor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRIME.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRIME.--~~Rickbrown9 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.154.165 (talk) [reply]

Subject has multiple claims to notability. But even in re: WP:CRIME, there is a claim that the case set a precedent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ~~It is probably true that he fails crime,~~ but also true that it was a crime involving acknowledged expertise on Burma and its art. And that his core notability comes from that expertise, which went into those photos (book & exhibit). (Wait a sec while I polish up my crystal ball...) Those tribes really are vanishing, and the photos will gain in notability, historical and ethnographic importance in the years to come. There are more than enough RS articles to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Went back to do a light clean-up; realized there are whole articles about him in reliable publications. An entire chapter in a book about colorful Gaijin hanging out in Asian places. A sourced claim to have opened (with his Japanese wife) the first Robatayaki restaurant in the United States. And, tellingly, a plausible-looking claim that the legal case involving the ancient Buddah in which he was the art dealer set a U.S. precedent. Why are we talking about deleting this? It certainly needs improvement. But I think a second look will persuade any editor that it is a KEEP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Note that when the article was brought to AFD by User:Cwobeel and iVotes cast by User:David.thompson.esq and User:Rickbrown9 the sole crime on the page was a child pornography case that appears to have received very little publicity. User:AdventurousSquirrel then enhanced the article with the info about the Buddha statue (significant case, with wide coverage) I also did some editing and added a few sources, making the article very different than it was when nominated and seen by early discussants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article again, and I still vote 'delete.' There are a lot of pages about living people who are of borderline notability, as a very random example, Quint Studer came to my attention recently. I think Wikipedia would do just fine without pages on such people. But if someone wants to put together a trivial page about a trivial person, so what? However, I think that where the person is living, only borderline notable, and most of the article discusses the subject's alleged criminality, one should err on the side of caution and delete. Any time an article contains negative information about a living person there is a small but non-zero risk of liability to Wikipedia and even the individual editors of the page. So, a question to ask is, Why does Wikipedia need a page about this person? I can't think of a reason. He wrote a book, he pled guilty to a crime, he 'relinquished a claim' in an artifact. The child porn conviction would never justify a page by itself, or Wikipedia would turn in a giant sex crimes registry. To specifically address whether the addition of the Buddha stuff establishes his notability, I think it goes more to establishing that the allegedly stolen statue was notable than the alleged thief. So it's really just back to the book. Is this guy notable simply for having written a book? I don't think so. And, the addition of the Buddha material adds risk that the stuff about child porn does not. The article implies that this guy stole the statue, and maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but he never pled guilty or was convicted of anything, and so there is no slam-dunk defense to a charge of libel. Unlike someone like Bill Cosby, whose page includes stuff about unproved accusations, this subject is probably not a 'public figure' per US libel law, and it would be a lot easier for him to sue us, than it would be for Cosby. The article is dancing on the border of accusation, and therefore potential libel. The addition does not establish notability. Therefore, delete. David.thompson.esq (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book/photos pass WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). Would it be appropriate to remove the Buddha material? E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, E.M.Gregory the WP:AUTHOR tells us this is the standard; an author is notable if:

             1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
             2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
             3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or    
                  feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
             4.  The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within   
                  the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

So, based on what I've seen written in the article and talk, it is possible he fits 2, 3 or 4. There's no real citation in the article today that fits 1. But, the article says that his work is significant in a way that might match 2-4. So, if there is enough properly-cited stuff that fits these criteria, then yes, he is a notable author. If he is a notable author, then in my opinion Wikipedia can also say that he pled guilty to child porn charges. Whether or not he is a notable author, I think Wikipedia should not repeat accusations that he stole a buddha if it is not clear that those accusations would be 100% seen as non-libel by a U.S. court. So, to the extent that other people think his alleged Buddha-stealing is the font of his notability, there should be no article. If there is an article, it should either not mention the buddha-stealing, or it should limit itself EXCLUSIVELY to what no rational person could deny about the Buddha-stealing. Among other things this means that if he is not notable but for the stolen Buddha, then he is not notable. In my opinion, which is also my legal opinion: don't publish the Buddha stuff, you can publish the child porn and book publishing stuff, and no page should exist unless the book alone renders him memorable. David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diran is just the sort of figure that it is especially useful for Wikipedia to cover. While I see WP:AUTHOR as a marginal pass, I am firmly persuaded that he passes WP:GNG. The closer you look, the more you find. There are articles about him stretching over 6 decades (I didn't add the San Mateo's paper's coverage of his high school days), but he graduated in 1968 and was part of a generation that headed to the Asia in search of... who knows what. Even the book reviews - which praise the book - tend to focus a lot of attention on his colorful life. I just added a reference to is presence on the Bangkok party scene ~1980 from an Andy McCoy autobiography.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok party scene? You can't be serious. I was part of the Manila party scene in the 90's and there's no article about me (thank God). At this point you and I seem to be the only ones discussing this. I am unpersuaded by your arguments -- less persuaded, in fact, with each addition to the article, which is turning into a grab-bag of random facts about a guy, who is just some guy that wrote a book. However, since consensus is literally impossible when there are only two people discussing, I think you and I can quit discussing until (and if) others weigh in. Since you seem to be very much in favor of keeping the article, maybe by the time others weigh in you can have turned it into something that undeniably meets the criteria. My vote, for what it's worth, is delete. David.thompson.esq (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David.thompson.esq: If the article seems to imply that he stole it, is there a wording tweak possible to clarify that that is not being claimed here? It used to say that he smuggled the statue - which I believe the sources say he admitted to doing; does that help to clarify that the involvement of the FBI and govt of Myanmar are related to smuggling the statue rather than the idea that he physically stole it from the pagoda? How much liability is WP exposed to if we are faithfully reporting the claims made in other reasonably reliable sources? Regarding the usefulness of having an article on individuals like this, it seems to me that having the ability to vet sources and present them in a maximally neutral way (as is done on WP) is highly valuable when information about individuals is spread across a wide variety of sources, which, notably, include particularly one-sided ones like this one which come up quickly in a Google search of the subject. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, talk. As I said above, keep to facts that aren't subject to reasonable dispute. Perhaps something like this (I haven't delved into the sources, you should take this as a guide only). 1) Diran brought the Buddha into the United States from Myanmar. 2) If known, provide whatever Diran said his purpose in doing so was, or where he said he obtained his right to do so. 3) Third parties (FBI, government of Myanmar, other ?) contended that Diran brought the item out of country X and to the US without the legal right to do so, and/or without complying with local/international/US law (as applicable based on sources). Avoid loaded words like smuggling. 4) No charges were brought against Diran, but he agreed to relinquish his claimed right to the statue. 5) Do we know what happened to the statue afterwards? I think they key is, as you've already noted, to avoid loaded words like smuggle and make very sure that you keep to the facts as publicly reported, and when in doubt either omit allegations or look for further supporting sources. As to risk of lawsuit, I'm not aware of anyone suing Wikipedia, although I'm sure it has been done or threatened. It can be done even if there isn't a really good basis (see Pearson v. Chung for a scary example of a baseless lawsuit that went on for years) but you can lower your risk of being sued -- never to nothing -- but to an acceptable level by being conscious of the fact that you need to be very careful with stating negative facts about a living person, especially one who is not a public figure. As to the "how much" liability, the damages for libel attempt to quantify loss of reputation, and an admitted/convicted possessor of unlawful pornography would have little reputation to lose, and would not be a darling of the jury. But as Pearson shows you, sometimes the legal system takes so long in getting to right result that winning doesn't look much different from losing. Prevention is the best medicine. David.thompson.esq (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes clear Diran's claim to have purchased the statue for $18,000 in Thailand in 1990, sourced to Chicago Tribune.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this passes both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cryptkeeper Five[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor who is a follower of, but not associated with the subject. I vote to keep the article. Among its references are an article from a writer for Steppin' Out Magazine, and a published book from a notable author who writes about underground rock music. Additionally, there is reference to significant coverage by web periodicals which specialize in the band's particular music niche.

Edit: I have added a "press coverage" section, and included examples of writing about the band from Spartanburg Herald, Maximum Rock N'Roll, The Press of Atlantic City, Trentonian, and others. I know that this is heavy handed and introduces a new problem of non-neutral tone. The article now needs more work than it did prior to my effort. However, I wanted to meet the notability critique head on. Keithramone33 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Ok, it's been over a week. I have worked hard to improve the page, to establish notability for the subject. There are multiple non-trivial references from credible sources not associated with the band. There has been no discussion here supporting deletion since my original objection. Can I remove the tags now? Keithramone33 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

@Keithramone33: There's a pretty specific process for how these discussions are handled. If there's little-to-no participation after the first week, the discussion is generally relisted, as it was above by Davewild. That means it goes another week. If, again, it doesn't attract any opinions it will likely be relisted for another week. If no participation at that time it'll be closed as no quorum (basically means no action). Regardless of what happens, though, the deletion tags need to be taken down by whoever closes the discussion (which, since I'm already involved, cannot be me). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I don't really see anything but trivial mentions and unreliable sources. The few reliable sources that mention them are basically tour dates or other routine coverage. Self-published blogs don't count as reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article establishes that the band has been covered in at least 2 published books, as well as in at least a half dozen reputable newspapers and/or magazines. The "published books" and "press coverage" section includes references to this coverage. References that are reputable, non-trivial, and non-routine include: Spartanburg Herald, The Press of Atlantic City, Chorus and Verse (Steppin' Out Magazine journalist), as well as the Gary Wien and Mick Mercer books. I would also include the Ink 19 concert review in this category as well, with the caveats that that magazine doesn't have a Wiki page and the band were the support act (nevertheless considered significant enough to be given non trivial coverage in the article). Finally, down in the discography there are links to album reviews from Ox-Fanzine, which is a serious enough German music magazine. Meets criteria 1 of music notability guidelines.

The article does make use of interviews from blogs that cover this particular music scene. These are not intended to be the basis of the notability argument, but merely to flesh out the article's biographical details.

Keithramone33 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing it myself. Any reliable source I can actually review that's listed in this article either doesn't mention the subject at all or is only a casual mention. I'm seeing a lot of blog posts, user-contributed sites, that sort of stuff. Just not enough there there to meet the GNG. Changing vote to Keep per Keithramone's additions -- those look like good sources from reputable enough sources. Thanks for the work. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I want to address the previous editor's comment of "reliable source (that the editor) can actually review". Two of the sources that I have claimed above as reliable are easily reviewable on the web. Those are the Spartanburg Herald link^[1] (and if one looks at this, then it shouldn't be said that there are no reviawable, reputable sources), and Chorus and Verse (Steppin' Out Magazine journalist)^[2]. I acknowledge that, while I am correctly reporting the credential of the journalist responsible for the second article (writer's bio follows the article), the website itself accepts freelance submissions. With respect to a third article that I am claiming as reputable, The Press of Atlantic City, the article ("MUSIC DEFINES TALES OF THE CRYPTKEEPER FIVE") was a 1043 word piece that appeared on page 27 of the September 20, 2002 print edition. The only way to access it online, which I have done, is to pay $2.99 for the archived article. The Ox-Fanzine reviews are easy enough to preview, and translate features are easy enough to come by. I haven't quoted from them because I don't know if it's good practice to quote a translation, but I have provided the links. For the books, all I can do is provide page numbers to help others preview.

As for the blogs used, I'm repeating myself, but I haven't used them to assert any controversial details, nor do I claim that they enhance the notability claim. They simply help add helpful biographical details.

The article can use a rewrite, and given time I will do it. However, in the meantime, I assert that I have demonstrated enough notability to avoid deletion.Keithramone33 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Keithramone33 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Keep: This article needs some improvements but I don't think it should be deleted. There's enough coverage here for notability in my opinion.--Scantunl (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls short of notabilty and is one of a growing list of articles that has the intense attention of a small but growing group of meatpuppets. Ridernyc (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridernyc: I respect your opinion regarding notability, but resent your accusation. Had to look "meatpuppet" up. I saw that the article said assume good faith, which you haven't. "Small but growing group..."? Two editors have agreed with me here. One changed his mind, does it stand to reason I used a meat puppet tactic to get that vote? The other is an anonymous user w/o a page. I wouldn't have sought such help b/c I wouldn't have thought it would hold too much water (although thanks Scantun!). But why is it so suspicious? Someone w/o an account looks up a band they have interest in, see the tag, create an account, and weigh in...

Secondly, I see you've tagged another of my articles. I get it but... I have enough to do here, wouldn't good form be to let this one resolve first? (it is easier to destroy than create). I mean thanks for leaving my other two alone so far, sheesh!

I know we're to leave the personal out of this, but I feel like "(s)he started" ("meatpuppet").Keithramone33 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

Note: I have recently added a couple new references that I have found. I do look forward to eventually improving the article for tone, style, and (perhaps) content, but this discussion is about notability, which I hereby reassert.Keithramone33 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33[reply]

^ http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120301/ENT/203011008
^ http://www.chorusandverse.com/content.php?id=20021012A

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plommons[edit]

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

Non Notable Garage Band, that isn't even notable in it's home nation of Sweeden. The use of it's own website as a primary source lends credibility that it isn't a viable article. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will say again, this was patrolled and kept as credible for two months, I believe. This user has been attacking my articles (look at his/her history) and needs to stop. He/she is taking things personally and should worry about his/her own work. I also stated in the article they were the first all-female pop band (not garage rock, big difference) ever to originate from Sweden. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
comment Above comment is by the author. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, everyone who would read that knows this.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plommons may not have issued many records, but they were vastly popular live, performing all over the country, appearing on national public service television and chosen as the opening act when The Who played in Sweden. But not least they are important from a historical viewpoint as Sweden's first all-girl pop/rock gruop. As such they appear as the first track on a historical CD compilation issued by Svenskt Rockarkiv (The Swedish Archive of Rock). The band also has an entry in Myggans nöjeslexikon (vol 12, Höganäs 1992, page 122), the major Swedish encyclopedia in the field of entertainment. This article in Svenska Dagbladet (one of Sweden's major national newspapers) from 2008 shows that the band is still far from forgotten, and also points out that soon-to-be founder-member of ABBA, Benny Andersson, was one of the additional musicians on Plommon's last single. /FredrikT (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've added Myggans nöjerslexikon to the article as an independant source. /FredrikT (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be notable per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Levin Papantonio Law Firm[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Majority of the article concerns biographies of partners; Fred Levin already has its own article; so does Reubin Askew and Mike Papantonio - those sections should be merged or deleted. The sources cited for the company, and those I see on the web, refer to it in passing - I don't think that's sufficient to prove notability. Ref 8 is a good example (with the quote included in the article): it concerns trial lawyers in general, and has nothing to do with the company in question. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per detailed nomination. I could find nothing to add. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find sourcing that would change the analysis above. I would have no objection, after deletion, to the creation of a redirect from this title to the lead partner. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Young, Josh (2014). And Give Up Showbiz?: How Fred Levin Beat Big Tobacco, Avoided Two Murder Prosecutions, Became a Chief of Ghana, Earned Boxing Manager of the Year, and Transformed American Law. Dallas: BenBella Books. ISBN 1940363411. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  The book notes from the Google Books snippet view:
  Levin-Papantonio became a giant in the field, with lawyers all over the country consulting them to handle their cases. The firm performs the work and extends the money, and the lawyer referring the case gets a piece of the action, if and when it...
2. Offit, Paul (2013). Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231517963. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  The book notes:
  Walter Olson has followed the career of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Olson is the author of The Rule of Lawyers and The Litigation Explosion. Called "an intellectual guru of tort reform by the Washington Post, Olson has helped to shape the debate on tort reform, and his publications have been cited in Supreme Court opinions. "[Kennedy] is a number of different things," said Olson. "He is a professor at Pace University Law School. He is the chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeepers. And he is also an attorney with one of the largest and best mass tort law firms in the country." It is this last association that has most intrigued Olson.
  In 2000, Kennedy joined a group of trial lawyers to sue pork producers in the South and Midwest. During the litigation, the Associated Press ran an article that quoted Kennedy as well as a lawyer named Mike Papantonio. Although Kennedy and Papantonio were described as representing two different organizations, their appearance in the same article wasn't a coincidence. "Michael Papantonio is a flamboyant, very well known personal-injury lawyer who has been involved in a lot of mass tort cases," says Olson. "He is the second named partner in the law firm of Levin Papantonio, one of the best known mass tort firms. They were involved in tobacco litigation. They were involved in asbestos. They have eighteen different product-liability areas that are important enough for them to list [on their Web site]. They are a very rich, very successful firm. And they are not a firm that incidentally does plaintiffs' work. They are very close to the glowing heart of the product-liability industry. A firm of that sort, even if it doesn't list vaccine litigation as one of its major activities, is well aware of the large amounts that could be made if it cracks open. The firm doesn't list what Kennedy's financial arrangements are, but that there are financial arrangements is certainly implied by the fact that he is 'of counsel' to the firm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the law firm Levin Papantonio to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: commentary on sources would be helpful Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard did a good job. I am withdrawing this nomination. Ping Spartaz. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka. I was going to close this as delete, but in case anyone does want to perform some sort of a merge, I have redirected with history intact. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Railway - Major Services[edit]

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

Similar article already exists, List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka Blackknight12 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka lists all three operators in Sri Lanka, while the nommed article focuses on one of them. And as it stands it seems to be approaching towards just lifting the train schedules verbatim from somewhere. Tentative delete 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge - Present project is moreover similar to List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka Need to be merged. (Williamahendric (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Comments on merge vs. delete? Sandstein 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who scam[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines, heavily based on opinion with few, if any, reliable sources of fact FitzJD (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be absurd to ask for an 'other side' to this because the other side is perpetrating fraud; sourced well enough and a common scam. Definitely an expansion candidate much more than deletion. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a well-known scam. I have no experience with it myself, but have knowledge of it through coverage and cultural references as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, this article should likely be removed as much of the information contained here is miscategorized, simply false, or completely subjective without any real citation or reference. Having spent years actually working at three different "Who's Who" companies and having intimate knowledge of the industry, I can attest firsthand that the majority of these companies aren't a "scam" and aren't participating in fraudulent business practices. Could one categorize some of these companies as a vanity publishing company? 100%, but that is by no means a scam. The article explicitly states that the "Who's Who Scam" involves the selling of fraudulent directories or memberships. In my experience the registries are produced and sent to the members while also generally filed with the Library of Congress. As far as the sale of membership goes, that's also true, but many of these companies offer an online networking platform (a la LinkedIn) as their main benefit of membership, which in turn means they are providing a service in return for a fee. Many of these companies also offer items of recognition such as plaques and certificates at an increased price. The point is that if a consumer sees value in membership or the purchase of a registry containing their information, and they go decide to pay a fee (on their own volition) for such a service, how exactly is that a scam or fraudulent business practice? The article is poorly cited from old sources that stem from subjective opinions/experience. The external links section provides little use and information on anything that would related to a supposed "Who's Who Scam". Also to challenge some other items in this article, in p2, the article says "This information can be included in the fraudulent directory, sold to other marketing firms, or used in future attacks such as phishing emails." - in my experience this has NEVER been the case. No company in their right mind would sell information of a paying customer. Furthermore, there's no source cited or proof contained that any Who's Who company has actually engaged in this practice. This seems purely subjective. p3 mentions that "recently incorporated companies are often behind these scams" - can someone provide proof of this or cite some source that says this? The text contained within p5 is also completely subjective and without reference or citation. Who's to say that A & C Black's Who's Who is any more legitimate or a point of reference than any other Who's Who? The bit about Tucker Carlson and Marquis Who's Who is also seemingly out of context and really seems a bit off topic in generally. In the see also section, it's also confusing to see why "American Biographical Institute", "Academic paper mill", "Employment scams", and "International Biographical Centre" are listed as none of them relate to a "Who's Who Scam" and are more suited to be listed under the vanity press article. Unless someone can provide some better references/citations that are fairly new and aren't completely subjective in nature, I would definitely say this article is a good candidate for deletion. Instead, a snippet of information pertaining to "Who's Who" companies should probably be created under the vanity press page on Wikipedia. --173.68.48.75 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep candidate for improvement rather than deletion. Needs to be sectioned and explained that it is not a single scam but possibly two, sometimes related ones. The older is the vanity one, to offer to include a subscribers details in a publication in return for a payment or the purchase of the publication. Whether this is a scam or not is a matter of perspective, the subject of the scam does receive a service, that of having their ego polished for a fee; and most adult individuals will fully be aware of nthe nature of the transactiom. The newer phishing example in order to extract personal details to commit identity fraud is most definately a scam.--KTo288 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks to me like a POV fork. The matter can be easily addressed in existing articles like Who's Who and Marquis Who's Who. Having a separate article like this appears especially inappropriate because the scam allegation seems to apply to the whole "Who's Who" business, rather than just a piece or aspect of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a popular scam. Looking over the article's history, I'm not too surprised that SPAs have targeted it. Anyway, here's some coverage: [6] from the Los Angeles Times, [7] from The New York Times, [8] from Business Insider, [9] from Entrepreneur, [10] from Forbes Life, [11] from Journal Inquirer, and [12] from The Plain Dealer. Some of these are focused more on specific instances, and others are about the topic as a whole. I will accept that the specific cases could be added to their associated articles (such as Marquis Who's Who), but the ones that discuss the concept broadly do not fit into specific articles except this one. There are also more relevant hits on Highbeam, but I'm a bit tired of reading about scams at the moment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided by NRP demonstrate that this passes GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just looked up this topic on Wikipedia because I received an email containing what appeared to be a who's who scam. I agree the article needs to be improved with more specific references, but it serves a beneficial public purpose. Brettman32 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Grant[edit]

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

the alliance is notable, and the refs how it. She is not., for the refs merely indicate that she is exec director of the organization.; theydo not discuss her to a significant extent . DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Recently added sources illustrate the subject's notability independent of the Alliance (e.g. she was quoted extensively as an expert on the Family and Medial Leave Act in a book, was quoted as an expert on that subject in The New York Times, and helped successfully defend the law before the Supreme Court) and support her status as a thought leader in her field (was named one of the 25 most influential people in the field). She's received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, and these recently added refs demonstrate that she's notable outside of the Alliance. (Per the discussion guidelines, disclosing that I've made significant contributions to the article) RachC (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RachC. Needs cleanup and to be tighter, but meets notability guidelines. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The article doesn't present the topic in a promotional manner, its well structured and the person meets general notability guidelines S3venevan (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ShopBack[edit]

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

utterly trivial firm, $1.1 Million funding, has the usual publicity of an intent-relatedstatup, all of which does not add up to significance. , let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of news articles about it. Funding is irrelevant; it could have been started by someone independently wealthy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NCORP I only see 2 sources in google: [13] [14] all other results appear to be in the search results because they appeared in a sidebar/related articles on the first article. I'm not sure about the reliability of either site, but the articles appear to be substantial enough coverage to make a comprehensive article. WP:CORPDEPTH is met, albeit barely (CORPDEPTH says "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.", this has only 2 that I can find). There is information on the main product, founders, funding, WP:AUD: Both sources appear to cover all of Asia, so this is met as well. digitalnewsasia says they're located in Malaysia(same as the article's coverage) in their privacy policy, couldn't find a location for techinasia (though I didn't try very hard). I couldn't find anything to suggest that either source fails WP:ORGIND, whether reliable or not, they do seem to be independent of the subject. Red flags to me: Neither Tech In Asia or Digital News Asia appear to have a wikipedia article (non-notable news sources or not popular enough for someone to make one, not really a good sign either way), techinasia has a statement of ethics page [15], I was unable to find any related page on digital news asia (or anything indicating their editorial oversight policy).

Sources already used in article:

[16] written by an engineering student. The site claims to be "the most authoritative ____" but the site looks very questionable, with an overuse of buzzwords.
[17] company profile site at a startup-incubator, presumably at the founders' university. Let's just call these self-published. Also trivial coverage.
[18] Substantial coverage, but site appears to allow self-publishing. Author also writes for e27, and also attends school at NUS, (see prev link)

~~I may fill in the rest later when I have more time.~~ Nah, I don't care enough to. ― Padenton|✉ 08:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 08:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ShopBack's been featured in The Business Times Singapore, the only daily newspaper in Singapore that focuses on business and financial news: [19]. Business Times (Singapore) has a Wikipedia article, as linked.

ShopBack is also currently working with established organisations like Citibank, Packet One Networks (Malaysia Telco) and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants. The article has also been edited to include references for ShopBack's partnership with these organisations. In addition, Citibank, Packet One Networks and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants also have their own Wikipedia articles, as linked. —Lievesun^{[[User talk:Lievesun| 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

@Lievesun:: Your sig's broken. Missing close </sup> tag.

Keep -Agreed, the company has recent news in foreign press and fits general notability standards S3venevan (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a startup with an active P.R. department. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Richarde[edit]

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

Delete: as plainly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-her films/tv shows might be notable, but not her roles! Wgolf (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Un-needed article, and the following sentence in the article looks suspiciously negative; "Tessa Richarde is an American actress mainly cast as likable dumb blondes." Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Ann Lambert[edit]

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

Nonnotable author. Her books are not even on worldcat, which is a bare minimum requirement. Everything else is a notice or an advertisement, including the cbc item DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this is a major coi surprise nobody tagged it as that! Wgolf (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Un-needed article, and the following sentence in the article looks suspiciously negative; "Tessa Richarde is an American actress mainly cast as likable dumb blondes." Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not on VIAF, nothing found in news search. FYI @Zeke Essiestudy: I think your comment is on the wrong article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Forget I said anything here. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched and could find no notability. apparent coi. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON but fails WP:GNG as is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions must be given less weight as less convincing in the light of Wikipedia policy and practice, particularly because they do not seriously address the concerns voiced about the sources, as also discussed on the AfD talk page. Sandstein 08:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shotokan Karate Union[edit]

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

This organization exists, but I see nothing to show it's notable. The sources appear to be either event results or not independent, but I'll admit I couldn't find many of them. However, the burden of proof is on those creating the article to show there's significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite a bit of notability discussion on the article's Talk page. My comment there was that it is hard to tell whether this is anything more than a UK centered small grouping.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable organization based in the United Kingdom. Passes GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any supporting evidence or is this just another of your votes to keep all martial arts articles? Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to delete Kimbo Slice, so how is that a keep to all martial arts articles? You seem to not like me. Lets try to keep things civil. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They unquestionably exist and they have tournaments. Neither of those make them notable. I'm not seeing the evidence of significant third party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep agree with CrazyAces489 observations in addition they have affiliated members in other countries http://wckf.org/ http://wckf.org/members.php Bazatom (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Bazatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What do the links do the World Christian Karate Federation have to do with this discussion? Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like i walked between a personal grudge fight so not wishing to get involved in that but i agree with crazyace489 again, when he says "lets try to keep things civil." Although i thought the answer to the question was self evident, nevertheless the answer is, nothing other than the WCKF are members of the SKU http://wckf.org/ and the second link supplied http://wckf.org/members.php shows the spread of countries that are represented as members Bazatom (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Bazatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hard to be civil to someone who accuses 10 editors of being racist and bigoted simply because they disagreed with him.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone say racist or bigoted? or was a statistic given out? CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a link to the bogus SPI complaint where you intimated that editors were acting based on racial bias? Then, not only refused to back off if it, but doubled-down on the offensive notion? If you do, I can help you out. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like its the other way round for the three members of SKU listed - not sure how that talks to the notability of the SKU.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it clearly states that the wckf are members of the the sku and not visa versa, i do see the 3 sku members listed who are also members of the wckf but i dont see anything on the sku site saying that the sku as a group are members of the wckf. Notability is a very subjective point of view, which is heavily dependent upon ones prejudices and therefore somewhat of a mine-field to be avoided, just like the opinions of someone with a track record of bias. But no matter how one chooses to view it, the original contribution suggests that the sku is more than a uk only group. Bazatom (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Bazatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I see that association now but still not sure how it talks to the notability of the SKU.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazatom: Are we trying to determine what the original contribution suggests or what can be verified through independent reliable sources? Notability may be subjective in the real world, but it's pretty straightforward on Wikipedia: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." While it's true that the SKU is very likely more than a UK group, truth is not what determines Wikipedia notability. The SKU could be a small local group with a couple of members and still be considered notable for Wikipedia as long as it can be shown it has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article content does not determine whether the subject matter is notable simply because Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. We cannot make something notable through editing. Existence does not establish notability because notability is not inherent. Wikipedia articles about similar organizations do not establish notability because associations with other organizations do not automatically make something notable. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think what needs to be determined is whether the organization itself has received the signifcant coverage in multiple reliable sources required by WP:ORG and not whether it has notable members. My understanding of WP:ORGDEPTH is that being mentioned in tournament results, lists of other similar organizations, or passing mentions in other sources is considered to be "trivial" coverage, not significant. Moreover, organizations do not inherit their Wikipedia notability from their members any more than a member inherits their Wikipedia notability from an organization they belong to. In each case, notability must be generally be established independently of the other, right? I have been watching this article since it was a draft. I have been trying to help clean it up as best as I can and find additional supporting sources. I was surprised when it was approved via AfC (after being previously declined twice before for lack of notability) simply because the main problem of no sources, in my opinion, which established its notability had not been fixed. If the article can be saved, I'm all for it. But, I was afraid it was going to eventually end up here and it has. Are there any specific WP:WPMA criteria which relate to the notability of organizations such as this? Not to get around "WP:ORG" or WP:GNG, but perhaps something which can provide guidance as to what types of sources are considered reliable for martial arts related-articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC); (post edited by Marchjuly to fix typos - 13:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- It also might be helpful to notify other editors whom have contributed to the article or any discussion of it (or its draft), the editor who accepted it via AfC, and WT:WPMA by using {{subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}. I found out about this Afd because the article is on my watchlist. WP:AFD# After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors does not say that such additional notification is required, but it might not be a bad idea just to get additional input. I would do it myself, but I am not sure it is OK for me to do so since I am not the nominator. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC); (post edited by Marchjuly to correct grammar - 13:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  - I've done that and in any case she has just edited the article so I suspect the AfD tag has been seen. As with Marchjuly I tried to fix up the article and the issue of sources and how significant the group is has been mentioned to the primary editor before.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources where they are mentioned (as discussed on the talk page) are tournament reports; it is acknowledged that they exist, and compete. What they don't have is notability; the places where they are not mentioned is very telling - namely, the Shotokan Karate associations to which they should be a member. According to their own associations, they are not notable enough for a mention. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article, an organization, has received significant coverage in numerous WP:RS reliable sources as required by WP:ORG. It also meets WP:GNG for the same reason. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @WordSeventeen: Could you be more specific as to what these numerous reliable sources are? If you have found something new that is not already being used in the article, then please add it yourself or post it at Talk:Shotokan Karate Union and I'll add it. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started a discussion on each of the sources cited in the article as well as some possible sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shotokan Karate Union#Sources. I think this will be helpful in evaluating whether the SKU has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some urls for the sources cited in the article have been added to the AfD talk page by the article's creator to help with verification. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on my own search and after looking at the discussion about the sources, I must admit that I don't see the significant independent coverage of this organization required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I checked out the article talk and AfD talk comments. It basically consists of "I couldn't find this print source on Google". Well there is no requirement that that a source be on Google and specialty sources are just fine. Based on the article titles, it looks like about half of the 11 sources would count toward notability, such is sufficient. I will !vote weak keep since I can't see the sources myself, but am willing to assume good faith on the reliability of the sources. Pinging @Graeme Bartlett: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that "published" does not exclusively refer to online sources. Not being online just makes it harder, not impossible, to verify; Even so, verification is still required, isn't it? Is it considered acceptable, therefore, in such cases to ask that a "quote of relevant text from the source" be provided by the editor who added the source to help verify whether the coverage is signifcicant enough to establish notability since the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with them? It seems reasonable to assume that an editor adding an offline source as a reference has not only read the source, but also still has access to it. What happens, however, if in such cases the editor who provided the source is unable to provided further information because they cannot access the source any longer? Finally, "WP:GNG" says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Does this mean that the two cites each to Fighting Talk and Fighters, and possibly the cites to Traditional Karate and Combat (comments made on this AfD's talk page say that Traditional Karate was incorported in Combat in September 2009) should be treated as "single" sources, i.e., three sources instead of six, when it comes to notability and seperate, independent sources when it comes to article content?- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly not be an unreasonable request to ask for quotes, but whether it is fulfilled or not probably shouldn't impact our decision. As to whether multiple articles from the same source count as multiple sources for notability purposes, that depends largely on the nature of the coverage. If two articles were published for essentially the same reason (e.g. to cover an event sponsored by the org) and/or by the same author, then that is represents only one view point and is thus like one source. If the coverage is two different view points that happen to be in the same publication, that is like two sources. Regardless, three good sources is generally considered sufficient for notability - so, everything is hanging on the quality of these unseen sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: More discussion of the sources would sway the outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish more of the sources were readily available. I'm basing my comments both on what others have said and by looking at what the sources claim to reference. I'm not seeing enough significant independent coverage to show me this organization meets WP:GNG. I see non-independent sources and reliable sources that appear to provide non-significant coverage like event results. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, sorry, I just looked at the extensive review of the sources on the article's talk page. Especially given the hissing and the appearance of SPAs to vote Keep, I'm not taking anyone's word for anything. I want to see substantive sources I can get my hands on, and failing that, I don't believe they actually exist or that they say what it's claimed that they say. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seem to be many more substantial references if one searches by the acronym the organization uses, and culls out the radio station, etc. Many of the refs are in foreign languages, which may or may not also use the phrase karate. See here ... and try the search as well on other google searches. Leaning keep, but not yet !voting. Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think those organizations are not related to the organization under discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some certainly appear to apply to this organization -- they are the acronym by which this organization is known, and even just looking at the photos .... of people engaged in karate ... without applying google translate -- we can already see that they are an intersection of karate participants in an organization known by this acronym. Though of course this is a mixed bag ... there are still some article that, as you point out, are not related to this karate organization. Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, I'm a bit confused by your post. Do you understand that the "World Shotokan Karate Union" and "Shotokan Karate Union" are different organizations? Papaursa (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche in answer to the foreign enteries that cite the SKU from what i have seen the SKU has members in lots of countries and organisations that are members of them too for example the WCKF in the examples below say they are members and looking at their pages they are in many countries so i understand that by using the acronym i could find more examples. Bazatom (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Took your advice Epeefleche and searched by acronym and as a result found some further substantial references. See here [20][21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] they range from foreign and domestic clubs and organisations citing the SKU GB in articles and press releases as being a notable organisation and worthy of citing. Then there are karate players who are acknowledging the SKU GB as making a contribution to their success. And other karate players displaying their grading statuses that were ratified by the SKU GB which to them must be a noteworthy organisation or they would not have linked themselves and their grade status to the organisation. So unless all these independent people are wrong then I am still of the opinion to keep.Bazatom (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Well if they received their grade from or are members of the SKU GB - then they are not independent.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I Disagree completely with you as they appear in my opinion to be former members, and as such can only therefore, be defined as currently independent.Bazatom (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bazatom, you can only vote once so I changed your second bolded vote to lower case. In addition, none of those sources provide significant independent coverage of the Shotokan Karate Union. In fact, some don't mention it at all, merely mentioning shotokan karate. Those articles consist of people's unsupported biographies saying they were blackbelts and members of the SKU. Many of them are adverts for clubs. There's nothing independent in those sources that gives any indication of the SKU being notable. The discussion isn't about whether or not it exists, it's about whether or not it's notable as defined by Wikipedia. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wrong on two counts firstly as they do not merely say shotokan karate as you state, but they say "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)" or i would have not been able to find them as i was using the acronym in the search, what i think it is saying is that is the style of karate of the grade that they achieved was taken in the style of "shotokan karate" but in clarification they directly place one character space after the words "shotokan karate" the statement that it was with the SKUGB that they gained their grades, so not only have you read the links wrongly but you are unjustly presenting your wrong conclusion with some authority as if your misreading of the citation is a true and corrective fact, i like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt so i assume this is merely an oversight on your behalf and you will correct this immediately, and it is not just another totally unfair, biased point of view, as this confusion is a very misleading representation to anyone who just takes your misreading of the citation, without being bothered enough to read it themselves, as it clearly says "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)" . Another thing you seem to have conveniently overlooked is that there was an independent report in there from a local independent newspaper that states SKU name Bazatom (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources you listed and didn't see any that provided the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that is required by WP:GNG. They definitely don't seem to be independent or significant and I don't think they meet the criteria for reliable sources, either.Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) your thoughts on the matter disagree greatly with my own and as you sound so very definite and authoritative in your comments, how come you haven't already voted accordingly? is that the way that you participate on wikipaedia, just by commenting ? should have i not voted yet on the issue ? should i be just passing comments ? Bazatom (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A vote is not obligatory although normally people will place a vote, even if this really isn't a vote. There are a couple of reasons for not voting but only commenting - one being that minds are not made up one way or the other. The comments usually reflect the issues raised and the hope that more convincing arguments will be presented.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another burning question is, why do the people who nominate an article for deletion, not have enough conviction to put their name to the act ? are they feared in someway of the comebacks if they signed it, especially if they are regularly nominating this that and the other ? or is it part of the fun being the unknown warrior ? and why if they are so incensed to nominate article after article for deletion do they not vote to delete as often as they seem to freely nominate and comment negatively ? Bazatom (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm the nomination here is clearly signed and the delete vote is implied otherwise why would they nominate.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC) mmm that really is not an answer to my question as im not talking about this specific nomination, i want to know for if i decide to nominate an article. and does the same apply thing to the box that is added to the top of an article page ? as the box on this specific article isnt signed ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotokan_Karate_Union[reply]

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (April 2015) This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2015)

Bazatom (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the place to ask these things but you can find out who added what tags into articles by looking at the history. You are not supposed to put signatures within the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cheers for changing that but i wasn't voting again, i was just stating as i said that "i am still of the opinion to keep" this and it was arrived at after further research on the tip of using acronym was given by Epeefleche. I found those relatively easily and more besides. So I strongly disagree with there is a lack of notability because if they are being quoted enough by various sources and people and they have people who are associated to them in lots of countries who are mentioning them and they are taking part in sports competitions then notability goes with all those things and the length of time that they have existed and the number of members and former members that still refer to them. And on the question of former members they can by disassociation only be classed as independent. Bazatom (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edit history differences and when you bold face and capitalize keep, it looks like a vote to everyone else.Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) got it now thanks Bazatom (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable and interesting. Chunlinc (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brooke (businessman)[edit]

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

Non notable. failed politician, with vague claims for having been involved in various movements. Relatively minor executive position--not head of the firm DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is determined by coverage, not importance of accomplishments. Brooke has significant coverage is multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated by those already in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the handful of RS already in the article, many more exist: [31][32]. By the way, Brooke may not have taken the "CEO" title, but he is the co-founder of the (notable) firm, not some "minor executive". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that media coverage exists of a candidacy does not make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article — it makes them a WP:BLP1E. All candidates in all elections always generate some media coverage, so a person has to win office, not merely run in a primary, to qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis. He might potentially be notable for his business career, but that hasn't been adequately demonstrated here — not a single source here covers him in the context of his business career in its own right, but rather is sourced entirely to either primary sources or passing mentions of his business career as background in coverage of his candidacy. That is not the kind of coverage it takes to claim that he gets over our inclusion rules for businesspeople. And for that matter, even the company's article is completely unsourced, and fails to properly demonstrate that it passes WP:CORP for anything — so he doubly can't claim an automatic notability freebie as a cofounder of a company, if the company's notability is also debatable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true that all candidates generate coverage, but in any case what confers notability is biographical coverage, which few political candidates generate. "Horse race" coverage may well do zip for notability, but biographical material always shows notability (even if it was generated because of a political candidacy). Brooke did generate biographical coverage and is therefore notable. Our general notability guidelines are quite clear that accomplishments can never count against someone, only for them (i.e. the specific guidelines can confer notability, but failing them never conveys non-notability). BLP1E quite obviously does not apply here - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not same people notable for one thing can't be notable. Additionally, Brooke is back in the news this year for reasons unrelated to his previous candidacy (his involvement in a political scandal, see provided news links), so even the "1" part is false. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, it is true that all candidates generate coverage — they don't necessarily all garner equal volumes of coverage, but media have a public service obligation to grant some coverage to all candidates in any election taking place in their coverage area. If I wanted to (which I don't), I could write and source an article about every single person, winner or loser, who ran for any office in the Toronto municipal election, 2014 — they wouldn't all be good articles by any stretch of the imagination, and most of them wouldn't have any substantive reason why an article should actually be kept on here, but not a single one of them (not even the fringiest freaknuts) would be completely unsourceable. Whether the amount of coverage is enough to satisfy GNG is another story — but no candidate in any election ever goes completely uncovered. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's not really relevant to my argument anyway so I'll concede the point. Certainly, most candidates do not generate quality (biographical) coverage, which should be the standard for notability. IMO, that has occurred here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have received much media coverage other than for running for office, and that's not going to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, much less WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GNG only requires a few sources and dozens exist here. Can you explain why you feel the guideline is not met? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them are about him specifically (and substantially), and how many are WP:reliable sources? Not many. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that is simply not true. Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify. It is true Brooke did not win his election, but he did attract considerable local and national reliable source coverage - well beyond all reasonable expectation of what all/most candidates routinely generate. In other words, the GNG is clearly met. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made me waste several minutes checking out campaign drivel? Shame on you. Lots of candidates get media coverage. None of yours are suitable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of politicians are notable... Please show me the part of the general notability guideline that says sources related to an election are invalid for considering notability. Until you do, your argument is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What actually matters is the quality of the source, not the reason it was published. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that arguing that sources related to an election are invalid is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presented with more evidence, he might be notable. However, right now he fails all our our relevant notability guidelines (WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG) as well as my standards for lawyers. He came in fifth - an "also ran" - in a single race, in which he made an ad shooting a copy of the ACA. I don't see how any reasonable person could find that notable. The story in Politico by itself doesn't prove notability as we define it; it's about a campaign tactic, and not about him. Again, if we had more information on his law school and bar association activities, then I would re-consider. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request - If consensus is to delete, I would like to request the closing admin userify it instead so that I may reuse some of the material in an article about the election where it surely not improper to cover Brooke and the other candidates. Alternatively, a redirect to Harbert Management Corporation or United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2014#District 6 with the history intact would serve the same purpose... I don't think anyone would object to a redirect to either of those places where Brooke is mentioned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite a bit of coverage of this this guy including coverage of his political future in Alabama and beyond. So, he has received and continues to receive coverage, which clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN #2. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says:
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
The sources provided by ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) above:
Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Will Brooke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
WP:BLP1E does not apply because Will Brooke is not a low-profile individual. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (which is linked to in BLP1E) says:
A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.
Because condition 2 of BLP1E is not met, BLP1E does not apply because the policy requires that "each of three conditions is met". Condition 1 is not met either per ThaddeusB's comment above at 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
Cunard (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Stan Wawrinka tennis season[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this was a recreation or not, but regardless this does not meet project Tennis guidelines for notability. Stan did not win a major tournament in 2013 (not until 2014). See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Article_types_and_recommended_practices for clarification. I had thought of going the speedy delete route but went with standard "proposed deletion" instead, which was nixed by the article creator. So now we are at formal deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nom, does not meet the WP:Tennis guidelines. I see no reason why reason why it should be any exception. Fazzo29 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Some wikiproject's essays are not a basis for deletion or retention. Inviting discussion based on actual policies or guidelines, such as notability. Sandstein 19:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's notable, but I don't find coverage specifically of his 2013 season. I think WP:NOTSTATSBOOK also applies. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of twins[edit]

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

Nothing but highly indiscriminate listcruft. Nothing notable or defining about being a twin in itself to begin with. Aside from BBC and maybe STV, none of the references used are even good quality sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN as it is easy to find compilations of accounts of famous twins. See Twin Stories or The Everything Twins, Triplets, And More Book, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've likely misunderstood what I meant; being a twin is not a defining trait by itself. The people listed here are more famous for their occupations/positions within society than they are for simply being twins. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly cases where the twins worked together and their being twins was a significant part of their act. The Dolly Sisters, for example, who were huge in their day and who showed up on Mr Selfridge recently. Andrew D. (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a thing, SNUGGUMS. We have never limited lists to "reasons why people are famous." We don't even do that with categories, for which we require a higher threshold of significance than lists. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

obliterate There are cases where a pair of twins are notable as a unit, but when we get to "Notable people with a non-famous twin" we are down into "trivia of birth". Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we could keep the notable cases and remove the non-notable cases. Why do we have to obliterate everything? Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted to have a list of famous twins (that is, pairs of twins who were famous as such) that might be OK, but it would also be a different article. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak Keep - I personally don't see the point to this article at all but with sources like the Daily Mail, Daily Star, BBC and STV it seems to meet GNG, Plus looking at the traffic it does get quite alot of hits a month [33] so not really seeing the need to delete, Just needs expanding really. –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail and Daily Star aren't exactly reliable sources, and page views isn't a valid reason for keeping per WP:POPULARPAGE as it doesn't necessarily show a topic is notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as standard biographical index of notable people per WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:Twin people per WP:CLN. Complaints about sourcing are completely irrelevant to deletion, but are rather just cleanup concerns, as it's obviously verifiable whether notable people are twins are not. If you don't like the sources in this list migrate them from their separate articles, and if (and only if) good faith research fails to turn up any sources that someone is a twin (or conclusively establishes they are not) despite them being identified as such in this list or their own article, then remove them from the list and the mention from their article. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may well be a case for reducing the scope of this list to people for who notability includes the fact that they are twins but I see no case whatsoever for deleting it. Rat Weazle 19:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and Move~~ ~~to "List of twins who are both notable". The article scope already seems limited in that way (i.e. to twins who both have Wikipedia articles, or who have a joint Wikipedia article)~~.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't include self-references to Wikipedia standards such as notability in article titles. Inclusion criteria can be discussed on the article's talk page without having to retitle anything. postdlf (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a Wikipedia article quite apart from the Wikipedia notability policy. Here are some examples of lists that include the term:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt we could find examples contrary to any of our MOS guidelines. Doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_naming. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for the info. I say keep. Why not have a list of twins who are both notable? Seems fine to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The lists that I listed above no longer have "notable" in their titles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The list is not only interesting, but its also an organized way to present notable people and relevant information S3venevan (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING doesn't exactly explain how/why something is notable enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Retracted by filer. By blanking this page. No discussion has been had. Sandstein 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving Generals of Indian Army[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources. Supdiop (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of Clay[edit]

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

Band I can't find any refs at all for-all my results are stuff like "make birds out of clay!" (Kind of not surprised though) as well as ancient readings of this. Wgolf (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find any info about the music artists! Wgolf (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay found one ref-but it is basically a blog and it makes it sound even less notable then when I put this up a couple minutes ago: https://thebirdsofclay.wordpress.com/ Wgolf (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't really find anything :/ maybe a few festival appearances in Denmark, but then I'm not good at navigating non-English sources. Earflaps (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Deon[edit]

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

Despite being in over 40 films none of the roles stand out. (Also the refs that keep on getting added seem to go to spam sites) Wgolf (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that even though quite a few of those are major films-he doesn't seem to have any major credited roles almost all of them are uncredited roles with stuff like "tourist". Wgolf (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per our standards. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Utterly non-notable, falling far below WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The subject is not notable, it was created by an account that clearly doesn't know how to structure an article and it sounds like its just trying to promote the person's own business S3venevan (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:BIO and lacks coverage to meet WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below had a majority consensus that there is insufficient independent coverage to warrant an article on either Ali Fadavi or his doctrine. Der yck C. 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fadavi Doctrine[edit]

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

This is a cut-and-paste move from Favadi Doctrine, which was created the day of the speech in question with essentially the text we have now. Three years later this has no GBook footprint and (once you eliminate WP) no significant link footprint; it's not hard to figure that what hits there are arise from copying/paraphrasing our text, since nobody provides much more than a definition and reference to the speech. After this much time, in a hot geopolitical topic, there should be a lot of commentary if this were a real thing. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider whether Fadavi Doctrine should instead be redirected to an article on Ali Fadavi (which currently is redirected to the article on Falavi Doctrine). WP:MILPEOPLE accepts notability as established if an individual has "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." Perhaps Fadavi's statements equating Israel to the United States (the "Fadavi Doctrine") are something of a flash-in-the-pan, but his position with the Iranian military renders those statements hard to ignore. Independent and reputable sources appear if his name is fed into search engines. The reason for the appearance of his name in those sources is irrefutably his statements forming the Fadavi Doctrince. So, again, my recommendation is to keep the substance of the article although I can go along with a judgment call to subsume it elsewhere and provide sufficient redirects to make it easy to find. Perhaps, however, the best treatment is still to leave "Fadavi Doctrine" as a self-standing article and to redirect his name to it while also beefing up the cited sources. Rammer (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise to Ali Fadavi, as a notable flag/general officer and head of the IRGC Navy, in which these statements can be replicated. Retain redirect but we need an article on the IRGC Navy head, as a service chief. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This and others are currently being discussed at WP:RFD. Persian and Arabic names are often transliterated in different ways into English, so the redirects suggested would be valid, but it has to go somewhere. I agree with Buckshot06 to reorganise the whoe lot, but until we get consensus at WP:RFD I can't see how we can do that with consensus. 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)

His notability simply as a military figure is not germane to this discussion. The redirect can be turned into an article if he be so, but if we decide that this isn't a thing, it doesn't matter one way or the other. And that's really the problem: if this were a thing, like Mutually Assured Destruction, we would find discussion of it under its own name. I couldn't find any of that; everything I found was simply a repetition of our text, word for word, with no elaboration. As far as I can tell someone here took it upon themselves to give a name to a point in a speech a very short time after it was given, but if that point is the subject of discussion, it is not so under the name we assigned to it. If nobody finds significant evidence to the contrary, then it doesn't matter if the speaker gets his own article in the end; this should be deleted, with no redirect to replace it. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mangoe is right. It makes little sense to recommend keeping the article but then changing it to have a different subject. There's no need to tangle page history like that. In fact, RfD is dealing with a couple of messes left from such ill-advised efforts in the past. This is not a discussion about the notability of Ali Fadavi, who indeed seems notable. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources to appear to pass WP:GNG. Ali Fadavi is presumed notable per WP:SOLDIER as a flag officer, but the subject of this AfD fails GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Mohler[edit]

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

Non notable martial artist. Has no accomplishments that meet WP:MANOTE and the only source is his press release of an event he was sponsoring so there are no sources that show he meets WP:GNG. Studying a bunch of different arts does not make him notable.Mdtemp (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. I have been sitting on nominating this myself and after applying a series of tags was hoping that the issues could be addressed. Right now it seems like a heavily padded CV and although I cut out the worst of the language - heavily promotional. There is not the coverage that would lead me to think differently.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even I can't find a reason to keep him. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit this made me smile. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculously promotional and with all that puffery, there still isn't anything getting him past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing to show he's a notable martial artist and I found no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MANOTE cannot see how the subject is notable and lacks coverage to meet WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Baldacci. Nakon 22:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No time left david baldacci[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Although a Google search may suggest, on first inspection, that the book has good coverage from independent sources, many (if not all) of these sources are either the publisher, online bookshops that offer the book for sale, or otherwise non-independent. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 14:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the author of this book is fairly notable, there is little in the way of reliable independent coverage of this work. The best I could find were blogs and goodreads reviews. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a major work of any kind. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that shows this particular story is independently notable beyond a mention in the author's page. Crow^Caw 18:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Merge per User:Coolabahapple. seven weeks on the bestseller list of USA Today, discussed by the Washington Post, by the LA Times, by the New York Times, by Forbes, by The Wall Street Journal, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These articles/sources appear to mention the subject only in passing. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 23:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the WSJ article. It's the main subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't really talk about the work itself, but rather the practice of pricing books cheaply. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pricing is an aspect that would be suitably covered in the Wikipedia article. Also, the story "features Frank Becker, an aging assassin with work-life balance issues". Also it was originally published in 2010 as part of an anniversary issue of a book "Absolute Power". Then you have the sales figures and the bestseller status. It just seems like plenty for a brief Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Baldacci, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, google search brings up nothing notable, just bookseller and blog sites and other trivial sites (have added title with some plot info to author article). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. I added a WSJ footnote to David Baldacci. If someday that author article gets too big, it can be split per WP:SS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Baldacci. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the vehement defence from several SPAs, the "delete" !votes are more firmly policy-based. No convincing sources meeting any notability guideline have been brought forward. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lois de Menil[edit]

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

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

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

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

Let's review the sources presented:

A letter written by the subject
Passing mention in an article with another subject (the Dia Art Foundation)
Blurb on an art gallery site
Passing mention
Directory entry

All right, so I think it's pretty clear none of this material justifies a separate article - it's either not independent or trivial. Which leaves us with this, a long, glossy Vanity Fair piece about the tribulations of the Dia Foundation. Here, the subject does rack up more mentions, but I would submit none of them remotely indicate encyclopedic notability. They're almost a parody of the idle rich:

“

When Georges and Lois moved to Paris, they started using the de Menil family house in the country on weekends, and Lois redecorated it, in her style, which was not everyone else’s style. What’s the difference? Well, when my grandfather was near the end of his life, he gave Georges and Lois a Matisse cutout, and she went to Pierre Deux and found this print fabric in the same colors and had their whole living room in New York done in it.

”

“

Lois de Menil, who had already given $150,000 in 1994, pledged $350,000 more.

”

“

Lois de Menil was [upset]: 'The motivation was to take control. This group wanted power. And Michael thought they had lots of money and would just say yes to anything he wanted. There was never a full board discussion of the policies Michael was carrying out, or whether we should go forward with the sale of the buildings we had planned to sell.'

”

That's all very interesting, I'm sure, but it hardly seems notable, as defined by WP:BASIC. At best, again, this could be mentioned in the context of the Dia Foundation, but as far as standalone notability for this individual is concerned, that simply is not apparent.

Note: this was previously deleted as part of another discussion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you for taking the time to review my entry on Lois de Menil in such detail. I am continuing to edit it and I would like to contest the proposed deletion because of recent changes. In response to the critiques, I have supplied further references from Cambodian sources, as well as sources relating to her work in Romania, both of which are more recent and relevant contributions than her time at DIA, though the former received greater visibility in English language news sources. The Center for Khmer Studies which Dr. de Menil contributed to founding, constitutes the only research library in Cambodia outside of Phnom Penh. I struggle to see how that is not a notable contribution to education. I am open to all constructive criticism of this piece and welcome your response. Vwikiv (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv — Vwikiv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- In terms of what you've added:
Not an independent source
No mention of the subject
Directory entry
Passing mention
A search result is not a source
Press release, not an independent source, meeting someone is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biruitorul,

I take your point about the sources including "non-independent" publications and not being of the quality you would hope for in a wikipedia bio. There is an inherent challenge, however, in holding up notability in Cambodia to the same standards as in the US, since the number of English language publications about Camboodia -- particularly about library scholarship -- are minimal. That is partly a product of the particular history of Cambodia, which destroyed most of the educational infrastructure in the late 1970s. I'm not sure where this leaves us, but I would contend that the article demonstrates enough evidence to show that Lois de Menil really did found the Center for Khmer Studies, and that the legacy of that institution in terms of research infrastructure and cataloguing the National Museum constitutes notability.

Please also note that I corrected the reference to the National Museum Catalogue so that it no longer links to google. Thanks for spotting that.

As before, I appreciate the time you are putting into this and other wiki entries on a volunteer basis. Vwikiv (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. It has a total of 16 sources as I write this comment and it is a coherent and interesting article. With regard to it been non-notable I disagree also. By virtue of the fact that 16 sources can be found it is notable. The subject matter is notable in any case. The article does not qualify for deletion. Keep Thank you Trout71 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) — Trout71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Just a note that this account is four days old, and this is the first AfD in which the user has participated. And that, "hey look, sources!" is not a valid argument - those sources need to be analyzed for relevance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. The subject is a published author, has held prominent positions, and has been influential in several notable organizations: Dia, World Monuments Funds, National Gallery of Art, Andy Warhol Museum, Center for Khmer Studies - all of which have Wikipedia entries and are noteworthy, and the last of which she founded. Also, since the original deletion request, more citations have been added. Biruitorul, in both this request for deletion, and the related request for deletion of Georges de Menil entry, you take issue with the subjects' finances. I don't see how this is relevant. Keep Thank you --Bdemenil (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Let's note the obvious conflict of interest here — we don't know the identity of User:Bdemenil, but we do know he wrote a now-deleted article on Benjamin de Menil, the son of Lois de Menil. Participants can draw their own conclusions from that.
- Let's also note that said user added this link to the "Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press"; needless to say, that's not an acceptable source, per WP:SPS. Truly, this article and a few related ones are turning into a walled garden. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Biruitorul, in this discussion you have a pattern of attacking the person rather than his or her argument. I do not list myself as a source. Nor is it necessary for my opinion to have weight. But a factually based argument should be addressed. It is a fact for instance that this page now contains many independent sources. It seems a stretch to dismiss them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.35.103 (talk)

OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. I have been a longtime/frequent user of Wikipedia, and I only registered today so that I can oppose the proposition to delete the page related to Lois de Menil. That proposition really surprises me. I am a Cambodian national, and I am working for an independent Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Cambodia since 2007. I know very well CKS, the organisation for which Mrs De Menil serves as a president. I can testify on 2 points. 1/ CKS is a very well known and reputable organisation, from an academic and from an intellectual perspective. It achieves good results, it generates high level studies and knowledge that is shared with Cambodian scholars and it has very strong credentials in the country, and has collaborated with international organisations like the United Nations, with Cambodian Universities, and with International NGOs. CKS has been operating for many years in Cambodia, brought in the country high level international researchers, academics, experts and professors which are providing lot of insights and knowledge related to Cambodia's history and culture; the organisation's reputation and quality are excellent. Mrs De Menil is a well known, well respected professional, and the role she played in supporting Cambodia's cultural preservation and history is very important. Mrs De Menil has been instrumental in ensuring CKS credibility and quality. I understand Wikipedia policy to ensure quality of all references and information that are posted on the website. It is a commendable standard. Therefore, please allow me to ask you to keep the page online and accessible to the public so that those improvements can be made. I am not sure that I agree with the nature and the form of some of the above criticism made by Biruitorul, but I can see that somebody is already working to address the comments that have been made. I am sure constructive improvements can be made, so that future Wikipedia's readers remain well informed. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs) — Khmer15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Biruitorul: In response to Biruitorul's allusion to a walled garden, the Lois de Menil entry is referenced by two wiki articles (Dia Art Foundation and Center for Khmer Studies) that have nothing to do with Benjamin de Menil, nor does her entry mention him. Furthermore, the entry links to 29 other wiki articles. This does not seem to fit the definition of a walled garden. 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

Striking second comment signed by the same user, Vwikiv. Vwikiv: please only express your opinion once here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator - the participants on this AfD thus far have been User:Vwikiv (edits only articles related to the de Menil family), Trout71 (new account, first AfD edit here), Bdemenil (probably the article subject's son, first AfD edit here), Khmer15 (single-purpose account) and 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (likewise). - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator - The nature of the participants, how old or new their accounts are, do not change anything to the accuracy of the facts and the reliability of the new information that is presented. The quality and the relevance of many of the criticisms formulated by User Biruitorul makes me question the impartiality and the objectivity of that person, and therefore the validity of the feedback. The person seems to have engaged in a personal "vendetta" against the De Menil family. Some of the assumptions formulated by Biruitorul are borderline calumnious and biased. I quote: Press release, not an independent source, meeting someone is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC). User Biruitorul needs to be much more accurate with his feedback, better informed, and less disrespectful. Not an independent source? I disagree. In addition, the fact that Mrs De Menil has met with the King of Cambodia, is a significant event, that fully proves notability of Mrs De Menil. King Sihamoni is not "someone', as suggested, but he is Head of State of Cambodia, and a symbolic and well respected public figure for all Cambodians, and for many foreigners too. Being invited and received by the King of Cambodia in his residence is not a common fact, and it is to say the least a very significant event. As a Cambodian I would please ask you to be culturally more sensitive. I am not contesting the fact that some of the above mentioned references can be improved. But please, let's stay objective and impartial here. And let's have as a shared goal to improve the quality of the information that is presented on Wikipedia. Please let's not enter into any personal "vendetta", specifically when there is no ground for it. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability not established. Non-independent press release is not WP:RELIABLE and therefore cannot be used as a source to establish notability. I would like to note that sources do not have to be in English to be used, but that they also can't be self-published. The article is on de Menil, not CKS, so the effectiveness of the organization doesn't matter. Finally, I would like to remind everyone in this discussion of the WP:COI policy; don't edit things that you have a connection to. I would argue that the wiki-age of the participants does matter, as Trout71's argument showed no knowledge of the relevant policy. Notability is not transferrable, and I assume the king meets dozens on a daily basis. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. Note to the Editor. Dear Sir, My name is Solinn Lim and i am a Cambodian working in international development field in Asia based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. I came across the proposed deletion of Ms. de Menil's profile and I would like to share with you my experience. I met her once in Cambodia when she was visiting a local orphanage called Children’s Peaceful Home in Srer Ampil locality. She introduced her friends who were potential donors to the founder's orphanage, and then went on to visit a group of local authority who managed a small museum in the middle of nowhere (about 10 mins or so from the orphanage). I was a guest of the orphanage's founder and my interest was to visit the museum because i heard about this amazing project trying to educate and stop local farmers from looting priceless artifacts of thousands years of age and sell them to black markets in exchange for a bag of rice. Such looting happens every day and my worst nightmare as you can imagine is that nothing would be left for my children's generation. In my 15 years of professional experience in programme development in Asia, i can humbly share with you, that funding for area such as cultural preservation in Cambodia has diminished, and we rely mainly on private funding such as that of Ms. de Menil's. A local expert whom i know very well explained to me how important it was that someone like Ms. de Menil chose to focus on cultural preservation adn development work. Let me be clear that the funding alone would not have been sufficient. Her negotiation skills and acute political awareness were so essential for her project to succeed in the area that is full of powerful business interest such as this. At a seminar I attended on digitalizing the entire catalogue of the National Museum i got a good glimpse of the complexity - just on the technical level alone they had to deal with 3 languages that CAmbodia uses: Khmer, French and English. Let me tell you how important the work of Madame de Menil to Cambodians. As a nation, we went through a century of colonization and the recent murderous genocide accounted for the death of 25% of our population. As the UN's hybrid Khmer Rouge/genocide trial is still on going, we Cambodians are confused of our history, fearful of living our present, and not ready for our future. We are in limbo. We need to preserve and rediscover our past, our once glorious ancient civilization in Southeast Asia, through the work of Ms. de Menil that would help us understand where we came from. Such preservation and education are so important because it would help our fragile nation to regain our confidence, overcome sufferings from centuries of humiliations, rebuild our national identity, and pass on the pride to our next generations. I can go on and on about Ms. De Menil and especially about the CKS's achievement since i am a regular participants of their valuable research seminars. I can provide you more references to the work of the CKS and Ms. de Menil as i have learned a lot about her from local media. I hope this humble testimony would help you reconsider to keep this profile on Wikipedia. Please let me knwo if i could be of service to Wikipedia in regards to the case of Ms. de Menil. Please accept my apologies for the typos as i am writing to you on my mobile. Sincerely, Solinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengkiim (talk • contribs) — Sengkiim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete While some members of this family are undoubtedly notable, notability is not inherited. None of the reliable sources present in the article are actually about the subject or evidence any level of in-depth coverage, and it's easy to spot a vanity bio propped up with citations to things that the subject is associated with in some way. The SPA exclusively involved in editing these articles and the SPAs "voting" here with claims of vendettas and whatnot quite frankly smell of paid editing as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator - the same arguments are repeated again and again from the pro-deletion users, while the side that opposes deletion brings new testimonies into the picture. Mrs Lois de Menil has an established proven track record of actions and results. She legitimately deserves a page in Wikipedia. Many professionals that have met her and that collaborated with her can testify, with example and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs)

Stricken because you only get one vote. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator -Please allow time so that Mrs De Menil profile can be improved, and edited. The feedback on what needs to be changed is clear. It is just a matter of time before independent sources are found that can support her achievements and her contributions. Please also note that the pro-deletion users are applying double standard, lecturing others on high standards that needs to be respected, while they are feeling comfortable making emotional judgement about others that are groundless fantasies e.g. FreeRangeFrog assumptions. Their action and words reinforce my point: what they are looking for is simply to take down the page, and not to contribute objectively to improve the page quality and accuracy, and therefore to contribute to improve with impartiality the quality of wikipedia, to a larger extent. Quality of content in Wikipedia is the goal. I am not interested in blindly speculating on who is who, and who is doing what. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15[reply]

Note to the administrator - While supporting to keep the article so that modification can be made to improve compliance with WIkipedia policies and regulation, specific parts of the text and selected references that are in contradiction with those policies and regulation can be easily improved. However, seeking better alignment with important principles of neutral point of view and of verifiability, I would like to seek guidance and clarifications as per why the Phnom Penh Post article or the official Website of King Sihamoni are not qualified by the pro deletion as fitting with those 2 principles. Could you please provide clear example and advice as per what criteria you use to define neutral, and verifiability? That would be very useful. Many thanks in advance for your support. 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.185 (talk)

Delete I searched Newspapers.com and Highbeam for any articles that might establish notability. I can't find any. I'll remind newer participants that creating new accounts to "vote" in this AfD is obvious to experienced editors and only increases the likelihood that the article will be deleted. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator There are two facts that I will now submit. The first is that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of notability. It has succeeded in indicating it's notability. The sources aren't the best but it is sourced. In response to User:I am One of Manys comment I am not in anyway associated with the other voters as can be checked. I don't think we even live in the same continent. I don't appreciate unfounded accusations. In any case, such a comment seems to suggest that you have run out of arguments for the deletion of this article. The comment made by User:Biruitorul regarding the age of my account should not have been mentioned as it is both irrelevant and an attempt to discredit my view without actually having to challenge my view. I contest that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of non-notability or for being unsourced. So on what grounds can it be deleted? Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trout71: Sourcing isn't enough; it has to be reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. That's why your account age is a problem; even barring sock puppetry, you clearly don't demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of the relevant policies, and AfD is based off of the quality of the arguments, not number of !votes. There are enough ways to fake a CheckUser result that they're pretty much never run when suggested by a suspected user. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Origamite: So you are tacitly accusing me of being a sock puppet. I am now a "suspected user". Well that's just bloody wonderful. I am beginning to understand now. If I vote in a way that contradicts your perceived consensus or in this case your preferred consensus because there is no consensus I get labelled a sock puppet. Very easy way to discredit my point of view and turn a vote. If you need proof that I am not a sock them I will withdraw my vote and let you have the article. I am not particularly passionate about it. I found on this page a few days ago and thought it was descent. Which was why I voted and watched the page. Now I am familiar enough with Wikipedia procedure to know that the case for the article being deleted on account of being non-notable is hopeless. It has indicated notability. As for source have a look at source 17. It along with quite a few sources are relevant. The article is well-written, sourced and notable. What reason is there for deletion. There you are. I made my point without accusing you of sock puppetry. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trout71: I am trying not to accuse you of anything. I was just explaining the typical CheckUser response to one of those requests. The entire point of this discussion is that we disagree on whether the article's well-sourced, and that's fine; AfD is a discussion, not a commandment handed down from on high. I would still like to say that your previous comment doesn't put up much of an argument by policy, but you should't just remove it. If you'd prefer to strike it and put up one that speaks to the reliability of the sources instead of the number that would be good, but that's your decision. I'd like to see what DGG does to the article; I trust his judgement and may change my opinion. I still feel that 17 is a press release and therefore cannot be used to demonstrate notability; also, notability isn't transferred and I assume the King meets with dozens of people every day. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Origamite: I am not requesting anything. Most of the comments on this page regarding my account are wrong. This is not my first ADF discussion and I am not associated with any other voter. I will stick to the reasons I have given. I would also assume that the kings time is limited and so he would only meet with people who are inherently notable in some way. I will let the Admin ascertain the reliability of the sources. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep despite the continuing inappropriate comments above. I've checked her book in WorldCat [34] , and it is in over 400 libraries and ahas been taken seriously by academics, with reviews in American Historical Review, Journal of Common Market Studies, & [[International Affairs (journal) |International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) . One single book at that level does not amount by itself to notability as author or under WP:PROF, but it is nonetheless contributory. Probably her main notability is as sponsor of the Center for Khmer Studies, -- a research institution for which there are quite a few third party references, and which has produced many important publication--I'm adding some to the article on it. I think it would qualify as the leading research center and library in its subject. It is of course open to question to what extend her role with various institutions is only as an interested provider of funding, but this is true of most people who are called philanthropists. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, no reliable sources found indicating notability. Comment: why are there six 'note to administrator' s above, from five accounts? 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@1Potato2Potato3Potato4: I assume that the others saw what Biruitorul had done and decided to make other argument to the closing admin instead of to the other users in the discussion. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources [35] that cover her because of how rich she is. But her writing and her position at the Center for Khmer Studies are real, verifiable [36] and notable. And her positions as philanthropist/Board Member of such major arts institutions as Dia are real [37]. And as per [[User:DGG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure a New York Times wedding announcement is quotable for anything other than, I suppose, the fact that a wedding took place? Such items are, for obvious reasons, inherently biased in favor of their subjects. While I don't question the subject of this discussion is, in fact, "chairwoman and president of the Center for Khmer Studies", it remains the case that no impartial source mentioning this has turned up. Given that, we have no need to do so either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I am certain of it. I have no idea whether this is true for any other newspaper wedding announcement on earth. But the NYTimes puts serious sourcing into wedding announcements, fact-checkers phone up and verify Dad's employment. Ask for scans of documents proving that the bridegroom's mother's mother's father really was Prime Minister to the Duchess of Grand Fenwick - that sort of thing. Remember, those wedding announcements are incredibly widely read, getting one in is highly competitive, and they are not working on deadline. The fact-checking is intense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Qualification. I'm only describing the NYTimes wedding announcements in recent decades. not the Oh-So-Social ones of the early 20th century Times. This not at all like an old fashioned or local social section. It is highly competitive to get one in, getting one in is sort of like getting into an elite college. You apply, but the actual announcement is written by Times staff. Errors - rare - get formal corrections. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I understand that, and like I said, I don't question the veracity of what the announcement states. What I do find questionable, however, is the idea of sourcing this fact ("chairwoman and president of the Center for Khmer Studies") through a wedding announcement. That no other source has commented on this, that it had to wait for her daughter to get married in order to be reported, is indicative of the fact that it simply isn't more than a routine career position, rather than something of encyclopedic notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that's why I didn't add it to the page, as I usually do when I turn up a RS while editing AFDs on poorly sourced articles. What it did was to establish to my satisfaction that the Center for Khmer Studies is real.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Origamite: To Origamite, Biruitorul and others interested in the question of sources, please note that I have added an additional verifiable secondary source from Khmer National Television. It is a broadcast of the inaugural address made by Lois de Menil on the occasion of the opening of the CKS research library in January 2010. Thank you for taking this into consideration. Vwikiv (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

That was a useful edit, User:Vwikiv. I hope that you will stick around, it can take a while to get used to Wikipedia's arcane, often legalistic culture, but if you stick to a single identity and add constructive, reliably sourced content you will be welcomed. Remember that content can be added from reliable sources in French, Khmer and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Merge? On second thought, although there is notability here, it might make sense to merge into Center for Khmer Studies. What do you think, User:DGG?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did not wade through the sock-wall-of-text above, but simply took a quick look at the article and sources. Article has plenty of WP:OR and lots of entries in the biblio that are not WP:RS. I thought maybe the Vanity Fair piece would lend some weight, but it is basically about the family with a focus on a few members – Lois is only mentioned, somewhat trivially, a few times. From what I take of the article, it is clear that she is not notable per se. WP:PROF may be a relevant guideline (since she has a PhD and is associated with a research institution) and her book "Who speaks for Europe" is held in ~500 institutions, but we normally set the bar for c1 in this guideline to having at least 2 such "well-held" (noted) publications. Perhaps simply WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: Thank you for pointing me to the Wiki policies on original research and reliable sources. I have removed two sources -- the Gutenberg link to the World Encyclopedia entry on the DIA Art Foundation, and the World Monuments Fund description of its work on the Endless Column in Romania. In addition, I removed a double citation to the Vanity Fair article. In addition, I have added two secondary sources to the references about the de Menil Gallery in Groton, one from Harvard News and the other from Boston.com, both reviewing shows. Are there other sources that you would flag as not meeting the reliability criteria? With regards to the original research, the section of the entry that seems most subject to that critique relates to the work in Romania. Unfortunately, Romania does not publish its list of Legion of Honor Recipients online. I can try to see if it is possible to cite a printed publication. If there are any other concrete changes I could make to improve this article, please let me know. Vwikiv (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

@Vwikiv: Most of the bibliography consists of web ephemera, which are not sources. Rather, those belong in an "external links" section that interested readers can follow off-site. This means that most of the article's content is still original research. The basic problem, as I explained above, is that deMenil is not notable per se (according to any specific guidelines), nor are there enough reliable sources to satisfy general notability. Consequently, improving the article itself is not terribly important. That can be done later, if the article survives. Much better to direct your efforts to finding sources, i.e. pieces that discuss deMenil or her work specifically/substantively and which are published in mainstream sources (books, national periodicals, mainstream news sources e.g. NYT, etc). More web pages, unpublished work, or trivial mentions will not help here. I did a few quick checks but did not find anything obvious. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: Thank you for your clear explanation. In keeping with your advice, I have located another source found in the exhibition catalogue of the 1980 Grand Palais art show. I have also added a reference to a UNESCO Plenary meeting at which she spoke. I will continue searching for further mainstream sources. Vwikiv (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

@Vwikiv: I'm sorry, but I don't think I've conveyed my point. Catalogs and conference programs are likewise not mainstream, widely-available, archival sources. Unfortunately, these do not help the notability case. Even more unfortunate is that I think your efforts confirm the assessments of the "delete" !votes here that there simply aren't any sources that satisfy WP guidelines of reliability and notability that merit keeping this article. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: I think UNESCO would disagree with the label "conference program" to describe a fact-finding session for the International Coordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of Angkor. If that doesn't constitute a widely available (it is online after all) archival source, then I have trouble imagining what does. If Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources is so narrow as to only include newspapers, it would be missing a large swath of what constitutes notable research. What then would be the difference between notability and celebrity? Vwikiv (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

@Vwikiv: OK, so it's a "session program". The point is that this is not an archival source, but rather a document that was produced for a specific event. WP guidelines for sources are not narrow (please have a look), but they do exclude ephemera like this.

comment (an editor asked me to revisit) She is a philanthropist and a scholar. A trustee of the World Monuments Fund. Here's an old Andy Warhol photo [38] of Menil in her natural habitat. She is not a publicity hound, and is apparently something of a scholar, but she is notable for paying for stuff like the restoration of WWF (World Monuments Fund) sites and backing the Center for Khmer Studies with her checkbook and her friend' checkbooks. She has not been a publicity seeker (she does not, that is, have Architectural Digest in to do photo spreads of her houses, or [[Vanity Fair] to write up her clothes - that is a choice she makes.) Show-offs are easier to source. Someone - staff apparently - now feels that Wikipedia pages are wanted. This one can be sourced, as a philanthropist, by searching on terms including Lois de Menil + philanthropist; or "Lois de Menil" + WMF + trustee. She has a serious scholarly interest, she has a PhD and likes to be described as Dr. Mendil. But rather than judging her as a scholar , judge her as a philanthropist. Comparable to Leon Levy (another heavy-hitter in archaeological funding) Here they are together on a project.[39] Putting the money in, not putting themselves forward. She is a notable philanthropist. and this article, as I said above, should be a keep because her position as a philanthropist is documentably notable. We just need to cut the hype and source the philanthropy. (Got to run now and set the house up for an Architectural Digest photo shoot, ;-))E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a case of special pleading right there - you seem to imply that despite her apparent aversion to publicity, we should still consider her notable for her deeds. In theory, yes, provided notability can be demonstrated in the usual way - that is, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Unfortunately, it hasn't been; all we have is, to quote Agricola44's memorable phrase, "web ephemera". Similarly, any claims to notability as a scholar must pass the WP:PROF test - again, we have no indication of that, either.
- As for the rest ("staff apparently now feels that Wikipedia pages are wanted"), last I checked, it's AfD participants who decide on the notability of articles, not the retainers of the de Menil family. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The walls of text and badgering every vote for deletion do not obscure the fact that the subject does not (yet) meet WP:BIO. Looks like conflict-of-interest editing. Miniapolis 02:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article subject's life and work including philanthropic efforts in the United States as well as internationally in Romania and Cambodia are well sourced and referenced to numerous WP:RS including "Review of "Who Speaks for Europe" by Fritz Stern, Foreign Affairs (April 1978) [40], Lois de Menil, "L'Art américain depuis la guerre: à la recherche de l'oeuvre d'art" p35 - 39 in the Exhibition Catalogue L'Amérique aux Indépendants, 91e exposition annuelle Société des Artistes Indépendants, Grand Palais, Paris (13 March-13 April 1980)., Bob Colacello, “Remains of the Dia” Vanity Fair September 1996. [41], New York Times Letter to the Editor, March 8, 2008 “The Dia Art Foundation”, “The Medicis for a Moment: The Collapse of the DIA Dream” Phoebe Hoban New York Magazine - Nov 25, 1985, pp52 and following on google books [42], The de Menil Gallery at the Groton School [43], Boston.com review (Feb 17 2005) of a Sebastiao Salgado show at the de Menil Gallery in Groton [44], Harvard News by Nashoba Publishing review (April 7 2014) of a show of Russian photographs from the Forbes Collection at the de Menil Gallery in Groton [45], Alexandra Parigoris, “The Endless Column Restored” (February 2012). See footnote 5. [46], World Monuments Fund Fact Sheet and Board Members [47], UNESCO International Coordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of Angkor, Plenary Session (June 26 & 27 2003), pp 40-43 presentation by Lois de Menil on the Center for Khmer Studies. [48], Council of American Overseas Research Centers [49], and Lois de Menil giving inaugural address for CKS research library on Khmer TV, January 2010 [50], Article in the Phnom Penh Post by Peter Olszewski about The Center for Khmer Studies (Dec 14 2012) [51], Collection Inventory of the Cambodia National Museum by the Center for Khmer Studies [52], Lois de Menil in royal audience with King Norodam Shihamoni in Cambodia (2013), in recognition of the opening of the CKS library and National Museum cataloguing [53], Peter Olszewski. "The Center for Khmer Studies names new director". Phnom Penh Post., and Fritz Stern. "Who Speaks for Europe? The Vision of Charles De Gaulle". Foreign Affairs. With a;; od these references across numerous sources this article subject much more than meets WP:GNG and has far surpassed the threshold of WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me start by saying that each of these sources has previously been dissected but for one: this, essentially a press release that quotes two sentences of boilerplate uttered by the subject.
- The rest largely amounts to a smattering of more or less banal trivia: we have the obligatory YouTube video, we have the letter to the editor (see WP:NEWSORG for a caution against citing such pieces), the photograph (which, by the way, does not support the claim which it is cited as supporting, namely that she served on a museum board, never mind that such honorific posts rarely evince notability), this, this and this (which don't even mention Lois de Menil), the directory-entry mention here and here, more trivial mention here, a primary-source statement, a blog post (yes, that is a blog, with no indication that any editorial oversight exists), and, finally, of course, the handshake with the King on the King's own website (as though that has any business being cited for anything).
- In sum, even a cursory examination shows there's far, far less than initially meets the eye here. A random assortment of trivial bits, ultimately signifying nothing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Vanity Fair article does have some nontrivial coverage of her. If there were another source, similar in prominence and in depth of coverage of her, about another phase of her life, I might be persuaded to change my mind. An in-depth source about her writings would also suffice, but the Stern "review" is really just a two-line blurb and reviews of others' works that she merely happened to translate don't count unless the review goes into depth about the translation. Or possibly something about her work in Romania that makes her sound like more of a player and less of a cheerleader than our current article does. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bo Street Runners[edit]

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

Non Notable band that existed for 2 years. No major hits or placings. Fails WP:BAND CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a personal vendetta against me. See the past history and you'll see that the user has been attacking articles I have made. The background of the band clearly recognized their notoriety. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I have no vendetta, but I did notice a non-notable band. Please provide strong proof of their notability! Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known band in history of British rock. Contained leading musicians Mick Fleetwood and Mike Patto. Allmusic article by the highly authoritative writer Richie Unterberger again shows the band's notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Notability not WP:INHERITED. Vote above was by TheGracefulSlick is the author of the article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I never voted so statement is irrelevant. I merely stated my defense which is allowed. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2015

Note The vote the user claims to be by "the author" is false. I was the author of the article, Ghmrytle has been helpful by editing the article, but that does not make him the author.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2015

Speedy Keep Notability has been clearly established. I recommend that GracefulSlick and CrazyAces back off each others' contributions for a while; I see administrative intervention in your futures. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I merely stated my opinion to one of his/her articles for deletion, and he/she started taking it personally. But yes, I will cease interaction with the user. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2015

Keep - I agree that notability is weakly established by the given sources. One time, my cat sat on my Telecaster while it was plugged into an amp causing a sound to be produced not unlike the wail subsequently produced by the cat; if I were to submit that tidbit to Allmusic there would likely be an article about my "band" and its "unique feline harmony". However, being an early project of future members of Fleetwood Mac lends itself to notability, and there are a couple of decent writeups here to back it up. Ivanvector (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are many, many articles on bands on Wikipedia that Allmusic does not cover. That is a good thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BAND criteria number 6: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" with Mick Fleetwood and Mike Patto.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Lynn[edit]

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

I declined a CSD as this person appears to have starred in one notable film, but I don't think anything else. I'm a complete ignoramus to this topic (I prefer a nice cup of tea) so I'll leave it to the floor to decide what to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 13:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 13:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"as this person appears to have starred in one notable film". If the film is notable the star is notable. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC) -vote struck - see below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That supposed notable film appears to be a false positive blue link to a book series. Even if it were true, it would come up short on both the WP:PORNBIO and WP:NACTOR guidelines. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction Sorry lads I didn't realise she was a porn star. I formally retract my keep vote. I though she was just a movie star. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable porn star. No claim of passing WP:PORNBIO with no awards or RS-acknowledged contributions to porn. Fails WP:GNG without reliable source coverage. I couldn't even find coverage in the porn trade press. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have adjusted the link in the article so it no longer points to an equally non-notable book series that the subject had nothing to do with. Subject has appeared in several run-of-the-mill porn movies. No awards, no nominations, no press. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable, lacks sources and as a BLP requires much better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately, sadly and with deep sadness fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boraie Development[edit]

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

As it stands, the article is heavily promotional, containing a list of bulleted projects and multiple buzz language. Apart from that, the article is mostly supported by regional news in NJ/NY. Looking through both search and G-News, I found publications here, here and here that are somewhat from non-regional sources, but those are also iffy. Just glancing at sourcing, the subject appears to be notable, but upon review, it doesn't satisfy WP:ORG and is highly advertorial at that. Jppcap (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The article is relatively promotional, and even though it has a fair amount of news, its a real estate firm and the press/the article do not assert the topic's importance S3venevan (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The news stories are all incidental mentions of the company, even the one about the founder, which focuses mostly on him and not his company. No reporter or editor has seen fit to profile the company itself, and it has not been the subject of any controversy or anything beyond doing its job of building things. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Bachelor[edit]

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

This film doesn't seem to quite satisfy WP:MOVIE, but I'm not 100% sure, so here we are. There is a DVDtalk review and Daniel Blum's Screen World 1965 volume 16 (whoever he is and whatever the book says). P.S. Dom DeLuise was not top billed, or anything close to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I only put him up the top because he's the best known. I'll see if I can source some other things but I'm not particularly inclined to go into bat for this.Dutchy85 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does seem to be sourced info on the notability of this film: TV Guide review of DVD [[54]]. Variety seemed to have reviewed it back in the day. [[55]] [[56]] as well as Film Daily [[57]]. Maybe someone with access to old newspapers could verify these. Cowlibob (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Cowlibob's finds. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salil Singhal[edit]

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

This person does not meet the notability standards. Atsatsa (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2015 (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/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Fairly covered. Educationtemple (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO --Surturz (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has special coverage. Noteswork (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moxkito[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage online is mostly blogs and what appears to be PR interviews, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Can't find any evidence online that the single he (performed? produced?) was in the UK charts, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. It can be difficult to find online coverage for Ghanaian artists, but not impossible, and there just doesn't seem to be enough to show notability here. I've cleaned out the promotional copyvio, but the notability issue remains. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote the biography and I never stated Uk charts.Moxkito's one night more song topped around sounds radio show uk which is an online radio show hosted online. This happened around last year but currently the radio show isn't functioning again. I wanted to cite it as a reference but wikipedia described mixcloud as a blocked website. To prevent further issues i just removed that section. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.163.43 (talk • contribs)

User:Derrick Essirifi, please remember to log in before editing, and please stop blanking this discussion. The article originally did claim that his single "One night more" was in the UK radio charts for three weeks, but you later deleted that unreferenced claim in this edit. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really. I said Around Sounds Radio Show Uk not uk charts show. You changed that after the editing. Gogglee moxkito Around sounds show mixcloud

Dai Pritchard *Keep: I vote for keep because I dont see anything wrong with the article. I think everything is alright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quame Zane (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC) — Quame Zane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arduinome[edit]

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

Not my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG, so as it has been tagged for notability for over 3 years, have brought it to AfD. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Zodon, Mark viking, Thumperward. Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has two secondary in depth references: http://createdigitalmusic.com/ has an in depth article and http://www.synthtopia.com/ has four articles (mostly in video form) tagged with 'arduinome'. It has also been mentioned in a few books and GScholar shows about 80 hits, some secondary. It's marginal, but I think there is enough sourcing out there to satisfy WP:GNG and to build a short article. --Mark viking (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPRODUCT --Surturz (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ojinaga Cut[edit]

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

While working on a rewrite of territorial evolution of the United States, I decided to include every infinitesimal change to the country. Thus, I've been scouring the minutes of the International Boundary and Water Commission for exchanges between the U.S. and Mexico. And while I have found various references to bancos (land that became separate from their origin because of movements of the river) in the Presidio-Ojinaga region, I have found zero reference to an "Ojinaga Cut" or the specific numbers mentioned in this article. It has gone unsourced for over five years, and I am unable to find any sourcing either of the numbers or of the term "Ojinaga Cut" anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. It may be real, but we have zero sourcing saying such, and it should be deleted until or unless proper sourcing is discovered. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's not utterly unsourced, and what I see is consonant with online references such as this from the TSHA. I also see the exact phrase used in congressional minutes. I'm not quite sure that the name itself is valid, given that the article on the Boundary Treaty of 1970 indicates that there were two different alterations in the vicinity of Ojinaga; it's possible that a merge into the treaty article is better outcome. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it is unsourced. There are literally no sources in the article, and haven't been for 5+ years. It appears that everything in the article may have come from the TSHA, but that still doesn't answer the question of if this was different from the other Ojinaga bancos. And yes, looking at Google Books I see the phrase used in Congressional minutes but it's only a snippet view so I can't tell which exact changes it's referring to. If you have access to them, can you please give us the context? Maybe that could resolve this. --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - After some gaming of Google Books it looks like it simply mentions "Ojinaga Cut and Horcon Cut" without further definition or context. So we're left with the issue that the "Ojinaga Cut" appears to be referenced with this size and name in exactly one place on the entire Internet, outside of Wikipedia? I will go through and add up the sizes of the Ojinaga bancos to see if they correspond. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so yes, the figures add up. Minute 257 of the IBWC specifies 1606.19 (not 1607) acres were transferred from the U.S. to Mexico, and 252.00 acres were transferred from Mexico to the U.S. This jives with the article. However, the usage of "Ojinaga Cut" is still not established enough to warrant its own article, though, existing in, so far as we can tell, two places; I think the best solution now is to merge this into another article, with probably United_States_territorial_acquisitions#Mexican_boundary being the best option at present. --Golbez (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Service-profit chain[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY Pishcal — ♣ 18:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this could be improved, but I'm not sure that it's even notable. The term was coined at least 21 years ago, but seems not to have caught on. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Effigy (album)[edit]

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

Album long tagged for notability that I can't find any more. (and it seems the previous album redirects just to the word anthem) Wgolf (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at the very least merge to the artist. There is scope for expansion using sources from Allmusic, Chicago Reader, Portland Mercury, and a few others that GBooks only gives a glimpse of. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor sources not withstanding, enough sources out there to suggest expansion of article is possible. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konk West[edit]

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

Seems to be a distinct lack of reliable sources on here, and fails WP:NMUSIC. Subject has also requested deletion (Ticket:2015031510004211) Mdann52 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - support per nom and subject request —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Kanye West.... Bad idea? ... Okay delete as fails NMUSIC. –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Taira[edit]

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

Non notable actress-has only had a few roles and none of them seem important. Since she seems to just have nameless characters for the most part even. Wgolf (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I didn't see there was a first time nomination for this. Okay she might be notable enough-but I'm not sure. Though it is odd there seems to be no Spanish wiki entry for her. Wgolf (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging VernoWhitney, Oakshade, MichaelQSchmidt, Lancini87, LibStar, who have all examined its notability before. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take Pride in America[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable independent secondary sources describing this project, see WP:GNG. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google news? ABC -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this. Does look like kind of a bullshit program they don't actually want to fund.-- Aronzak (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these sources are independent or contain significant coverage of Take Pride in America. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete defunct government program. created by sock of user:matisse and heavily edited by COI account ["TakePride" but there is still almost no sourcing. Not NOTABLE. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The program seems to have stopped funding after Fiscal 2011 but there's lots of secondary sources of notability varying from high to not-so-high: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]. Whether the program is defunct or not is irrelevant to WP:GNG Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that, for notability purposes, sources must be independent. Announcements by the federal agency that ran Take Pride in America and the like are not independent and have no bearing on notability. The only independent source of the lot you cite is the last link, a short article published in 1969. This can't be the same thing because the subject of our article was launched in 2003. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, Dr. Fleischman and I considered that but I don't think that WP:IS necessarily was thinking of the Federal Interagency Team on Volunteerism's legal relationship, if any, to the Department of the Interior. In any case, my WP:GOOGLETESTing made it clear that the program didn't start in 2003 but had been around a lot longer, at least to the Clinton Administration, and was effectively reauthorized in 2002. Let me dig some more. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added a significant number of sources to the article (it only had one citation when it was nominated for AfD). Please take a look again. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for working on this. but as far as I can tell the program is dead.... last thing i found was something in 2012, i think. how notable can a program be, when its demise isn't even recorded anywhere? and the whole article appears to be inaccurate, in using the present tense, as though it were still active. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachra10003, I appreciate your research, but it may all be for naught. None of the sources you found are reliable independent secondary sources significantly covering this project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Fleischmann, I think you're taking too narrow a view of the term "independent secondary sources" and "significantly covering". By necessity, government programs are often going to have their most significant coverage in governmental sources; you can see the links to the legislation cited. Also, while I know that an AfD isn't really the place for editorial discussions, I think you've incorrectly added dead link tags here:

"TPIA History". American Recreation Coalition. August 23, 2004.^{[dead link]}?

and here:

"Take Pride in America". American Recreation Coalition. August 23, 2004.^{[dead link]}

These links aren't dead at all. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those links were dead last night, but I agree they're alive and well now. Anyway, sources written by federal agencies such as the Department of the Interior and volunteer.gov about a DOI volunteer program are... pretty obviously non-independent, sorry. The federal government has an interest in promoting its own programs; the fact that they did so has little or no bearing on whether the programs are of interest to the public (our readership). That's how WP:N works, and governments don't get a free pass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARC and 1980s sources[edit]

This is getting a bit complex. Thanks to Fiachra10003's research we have sources from the American Recreation Coalition, including the ones cited ([66], [67]) as well as three NY Times sources from the 1980s ([68], [69], [70]). Browsing through ARC's coverage of TPIA it appears ARC wasn't independent of TPIA. They actively promoted the program and may have helped to set it up. There's also a question of the reliability of their content. Then, they have an FAQ in which they say there was a separate program that ran from 1986 to 1992. All in all I still don't think we meet the GNG bar, as we have no independent, reliable secondary sources significantly covering the subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange re. the dead links... their server may have been down. I agree with you, on reflection that the News-Herald article probably is unrelated and should be removed as a source. I can't find anything that documents a connection to the Interior program. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARC from my researches is the DC lobbyist for the Recreational Vehicle industry (Winnebago, Monaco etc). See this less-than-flattering review: [71]. It clearly has a vested interest in promoting RV-friendly destinations like the national parks. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your core point - there are quite a number of less-than-formally independent sources significantly covering the subject and quite a number of secondary sources that cover aspects of the subject. The Times articles, on their own, meet the coverage test of WP:GNG: an independent "...significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ...". While "...multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source", you can see that the Times' citations are articles written by different reporters over the course of several years. The New Jersey Clean Communities is sponsored by the State of New Jersey, independent of the Federal government. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT sources are about the 1985-1992 program, not the 2002-2013(?) program. What you're calling the New Jersey Clean Communities source is as well; in addition, that source is clearly a press release written by TPIA itself. The fact that it's posted on NJCC's website is immaterial. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re. the NJ source - on closer review it comes straight from TPIA. But it's about the relaunched program, not the earlier incarnation, for the avoidance of doubt. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There weren't two separate programs. It's always been done under the same legislation and the same budget line-item, which is the "Office of the Secretary" [of the DoI]. My best understanding right now is that Hodel created TPIA because it was something "user-friendly" to do while he spent the rest of his time handing out mineral leases. The Gingrich House then defunded the program as part of a general effort to stop the Clinton Dept of the Interior spending money. The Bush White House relaunched the program so nobody would notice that they were handing out oil and gas leases. Now Obama's in, the sequestration cuts have squeezed the money out of the DoI budget. Crazy. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachra, do you have any sources saying that sequestration squeezed money out of this program in particular? thx Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've seen that mentions this is not formally reliable (which is why I don't think it can go in the article) but after Federal FY2012 the awards seem to have stopped. Therefore the informal bits and pieces seem consistent with the timing of the Budget Control Act of 2011. That said, the one "reliable" source, the Dept of the Interior budget ([72], page 676) shows that the TPIA program is still being funded! Taxpayers: where are your tax dollars going! Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman, please take a look at the Scouting (magazine) article now cited. It certainly meets the requirement of substantial coverage even if the article itself is poorly written and rather vapid. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. There are two problems with this source though, both possibly surmountable. First, what's available for viewing doesn't have any substantial coverage of TPIA. I suspect the rest of the article does just because of the title, but I can't verify this. It's possible the article is about a broader volunteer movement. Second and more importantly, we need reliable sourcing connecting showing that the 1980s program and the 2000s program were part of the same (single) program. Perhaps you can lay that sourcing out here. If such sourcing exists then I'll !vote to keep. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at page 59, the continuation page. (It's shown in the corner of page 14 but is hard to read). Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth looking at: [73] This is from the first archived 2003 version of takepride.org and among other things it provides the Bush Administration's 2003 explanation of the relationship between the 1980s-1990s and the 2003+ versions of the program: 'Although the Federal Take Pride in America infrastructure was deactivated in the early 1990’s, the program remains on the books, under the Take Pride in America Act [Title XI of PL 101-628, November 28, 1990], with its purposes codified “... to establish and maintain a public awareness campaign to instill in the public an appreciation for Federal, state and local lands, facilities and cultural and natural resources...” and to conduct a national awards program to honor groups and individuals that distinguish themselves in their community efforts. .... The renewed Take Pride In America program will recognize and further volunteer opportunities for Americans to fulfill their commitment to serve others, assist us in achieving our stewardship mission for public lands and public places and engage people—including America’s youth—in outdoor experiences.' Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times sources from the 1980s ([74], [75], [76]) provide just enough coverage for me to be satisfied TPIA meets the GNG standard. This TPIA source reliably demonstrates enough of a link between the 1980s-90s program and the 2000s-2010s program to show that the 1908s sources are talking about the same thing (albeit in a different incarnation). As an aside, the Scouting source is useful, but it's not independent as it says the Boy Scouts were closely involved in the launch of the program. Thanks to Fiachra10003 for the extensive research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, i still struggle with idea that this program can be notable, if nobody - not a single source - noted when it died. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw my response of this morning which was buried above: "Everything I've seen that mentions this is not formally reliable (which is why I don't think it can go in the article) but after Federal FY2012 the awards seem to have stopped. Therefore the informal bits and pieces seem consistent with the timing of the Budget Control Act of 2011. That said, the one "reliable" source, the Dept of the Interior budget ([77], page 676) shows that the TPIA program is still being funded!" The conclusion I'm coming to is that TPIA is still alive from a legal and budgetary perspective but that (a) the democrats generally perceive it as a Republican program and pursue it only fitfully and (b) Sally Jewell, since she took office in April 2013, thinks it's a waste of time when her discretionary budget is being squeezed. Her outdoors credentials are unparalleled (at least since Teddy Roosevelt). Look at this: [78] and this: [79]. Secretary Jewell is pushing other approaches: "engage one million volunteers in support of public lands, effectively tripling the numbers we have now" ... no mention of TPIA. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

right, that is a bunch of guessing. the facts are that the website is dead and there has been no news of this program for about 3 years now. again - i struggle to understand how something notable is not even worth mentioning, when it dies. we don't even have a source to authorize us changing all the verbs to past tense (although i guess we could rely on good old common sense for that) 20:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's a bunch of guessing which is why none of it goes in the article. I've tweaked the article a bit to introduce past tenses - feel free to tweak the article too.

Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr. Fleischman for your kind note above. I still don't think we've gotten to the bottom of what TPIA's history (and future, if any) is here but one of the good things that can come out of AfD is improved articles (not that this one is a good article yet). Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Adaptive Systems Applications[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company was dissolved just a year or two after Google was formed, so a Google search is not a good proxy for notability. This article should be improved to include 1 or 2 good quality secondary sources - such as IEEE journal articles. There is no DEADLINE and we can wait until an editor with access to paywalled archives and expertise in the field can improve the sourcing. Until then we don't have to doubt the integrity of the LANL as a source, despite its connection with the company. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google indexes newspapers and websites that were created before google was created if they can still be found on the internet. While there is no deadline, we shouldn't keep an article because it might fulfill the GNG. If someone has the access in the future, they can recreate this or ask for the deleted version. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched through Press Reader, PressDisplay, LexisNexis and Keesing World News Archive for information on this company and found nothing. If these search tools didn't bring anything up, then I doubt any sources actually exist. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article falls short of notability and there's not much coverage (probably because it only existed for 5 years). Multiple searches including News, newspapers archive, Books, browser and Scholar found nothing good aside from two links at Google Books. SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small startup bought up before achieving independent notability. Skyerise (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Of note regarding the first !vote following the nomination, while it's highly desirable for articles to be sufficiently sourced, as per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's based upon the availability of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of a topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BiosGroup[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, the article has no sources that suggest this company is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It looks like there's more than it meets the eye. A quick search threw up USA Today, one journal, another journal and even a Nature article. Might be a good idea to run it through Google Scholar to be sure. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebalu & Lule[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 and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Doncram under following edit summary: "Appears to be a significant law firm in the country. Sources included. Not obviously bad. There's at least one other in the category at AFD, related, will comment there." Being a significant foo-ian firm is not related to notability. Sources, in my view, are bad, because they discuss the company only in passing, are self-published, or come from some trade/professional publications/websites of dubious visibility. Let's discuss, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [was SK=Strong Keep or Speedy Keep, changed as no longer timely -doncram] Some Ugandan law firms should be covered in a list-article only (and their names be redirects to their row in the list-article), or not at all, but Sebalu & Lule is actually one of the very top law firms in Uganda. See Draft:List of law firms in Uganda, which I started developing in early February. Its history shows it started long ago, but that's because it was deleted and I requested the previous version to start from. I'd rather discuss sources at Draft talk:List of law firms in Uganda, but Legal500 and IFLR and Wells and Partners seem to be the major sources available country-by-country, and they seem to be valid sources. Piotr, that was during/following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birungyi Barata, in which we both participated. The pretty obvious need for a list-article to link, to prioritize and to manage development of articles in this topic area. Another editor pointed out the previous existence of a list-article, and that it was a mistake for it to be deleted during 2014.

I'd rather proceed by developing positively about the top/biggest firms working from the list-article, rather than proceeding by AFDs that are fundamentally negative. :) Also I was figuring out that developing general knowledge of sources, by working on article(s) about them, e.g. Wells and Partners (currently a red-link), should be perhaps the highest priority. And I think after positive development of the U list-article, it will become obvious which separate U firm articles are justified or not. :)

Anyhow, about Sebalu & Lule, it is identified as being in the top 2, top 4, and top 5 (the "Band 1") firms, by Legal500, IFLR, and Wells and Partners, respectively. Per my summary at [[Draft talk:List of law firms in Uganda#Rankings and directories. And "Katende,Ssempebwa,Sebalu & Lule, MMAKS and AF Mpanga named Uganda’s top law firms" (November 14, 2013), by Mark Muhumuza, a review of top 4 law firms per 2014 IFLR rankings, has a lot more specifics about Sebalu & Lule's big cases and ends with praise about the firm. So this is probably the worst choice to nom for deletion, out of Uganda law firm articles. :) --do ncr am 17:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that we need to develop either articles about sources, or list of notable sources for given fields. I'll ping User:Margin1522, who created a article on Ius Laboris (and successfully defended it's notability). Unfortunately, nobody took up my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FIus_Laboris for starting work on project-guidelines for notability of law firms. Without such expert input, I am not convinced that inclusion in Ius Laboris, Wells and Partners, Legal500, IFLR and such is sufficient. I am open to that possibility, but this is not my field, and I just don't know. Discarding them, I am relying on coverage in other sources (newspapers, books, academic articles). And that I am not seeing here. I am, however, more than happy to put any further AfDs of the law firms on hold if we can start developing such criteria - they would certainly help save the time of those of us who find ourselves coming back here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've joined discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ius Laboris, and posted there about notability for law firms. At a minimum, I think it's obvious we all have to agree that at least some firms in Uganda, at least whatever can be defined as the very top tier firms in Uganda nation, should be covered. And Sebalu & Lule is one of those few. I'll participate in the general discussion. But could you possibly please withdraw your nomination here? --do ncr am 09:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / update I notice this AFD on my Watchlist again because of its relisting. This AFD did cause someone -- me -- to join the above-mentioned general discussion about notability of law firms, and then with some activity there between Piotrus and me, at least one more editor joined, and there has been useful discussion. So in that sense let's note "Mission Accomplished" for this AFD.

Above, Piotrus expressed discomfort about whether "inclusion in Ius Laboris, Wells and Partners, Legal500, IFLR and such is sufficient" to establish notability here, although he is "open to that possibility, but this is not my field". However as I noted at the more general discussion, no one is suggesting that every firm therein (thereins?) listed is Wikipedia-article notable. With Sebalu & Lule, there is a consensus of sources that it is a very top firm. According to the three sources that appear to me to be reliable, Sebalu & Lule is either tied with one other for being the top firm in Uganda, or tied with three others for being top, or tied with four others for being top. This is not mere inclusion in the sources.

Also Piotrus at the general discussion offers that they're willing to drop efforts to do AFDs on law firm articles of third-world countries (where to me it seems there generally is zero- or under-coverage), and to shift attention to areas like U.S. where there is tons of coverage of law firms, pretty clearly too much, and with the coverage being very uneven, including wp:ARTSPAM (articles that are merely spam). So that implies Piotrus is willing to let this AFD drop if there's no further interest, though P has not returned to withdraw this AFD and P may still be curious if any interest would show up here. Since this has been open long enough and there has been no more substantial discussion, I think this AFD is ready to be closed easily with either "Keep" or "No consensus". I feel that "Keep" is the fairest summary of merits of the discussion here. :) --do ncr am 05:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Aereen Reyes[edit]

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

Delete: Non notable ATHLETE. Quis separabit? 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite a fair bit of coverage in online sources. I'm a bit biased on this since I watch Philippine volleyball, but there has been quite some coverage of her in reliable sources, and not just routine coverage for her volleyball career either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication she meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCOLLATH. I get a 404 error for two of the article's sources and the other two are not independent, so she doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, either. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, but none which is specifically about the subject of this AfD that would be considered significant coverage IMHO. Sure teams that the subject have been on, have won championships, but that doesn't equate presumed notability per WP:NCOLLATH. Therefore, per guidelines, I cannot support keeping this article. The burden of proof is on those who want this article kept.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEvo[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 and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator with the following edit summary: "reliable information and secondary sources added". I am afraid I still don't see the references ans sufficient. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have already discussed it with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus on Polish Wikipedia and article was approved and NOT deleted there. There are external links in the article and they are independent from government (which I believe was the main concern of Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus)- these are Polish Press Agency and other Polish media (like New Industry Portal www.wnp.pl)--Dariusz Szwed (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Wikipedia is pretty inclusionist, doesn't have a detailed notability policy, and IIRC, that discussion had only the two of us disagreeing with one another. I stand by my opinion that this project has generated only passing coverage, and the rest is primarily self-published or press release like. There is a single story from PAP that seems based on PR materials that got shared to few Polish newspapers, that's it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My points in PL Wikipedia were considered relevant - the article is there, not deleted. In my opinion (and my experience of editing here and there) English Wikipedia is more inclusive :) Greenevo is objectively an existing, governmental project with media coverage. And please Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, look at the sources in the EN article again. You already had that point in PL discussion that Polish media "paste and copy" Ministry's press releases which means they are not reliable. I suppose we are not going to discuss quality of Polish independent media here (which is of course as in many countries - sometimes higher and sometimes lower and you can read more about it here: Freedom of the Press (report)). It is not the subject for deleting an article from Wikipedia. Public TV channel - TV INFO, Polish Press Agency PAP or New Industry WNP.PL to mention a few are NOT "governmental" media :).--Dariusz Szwed (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Escape[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference is to a webpage containing the rules of the game. This does not speak to notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article (User:Pier440) posted a response to this discussion on the talk page of the article. I have directed him to contribute here. – radar³³ 04:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd refer to the Chinese Wikipedia page 大概路子. I don't have the source myself of how many people play it, but I'm telling you it's not small. It's well-known in Shanghai, and I think it would be familiar to a good part of China. I don't have a reference, but I also think it's worth keeping longer before deletion. Maybe someone can fill that in.

My main concern is the English name. The Chinese Pinyin would write it as Daguai Luzi (not DaGuai LuZi as in the original article, which I redirected to here.). Wild Escape is not the name that I've heard -- I've heard "The Joker's Way" which would be the literal translation of 大怪路子. However, I believe that the original author (User:Beautifulsummerdays) who wrote [DaGuai Luzi History] would be better placed to explain it. I just tried to improve the English.

Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier440 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Apparently there's regular tournaments for it with local media coverage, so there has to be at least a high degree of prominence in China. Possibly a systemic bias: it is easier to recall variants of Texas Hold Em' played on World Series of Poker in the English-speaking world. - Mailer Diablo 23:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Armie Hammer. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Chambers (television personality)[edit]

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

Cannot find any signficiant coverage on her. The only reliable sources I could find are just bit stories about her and her husband (Armie Hammer) but nothing strictly about her - fails WP:GNG. It also seems that she hasn't done anything really major which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armie Hammer, considering the only major film she did was The Game Plan I can't see much notability right now. More of a "I'm married to a famous person" case. Wgolf (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have found in-depth coverage this is primarily about her.[80][81][82][83][84]. WP:GNG makes no discrimination against "fluff" pieces. Notable junk is still notable. --Oakshade (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't consider Hollywood Life reliable. And the People article is more about Armie than her. GNG is still about significant coverage and not just mere mentions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:SOURCES,as long as there is editorial control over the content as there certainly is with the Penske Media Corporation operated Hollywood Life, it is acceptable coverage. All the coverage presented here specifically about this person is far beyond the scope of a "mere mention." --Oakshade (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - And as per WP:NOTRELIABLE in the same article, "such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." When a website advertises itself as the "Latest Hollywood Gossip" - I take it out of the reliable category. And again, the People article is about Armie with mentions of Elizabeth, nothing I would consider significant. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - And as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, the actual reliable sources guideline, states, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. There could be an article entitles "Elizabeth Chambers is the Worst Person Ever" and that could still be acceptable coverage per WP:GNG. As per WP:GNG, it's the significant coverage that matters. Sorry, but multiple entire articles about this person is beyond the scope of WP:GNG's "mention".--Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armie Hammer per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. "Hollywood Life" is a gossip site and most certainly NOT reliable. Parent companies are not an automatic indicator of reliability. WP:BIOFAMILY also applies, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't like Hollywood Life, you're ignoring all the far-beyond-mentions coverage that has been presented. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you that Haute Living is a good article and source but the E! article is pushing it, it's just about them having a baby and it would be published if she were notable or not because of him. I'm still not seeing any significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with me "liking" a source or not; I simply said it is not considered reliable. Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and she hasn't shown much notability outside of family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason presented for keep is the significant coverage as per passing WP:GNG, not "she married to someone more famous." WP:NOTINHERITED is simply a straw man argument.--Oakshade (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense; the WP:BIOFAMILY section of WP:Notability (people), as previously indicated, states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Besides, sources that do talk about her tend to really be more about her husband and/or unreliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. Nobody is claiming this should be kept because of the topic ""Being related to a notable person in itself." It's because the the significant coverage existing as per passing WP:GNG. That ""Being related to a notable person in itself" line refers to those who don't pass WP:GNG as this person does. You might not like a reason a person is notable (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but that doesn't make them non-notable. And these sources about her primarily talk about her and simply mention her husband. --Oakshade (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I've yet to see any significant coverage of her. You found 1 maybe 2 articles? I don't find that significant. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is NOT an automatic keep; it simply is the bare minimum threshold. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with this. WP:Notability (people) has specific criteria for persons. The specific criteria exists for a reason, and should be put to use. One could say WP:BIO1E applies as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone use the WP:GNG-is-not-enough defense. Actually GNG is the primary criteria of notability. Even WP:Notability (people) states, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." And suddenly throwing in WP:BIO1E is going into a weird WP:VAGUEWAVE territory as it's nonsensical since the significant coverage spans five years on different aspects of this person's life. --Oakshade (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IF she did meet GNG then it would be a stronger reason to keep but the fact remains that GNG is about significant coverage, which I have yet to see. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that yet there is plenty of significant coverage strictly about her, contradicting your primary nom criteria. Even just found another article of significant coverage about her. [85].--Oakshade (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you need multiple sources of significant coverage, not just one or two, significant to me would be like 5 or 6 and of that, ones that talk about her career, otherwise youre just finding sources about her personal life and that doesn't make an article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are multiple sources now found primarily about this person. There is not and has never been a "like 5 or 6" rule in GNG. I've never seen an editor demand such a number. If you'd like WP:GNG to require "like 5 or 6" sources, you need to make your case on the WP:GNG talk page, not invent your own definition in a single AfD.Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so dramatic, I didn't demand anything, I was giving an example of what significant coverage to me is like. I didn't say "has to be 5-6" I said to TO ME it would like 5 or 6 because 2 or 3 articles isn't a significant number. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So the pieces are fluffy. So it's in the celebrity press. So this Chambers gal is a lightweight. So they're just as interested if not more so in hubby. I don't get it: she meets the GNG, which requires multiple sources, which doesn't require 5000-word essays. Filibustering on this response too not required. If LadyLotus doesn't like how the GNG is written and wants to tighten it up, she can stump for that over on the GNG talk page, and I'm all for it. This isn't the proper venue for it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I ever say I didn't like the way GNG is written? No. I said significant to me is like 5 or 6 not that is had to be 5 or 6, big difference. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure that you can appreciate that your personal preference as to how many references a subject should have to pass the notability bar doesn't at all affect longstanding consensus and practice, any more than does your personal opinion that a source must be strictly about the subject and the subject alone to pass the GNG, something the guideline itself explicitly states is NOT the case. Do you have a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia guidelines, rather than on what the guidelines would say if you could rewrite them? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh my word, stop taking the whole "5-6" thing as me trying to rewrite guidelines, that's just going overboard. As far as I can tell there is no specific amount in GNG yes, that's why I said to me, significant coverage would be multiple sources like 5-6 articles, because 2 or 3 articles doesn't seem signficant to me. Also, significant coverage also says that that does not include mere mentions so, yea, "strictly about the subject and the subject alone to pass" (your words not mine), the subject should include a good amount of information about the person and not just mention their name. That is GNG. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You keep claiming there are "mere mentions" of this person when in fact multiple entire articles, not "mere mentions", about this person have been presented. You can bold "mere mentions" a hundred times but that's not going to change the contradicting reality. And your opinion that you want "like 5 or 6" articles about this person to be considered significant coverage is noted, but that's not Wikipedia's WP:GNG stipulation and that's what's relevant in this discussion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're trying to rewrite guidelines when you place your personal opinion as to what the guidelines mean over what they actually say. The GNG stipulates "multiple" sources, period. Two's been the number felt to satisfy that for years now. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Omg stop, I wasn't trying to rewrite any guidelines, you two are going absolutely overboard with that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Then stop claiming that "5-6 sources" is any manner of requirement, or that the lack of a half-dozen sources is a valid deletion ground. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Then ACTUALLY read what I wrote. I didn't claim that guideline stated it HAD to be 5-6 sources and I said and I quote "Yes but you need multiple sources of significant coverage, not just one or two, significant to me would be like 5 or 6 and of that, ones that talk about her career". I said significant to ME would be LIKE 5 or 6. There is a HUGE difference if I had said per WP:GNG it HAS to be at least 5 or 6. Stop digging. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Our exchange above was directly about WP:GNG when you threw in the "like 5 or 6" stipulation which gives the strong impression that's what you thought GNG required. If you weren't talking about GNG, your opinion that there should be "like 5 or 6" articles written about topics to be considered notable is clear, but that's not in line with GNG and that's what's relevant to an AfD discussion.--Oakshade (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armie Hammer, as stated above. — Wylie pedia 04:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WP:PERNOM? As to what exactly "stated above"? --Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, only marriage-notability, all the red reasons above. And, despite AfDs being designed for "topics of discussion", I only !vote and don't get into lengthy discussions as all the above. — Wylie pedia 07:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's smart lol ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments to keep having nothing to do with her marriage but that of passing WP:GNG as there are multiple articles specifically about her. Appreciate the WP:JUSTAVOTE admission ("I only !vote"). --Oakshade (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the argument trolls. Do you keep that page open for whoever votes? Technically, I "suggested" so your just-a-vote fails here. My last comment for the topic: I don't give a shit and will probably never !vote at AfD again due to Oakshade. (edit: my VOTE still stands. It's poorly cited and has page issues still.) — Wylie pedia 15:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your WP:JUSTAVOTE still stands. We were hoping you would have an at least somewhat in-depth persuasive argument to support your !vote as well as one that wouldn't sink to name-calling or foul language.--Oakshade (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNCENSORED and "we"??? As for name-calling, where? — Wylie pedia 15:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armie Hammer. Mostly unreferenced and has uncited, unfixed page issues. Borderline fancruft. — Wylie pedia 15:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:AFD and its WP:BEFORE, if a page can be improved through regular editing (sentences that are "unreferenced" and "unfixed page issues"), then deletion is not appropriate. WP:GNG was the stated reason for this AfD and multiple articles directly about this person have been presented.--Oakshade (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why suggested redirecting, rather than deletion. There are seven paragraphs of unsourced biographical information at the topic, which I consider a BLP violation, regardless of its factual truth. I came here from WPTV to offer my opinion and have done so. If none of my issues here, nor those above, can be addressed at the topic page, then the nominations and/or votes stand. — Wylie pedia 16:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to her husband's article would be inappropriate as all the coverage presented is about her with only mere mentions of her husband. As there are multiple sources already in the article supporting a great deal of it, a WP:BATHWATER deletion is also inappropriate. If you feel there are some uncited sentences that are true BLP violations, you can remove them or add sources through regular editing. --Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I strongly feel it should be redirected, I shan't work to improve. If I remove all the unsourced BLP fancruft, this discussion here would still occur and warrant deletion/redirecting even more. As for me, I'm going to enjoy my day off from work, unless you have blue link against that. — Wylie pedia 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your regular editing to eliminate any BLP violations you find in the article is much appreciated. I don't quite see your point of improving the article makes you prefer deletion even more, but still your article improvement efforts are encouraged. --Oakshade (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've avoided the issue of this person passing WP:GNG. Multiple articles about this person have been presented demonstrating passing it.--Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dismissing Hhplactube's comment as "per X" and by a very new account. Sandstein 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mutiny of Colours[edit]

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

Film that I can't find much notability for as well as a major COI given the people who have made the article are the producer and the writers names. Wgolf (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILMS Flat Out let's discuss it 12:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Three of the items in the "further reading" section seem to me to be reliable, and together establish notability. It does need inline referencing, and COI is a potential problem. - ColinFine-(talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks ColinFine. I have reviewed further reading - londsonstreetdesign doesn't seem reliable as articles are self submitted and there's no editorial oversight, rosewatersaffron is a passing mention only, this release brief looks OK but I don't think the depth of coverage exists to pass NFILMS Flat Out let's discuss it 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears the page you linked is one where instructions are offered on how an artist may submit images of their street art works: "To make the ADMINs job slightly easier to manage we will need certain details sent along with the images.". Their about us page appears to speak toward editorial oversight by founders Wayne Anthony and Cyrus Sirius Bozorgmehr. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per colinfine Hhplactube (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More likely delete - Multiple searches found the same links listed here and I don't think they appear to be significant, my search found one different link here (also German). The article isn't terrible but the sources could be better (but I suppose it is an independent foreign film). SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jitegemee[edit]

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

I hope I'm proved wrong, because they seem like a worthy organisation, but I couldn't verify that they meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years without resolution. Pinging those who have been involved in discussing its notability before: Ironholds, Foxj,Fritzpoll. Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-part of me just wants to say keep due to how this seems like a very notable thing to do, but I just can't since I don't know if it belongs here. Wgolf (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [86] gets us half way there, between WP:SYSTEMIC bias concerns (I suspect there is local non-English coverage), and section V a 1 of [87], I believe that there is excellent reason to suspect that this topic meets WP:ORG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per sources found by Joe Decker. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[[[Withdraw nomination per all above. Boleyn (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Osayi Airuoyuwa[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The subject has not been discussed in reliable publications. The sources currently in the article are all unreliable. The accolades mentioned in the article are not notable accolades. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmistakably. The Top 10% book is a vanity publication—if it exists! (The one customer review on this Amazon page reads "it is a scam, book does not exist. save your money".) Even so, being in the top 10% of an industry doesn't confer notability. Top 10% measured how? All the remaining sources are affiliated or social media. Google finds no unaffiliated sources that would contribute to notability. And based on the creator's user name, the article appears to be pure self-promotion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Self promotion. Jbh (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Total failure of WP:GNG. Pure self-promotion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 herein is that the topic presently does not meet WP:N to qualify for a Wikipedia article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformetrics[edit]

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

This neologism has no significant support in the scientific literature. I can find only two papers in Google scholar that use this term, one with very few citations and the other unpublished and uncited. Without reliable secondary sources that cover this topic in-depth, it fails WP:GNG. I tried prodding the article, but the prod was removed by an anonymous editor (who also removed the cleanup tags on the article) without comment, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But can the material from this article be preserved somewhere else? I have read about this recently but I have to agree that it is a very new term and cannot be given an article by itself.It may be prevalent enough in the next 6/8 months for an article but not at the present. So how about putting this material in informatics as a teeny tiny mention? I am voting for delete of article but would like content preservation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no sources beyond those mentioned by the nom. The term and the field apparently don't yet exist to any appreciable degree. If a subfield of Bioinformetrics does ever develop, then we can use reliable sources to write an article. But for now, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found a couple sources which briefly mention the topic, but I don't think it rises to the level of extensive coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find any evidence that this is actually a field, as opposed to someone's idea of a good name for a field. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Interesting topic! but not enough coverage to be justifiable for a keep.--Groulsom (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Scottish_Premier_League#Records_and_awards. Nakon 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic 9–0 Aberdeen[edit]

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

I don't believe that this article is notable enough to merit inclusion. I know that there was a previous discussion about deletion, and the main argument for keeping it was that it was an SPL record victory. However, the SPL only existed under that name for 15 years, while the Scottish top flight has a history stretching back over 120 years. The Scottish top flight record was Celtic's 11-0 victory over Dundee in 1895. The Scottish top flight was rebranded again as the Scottish Premiership in 2013, and therefore the SPL no longer exists. The "record win" is therefore of even more questionable relevance than it was at the time of the previous discussion. The article itself is fairly short and doesn't provide much information about why the match would be considered relevant. Craig1989 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of any lasting notability. – Pee Jay 10:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it being a 'record win' or not is largely irrelevant, it simply has no general notability. Giant Snowman 17:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It is already mentioned in Scottish Premier League#Records and awards and thus a summary could be merged there. Praemonitus (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eels (band). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides & Rarities 1996–2003[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band -- no sign of notability, but a weakly plausible search term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manspreading[edit]

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

Delete Does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy for neologisms. Reliable secondary sources are minimal and mostly discuss the issue peripherally. Vectro (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no place on Wikipedia. It belongs elsewhere, such as tumblr. My primary problem with this article is that, as others have said, it is badly sourced. Additionally, it is poorly covered and is lacking in quality overall. Finally, it appears to be less impartial than I have come to expect from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.210.82 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This kind of stuff belongs on Urban Dictionary, not here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve and possibly rename. It's a very real phenomenon (I've done it myself many times), but the article sucks right now. --98.180.1.222 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, article is unsourced and seems to be a rather niche phenomenon. BoxofPresents (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unsourced? There are multiple references including from major news sources like the New York Times and National Post.Fyddlestix (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough coverage in RS to satisfy WP:GNG and warrant an article on this. Take this article in the New York Times, for example. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most sources either link to opinion pieces or do not specifically address "mansplaining" that an encyclopedia requires. Short internet trends do not require articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone who rides public transit gas seen this phenomenon. 166.216.165.90 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are enough reliable sources. While the concept may not live into the next century (though who knows?), it's certainly not a mere internet trend. Of course the article is a magnet for angry white men — a few minutes ago, I removed a new and pointy gallery, which has already been reinserted from another IP — but we have many articles of which that is true. Perhaps semiprotection should be considered. I don't understand why the last Delete voter above wants sources that address "mansplaining", but perhaps that was a mere typo or autocorrect error. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia should try to remain neutral and this article should also not be written as a misandric propaganda piece, and the angry white men argument is a fallacy, though I must agree that this article would need more protection and should be watched more carefully, not only to protect it from one side, but from the other as well, neutrality above all.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if the article can remain neutral and try to explain the gender neutral parts of it as was done in Mansplaining and make the criticism part as adequate and make it primarily over the controversy as opposed to a single gendered phenomenon some media outlets have painted it to be I'd say that it's a weak keep, but due to the lack of neutrality and the inherent sexism of the term and its history I'd be against it, but that would be the same as a Jew being against an article on anti-semitism and as feelings are not important I'd say that this subject has been covered enough to gain notability, and since notability is not something that's temporarily and this subject has been covered for quite some time I'd almost go for keep, but the article should remain neutral and I think that it would require more administrators than most other articles. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP editors are currently trying to disrupt this AfD, please be vigilant of the page history as they attempt to change editors statements. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a notable enough concept as is evident from the available sources. I see no argument to the contrary. The issue with this being neologism is neither here or there since the article is not about a word per se. Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if I don't consider the issue relevant (even if women less often take up 2 seats by moving their knees apart, they may do so by putting a bag on the adjacent sear) the coverage of this issue and discussion of it make it notable. I could see psosibly creating a larger article about the act of taking up multiple seats (an issue that comes up with obese airline passengers) and having this just be a section within it though. This would allow a wider scope of discussion. 64.228.88.84 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a first world problem to me, but I guess more trivial things than this have become notable. The significant coverage is surprising but impossible to ignore. There's no end to the number of hits found on Google News, and I have no doubt that this article could be easily expanded to several times its current size with a bit of effort. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources discuss the phenomenon in depth. (NYT, Telegraph, Time) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first is already posted above. The telegraph article is an opinion column, the 3rd is the daily show. Neither are WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉ 03:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is Wikipedia, not tumblr. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is quite clear in its opening sentence. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." This is slang. If an article must be made (doubtful with these sources), the name should be defined by this paragraph: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." ― Padenton|✉ 03:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC is an invalid deletion rationale here because the article isn't about a word, it is about a behavior. If you have problems with the word itself, you can always request that it be moved to a different title after the AfD has concluded. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic half the entries on Urban Dictionary would qualify for wikipedia articles. Should I get on that?― Padenton|✉ 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe that one region that wikipedia is severely lacking in is body language pages. We need more such pages indtead of deleting them. 89.242.80.81 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of wp:Reliable sources, Wikipedia is still not censored. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - many reliable newspapers and magazines have had articles on the phenomenon, not the word itself. Wikipedia has many odd articles. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes: WP:GNG. For starters, see Google News search results. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many people here have said the article should be kept because the phenomenon is real. But the question here isn't whether or not it is real, or is or is not a problem, but rather whether the term or the behavior is sufficiently notable to need its own article. Vectro (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Curteanu[edit]

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

I don't see any indication, as expressed through multiple, independent, reliable sources, that this individual passes WP:ATHLETE, WP:BASIC or any similar standard of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a closer look at Equestrian_sport mentioned above? This individual Marius Curteanu had noticeable results as per the page mentioned:

"1985 - 1995: Every year National Dressage Champion."
"1991: Awarded "Master of Sports" title by officials from Romania."
"2003 - FEI World Dressage Challenge winner in Group IV at novice level on horse Weltano and 2nd in Prix St. Georges on horse Maestoso"
"One of his students was the 4th in Novice at the Romanian FEI World Dressage Challenge on horse Michelle. In 2003, at Romanian FEI World Dressage Challenge, his student was the 1st in Advanced Level on horse Michelle, and the 1st in Prix St. Georges on horse Caramelle, qualifying her for the Finals in Hagen, Germany."

Other than that, the main reason this page exists is to reveal a Romanian who had great achievements in a not-so-common-in-Romania sport and only few online resources are available (I still research and update the article as I find them). If pages like this one does not exist, readers will not be aware of such people. I have access paper publications and I can prove that Marius Curteanu had also media coverage, just that those publications are not available online because it all happen back then. I would need some guide here about how to reveal in a proper manner those proves (which are actually scans or photos of those paper articles). - comment added by iulmit 06:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Participation in FEI seems to be enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, but it's not clear from the article if he has done so, or if it's only his student. Vectro (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Elís Þrándarson[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query I know you folks well enough to assume you have it right, but can I ask you to connect the dots in this case? Is it that he hasn't had an appearance for Alesund, or is it that the league involved is not fully professional? I'm finding it difficult to tell, I'm not convinced that his stats are being captured by the site I'm checking out. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Decker: A little of both. Football in Iceland is semi-professional, so his appearances there do not qualify for WP:NSPORT, while Tippeligaen is fully pro (see WP:FPL for sources) but he has yet to make an appearance in that league. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above, and many thanks to Sir Sputnik for the gracious response. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Bodybuilding[edit]

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

Comes across as a odd dictionary term. Could be redirected to something-but who knows what. Wgolf (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' and put this single line in the bodybuilding article under the diet section FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no meat (or aliens) on these bones/article. You can be a Vegan and a bodybuilder. Whoopie. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of material on vegan athletes, and the effect of a vegan diet on muscle gain and strength might be a legitimate topic[88][89] but neither topic seems to be covered on Wikipedia. However vegan bodybuilding just doesn't seem separately notable, and there's not much here to merge or move. A related article could be written, but not this article. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising of promotion) and CSD G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divvio[edit]

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

This page fails to provide sufficient context to explain the subject and appears to serve only to promote its subject Rubbish computer (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, if the article sucks then it needs improvement not deletion. The article contains a list of reliable sources and interviews, which while all dead links can for the most part be easily accessed through web.archive.org. Clearly notable. Bosstopher (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, multiple issues for six years, web site offers an "early access" newsletter, and a few Google scholar hits in the direction of "Hype Cycle for Media Industry Entertainment, 2007" also suggest dead since 2007. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage (TV series)[edit]

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not locate suitable references to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability and only one source outside of RTE. — Wylie pedia 04:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks independent sources and has only one non doucmentry source and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.goupstate.com/article/20120301/ENT/203011008

[2] ttp://www.chorusandverse.com/content.php?id=20021012A

[1]

[2]