Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 April 3 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GigE Vision[edit]

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

This is blatant Advertising and this page should be removed. Richie1921 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and so on. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's significant coverage of this on Google scholar (around 700 publications that mention it, and around 50 with it in the title of the publication, many of which appear completely independent of each other and of any commercial activities related to this subject. I think that's plenty of material for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The tone could be improved, yes, it's a little non-encyclopedic. I wouldn't say this was merely advertising - it has wide coverage, as has been demonstrated. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I copypasted SageGreenRider's links to the article...
  • Keep - but improve the tone to make it more encyclopedic nocnokneo (talk) 14:13, 7 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. I'm discounting the keep opinions by Montanabw and Greek_Fellows, and the delete opinions by FreeatlastChitchat, AHLM13 and Carrite because they appear to be intent on casting a vote rather than making an (understandable) policy-based argument. The remaining opinions are equally split between delete and keep. What they disagree about is whether this concept is sufficiently covered in reliable sources that we can cover it as the topic of an article without engaging in original research, and whether it would be better covered as part of other articles. That is a matter of editorial judgment with respect to which I, as closer, can't determine on my own who has the better arguments. So we're left with no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep.  Sandstein  08:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape jihad[edit]

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

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 26. This is an administrative action only; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: There is also article history at Rape Jihad and if this is closed as a keep then it may be worthwhile to restore that article and merge the histories for the two articles together since they are technically the same article and contains content that was created by the same editor that created the second rendition of the page, BengaliHindu. I think that it would probably be helpful as far as showing a timeline of the article goes, although it may not be absolutely necessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. It didn't occur to me to capitalize the "J" when recreating the article, leaving the old one split off as a dead-end. Pax 04:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article must be kept before it can be renamed. Pax 09:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rename might be good since it'd take care of the concerns of neologisms, but if it is renamed it would have to be to something slightly more specific since sexual terrorism can cover a fairly broad swath of topics and some could argue that the article should encompass sexual terrorism throughout the world. Sexual terrorism in Islam may be more appropriate since this article focuses specifically on Islam. However like Pax said, that's a discussion to be had if the article is kept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is now well-written and well-sourced (as opposed to the way it was at the start of the previous AfD. Pax 01:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pax • contribs has made few or no other edits outside Article for Deletion debates.

  • Delete Only five of the 35 citations actually mention the term. I would not count afternoon and frontpage as reliable. The National Review is not unbiased .See the second comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad by Squeamish. That leaves us with Spencer. Only Spencer and a tiny minority seem to use the term. WP:BOMBARDing sources that do not discuss the topic and WP:SYNTHesizing does not imply that the artice is "well-written" or merits inclusion. Anything that needs to be included has already been or can be included in Wartime sexual violence. Removing all off topic information will render it in the same state prior to the deletions. It fails, again, WP:NEO, and I guess Pax should drop the stick and move on. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 02:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Wartime sexual violence" is a quite lengthy article; given the scope of rape jihad (by that term or another) and unique (among perpetrators) publicly-promulgated justification and practice of permanent enslavement, a fork is actually recommended by policy. Pax 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...given the scope...", what "scope" are you talking about? What this article does is re-categorize the Darfur and other incidents, which is plain WP:SYNTH. Not a single of the ostensible "main articles" linked in the incident section even mentions the term. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not synthesis to note the common justification employed by jihadists in separate locations in separate conflicts, and such is a worthy topic for consideration. If you don't like the term "rape jihad", that's a matter for renaming. Pax 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is synthesis to do that unless reliable sources do it. Hut 8.5 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew C. McCarthy is certainly a reliable source. Pax 18:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this? It's an opinion piece. You could cite it as a source for a statement that the author believes something, but it's hardly suitable as the basis for an entire article. Hut 8.5 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If McCarthy were just some nobody spleening, you'd have a point, but he was the lead federal prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and New York City landmark bomb plot convictions of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and his al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya cohorts. McCarthy is thus not only notable, he's an authority on the subject. Pax 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS says that opinion pieces are "rarely" considered reliable for statements of fact, and that the probability of them being considered reliable is increased for the "opinions of specialists and recognized experts". McCarthy is a lawyer and political commentator who is known for some high profile terrorism prosecutions. That doesn't make him an authority on Islam, and his being notable has nothing to do with it. If you wanted to cite this as a source for a statement along the lines of "Andrew McCarthy said/believes X" that that would be fine, but it's quite another thing to hang the existence of an article on it. Hut 8.5 21:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the jihadis overtly, indeed eagerly, confirm McCarthy's (and Spencer's) observation of the fact that their behavior is authorized in scripture, his expertise is not in dispute by the major players in the incidents. Pax 00:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What they confirm or not has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept. Abstain from citing opinion pieces, bring RS that actually define the term and describe your viewpoints. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 01:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the subject matter of the article, not its title, that is well-referenced and warrants inclusion on the encyclopedia. --DawnDusk (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been included in wartime sexual violence. If not, please do so. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the lead of the article, not all incidents are occurring during war. Wartime sexual violence is also a very long article whose major components (of which this is certainly one) would warrant separate articles under policy...which would put us right back here. Pax 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then include it somewhere else, if possible, but not here. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Greek_Fellows • contribs has made few or no other edits on the English wikipedia.

  • Delete the article, even in this form, does not establish the notability of the subject and has huge problems with synthesis. Most of the text of this article is actually copied from other articles: the Justification section (apart from the first sentence) is lifted from Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency#Stated justification, the section on Darfur is just the lead of Rape during the Darfur genocide and part of the Boko Haram section is from Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping#Aftermath. The sources cited for this material don't even use the term "rape jihad", so its inclusion here is synthesis. As you can see the material is adequately covered elsewhere (even in the same words), and anyone wanting a summary article is much better served by Wartime sexual violence.
    The only cited sources I can see which do actually use the term are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (the Jewish Voice article does also use the term but is a copy of one of the FrontPage citations). Many of those sources are of dubious reliability and none devotes significant coverage to the term - it is merely used in a headline, or mentioned once in quotation marks. If we got rid of everything not cited to a source which uses the term "rape jihad" the article would be about three sentences long. The fact that a few headlines use a phrase does not mean we can or should have an article on it, or that we should shoehorn material from other articles in order to do so. Hut 8.5 07:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has a new section, which further illustrates the point. Because a source uses the phrase "rape jihad" in the headline of an article about sexual abuse in Rotherham, the article now has some text (taken verbatim from Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal) about that abuse. The source doesn't attempt to connect that abuse with abuse in Iraq, Nigeria or Sudan, but information about it is nevertheless included here with a claim that it is an example of a wider phenomenon. Hut 8.5 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything wikiworthy can go in Sexual jihad which has 10 times the editors and a lot more references but isn't too long currently. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sexual jihad" isn't involuntary (i.e, rape), as the first sentence of that article makes clear; that article's topic concerns women offering themselves to men as an enticement. It's the very anti-thesis of what this article is about. Pax 09:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual jihad occurs with consent. Rape jihad occurs without consent. Sexual jihad involves Muslim females. Rape jihad involves mostly non-Muslim females. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rape is a subset of sexual. Both articles are about the same thing using sex in jihad, a "Rape Jihad" section in sexual jihad makes sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been stated, sexual jihad is distinct from rape jihad, because the former is voluntary. It would be the equivalent of merging the article serial killer in with article on suicide.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a stub about murder cults and I head a stub about suicide cults, and both articles had neologisms for names I would look at making an article. "Death in cults" or something. Rape jihad is what you'd read in Urban dictionary, Sex in jihad is what you'd expect from Wikipedia. Love jihad ,Anal jihad, Rape jihad, none of these are great articles by themselves, we could get all the references from all three, pull some more info from academic sources and make a great article. Organic growth is fine but we want to consolidate growth from time to time when it makes a better experience for the user. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of "Sex in jihad" is demonstrably WP:WEASEL when the practitioners of the subject are blunt concerning their right to forcibly enslave and rape their captives. To be clear, rape is only kind of "sex" performed under this particular sura-authorized practice. Therefore, its inclusion within the title does not violate neutrality. Pax 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to argue that an article about feigning love to convert people with sex, or to voluntarily provide fighters with sex, to condone men to have sex with other men, and to rape women sexually is not about "Sex in jihad" then you've reached a point in the discussion where you are unreachable. I want to treat the subject with the best references we have to offer. The stub sprawl of the topic is organically grown but can be consolidated now to created a better article that treats the topic while delivering it to the readers in a better format. Rape jihad is a neologism, it's part of a constilation of stubs that could easily be harvested together to make a great article with a lot of references treating a highly notable topic. We should be Bold and not say "well a stub meets the minimum requirement so let it be" our readers deserve better than that. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bryce, the first sentence of your reply above is a straw man fallacy because I did not make such an argument. (The suras in question deal with captive women.) Otherwise, "sexual jihad" is also a neologism, and one which I would add has a minimal level of reliable sourcing and concerns a topic which happens less frequently and is of less arguable importance than this subject. But if minimal levels of reliable sourcing are enough to keep that article, then they're enough to keep this one. Pax 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was worried he might have crossed the line of WP:CANVASS when I saw my page. However, that should be relevant discussion for his talk page, not this article for deletion, don't you think? DawnDusk (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is appropriate to include a note in a discussion saying that it may have been improperly influenced by canvassing. I have separately warned this editor on their talk page. Hut 8.5 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the only argument that even holds the slightest bit of water, and boy is it slight, is that the article's title is a "neologism" because "five separate and independent, trusted sources using the term isn't valid enough" somehow. That's not even grounds for deletion, but a page move. Such a contrived reason doesn't deserve consideration, especially with no valid proposals from those proponents. DawnDusk (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the argument is so slight that Christian Terrorism survived both AfD and deletion review on the same day as this article despite being a synthetic neologism (among a host of even worse problems). The inescapable conclusion is that for some editors the rules go out the window concerning some topics, while molehills are made into mountains in the case of others. Pax 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DawnDusk (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

This is true only insofar as Pax posted on my talkpage about this. If anyone would like to check, I was involved in the speedy deletion and deletion review; I check my contributions, watchlist, and all very often. I guarantee I would have come here, talkpage notice from Pax or not. DawnDusk (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DELETE there is an article about sexual Jihad so why is this page even created? and with the lack of mention in the online world and the ZERO mention in reliable printed sources why is this discussion even taking place lol?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside Islam/Muslim-related topics.

  • Err, because those are completely different, and your last statement is simply false? DawnDusk (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • where is the mention in JSTOR? I come up with big zero. Where is mention in any reliable book? I come up with zero. Can you link any reliable book which supports what is written in the article?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access JSTOR right now. Forgive me in advance, as I will not be able to offer the full response your question merits. "Perfect Enemy: The Law Enforcement Manual of Islamist Terrorism" uses the term in the precise manner this article does. " Islamic Violence in America's Streets" does not use the term, but does everything else (by that, I mean it describes the exact same phenomenon in this article without calling it Rape jihad). National Review obviously uses both the term and describes the phenomenon, while Newsweek does the latter. You'll see this pattern in all the sources - they all describe the same phenomenon, and the plurality (not the majority) describes it with "Rape Jihad." If you're not satisfied with the plurality, OK; fair enough, you can make the point that it's a neologism. But that doesn't change that the contents of this article warrant staying on Wikipedia, at the very least under a different name (and my friend, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a more frequently used term to describe the phenomenon). --DawnDusk (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources don't do what you claim they do. Perfect Enemy does define the term, although it doesn't appear to do much more than that. The definition given is "the sexual assault of vulnerable young infant girls, especially in Western countries". There are significant differences between this and the article, which defines it as "the organized abduction, rape and enslavement of non-Muslim woman or children" and proceeds to list examples which aren't from Western countries. I'm not convinced that the source is reliable, as I can't find much on the author other than that they appear to work in US law enforcement.
    Of the other two sources you mention, the National Review article is an opinion piece and thus unreliable, as noted further above. The article cites two Newsweek articles [19] [20] but neither describes the concept (or uses the term). They discuss sexual abuse of Yazidis by Islamic State but don't attempt to connect this with sexual abuse by anyone else or argue that these are instances of a more general phenomenon. Although those sources certainly support the notability of Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency they can't be used to support the existence of this concept without engaging in original research. Hut 8.5 20:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. The definition (in Public Enemy) read "...vulnerable young infidel girls...", not infant girls. That changes the meaning considerably. Pax 00:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. It is a common, but wildly erroneous, assumption that a source cannot be "opinion"ated for it to be reliable, when in fact WP:BIASED indicates precisely the opposite, and I quote: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Pax 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DawnDusk so there is only one source you can come up with which uses the term. And as an experienced editor you know that basing everything in an article on biased sources will create bigotry. btw why are you against inclusion of this in Sexual jihad where mention of forced sex (which is just a fancy politically correct name for rape) is already present. Instead of two articles with questionable content there will be one better content. As far as neologisms are concerned I am sure that it will be a can of worms and the semantic debate will be long drawn out. Also if you look at the recent history of this article you will see that rotherham child abuse scandal has been added, which I deleted. This is just the beginning of a trend, for every time there is a muslim rapist it will be added to this article which is huge bigotry. If you have time a simple google search will show that being forced into sexual jihad is a term which has been in use for the past 2 and half years ever since the ISIS and their ilk reared their ugly heads. So it stands to reason that this material be present in sexual Jihad instead of a new article which is bigoted.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand me. Last I counted, which was on the crap version of this article that was first put up for deletion, 5 reliable sources used the term "Rape Jihad." But like I said, you missed the big picture of my response. This article is about the phenomenon. If the title "Rape Jihad" is being challenged by you as a neologism, even if you win that argument, you're in effect proving that it warrants a pagename move, rather than a delete. --DawnDusk (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my original delete comment it clearly says that as long as there is sexual jihad present this should be deleted. you can see that 75% of the article is not worthy of keeping in an encyclopedia, the rest can easily be written on the sexual jihad page. however a merge vote means that we just merge the existing content which is biased and uses only non neutral sources. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a closer look at sexual jihad; its subject matter is women offering themselves up for the sake of Islamic rule. The phenomena in the respective articles are totally different. Our conversation is becoming a bit cyclical here, but again the only true issue there is with the similar titles causing confusion. This leads us back to the beginning: you say that 75% of the article is unencyclopedic and drawn from biased sources. That simply isn't true. You're making that claim because of concerns with sources and synthesis, correct (stop me if I'm wrong)? The only real argument for synthesis, again, is using the term "rape jihad." Because when it comes to those sources, there are countless unbiased, reliable ones that do indeed describe patterns of "organized abduction, rape and enslavement of non-Muslim woman or children by Islamists", which very well warrants its own article. --DawnDusk (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy that you have used the word Islamist here. Are there any reliable sources which say that the rotherham guys were islamists?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you would be happier with the article if it described perpetrators with the broader term "Muslim". So, are you sure you're unhappy with "Islamist"? Otherwise, suggest an alternative, because disliking a single word in an article is not grounds for deletion. (BTW, here's an informative James Delingpole article here that I think would be useful.) Pax 07:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pax: what you've quoted there misses the point. The opinion piece would be a perfectly good source for a statement about someone's opinion if it was attributed in the text. It isn't being used like that. It's being used to support factual assertions about sexual abuse in Islam, and to support the notability of the article subject. Our guidelines don't allow that. The problem isn't that the source is biased, it's that it's an opinion piece and so isn't subject the same fact-checking procedures as other types of articles. Apologies for the error in the quotation, I had to copy it out. Hut 8.5 06:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that ISIS and Boko Haram are not only not disgreeing with the "factual assertions", but providing the basis for them, this retort isn't making any sense. Quite literally, the facts aren't in dispute: both the bad guys and their opinionated critics agree on what they're doing.
Opinionated critic: "The bad guys are enslaving and raping people!"
The Bad Guys: "We sure are!"
...I'd say that's adequately fact-checked.
Otherwise, your remaining quibble is whether or not the article should have some quotations (hardly grounds for deletion, given that you haven't tried, let alone been reverted). I don't think any of the Keep !voting editors here are adverse to some quotes (I didn't include any, aside from Boko/ISIS, to keep the article neutral-toned and less prone to coatracking. Pax 07:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know where you got the idea that I'm just saying that "the article should have some quotations". I'm not. We got into this discussion because someone asked for reliable sources about the article topic, and this one was mentioned. It is not, in fact, a reliable source. That concern is not a "quibble", without reliable sources we can't have an article on this or any other topic. Hut 8.5 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wartime sexual violence. I've read the rape Jihad article, and perused the Wartime sexual violence article, and read the discussion here. The term seems a little neologistic and many of the references used in the article do seem to simply allude to rape among jihadists without specifically using the term, or treating it as a unique phenomenon. While I think it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia, I don't think there is enough consensus on the term from non-editorial sources to treat as something uniquely different from any other wartime rape.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While many marauding armies have committed mass rape, few had any organized, long-term ambitions (i.e., extending after the war), let alone had religious authorization overtly advanced as justification. And, in the case of Rotherham, the children of kufr are targeted in an organized way even in the absence of armed conflict ("war"). Pax 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are problems with the article but there still seems to be enough sources to justify the article's existence. We reviewed some of these sources in the last deletion debate. Perhaps it's the title of the article that is problematic. Not all sources use the term (as some have noted) and we may want to reconsider the title. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have Love jihad, Sexual jihad, Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. If those titles aren't problematic, then should this one shouldn't be either. Pax 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jason from nyc (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

  • Strong Keep - It makes no sense to merge this with Sexual Jihad, as the two are completely different things. This topic is known as the Rape Jihad as a direct play on the Sexual Jihad, as the Sexual Jihad is about consensual sex and the Rape Jihad is about forced sex. If the term Sexual Jihad is accepted then so too must the the Rape Jihad. This is a very specific, notable article (for more specific than can be covered by the broad and sprawling Wartime sexual violence, though there should be section on there linking to this article) with extraordinarily wide and impeccable coverage. It seems to me that the nature of the subject is upsetting to some editors, due to the sexual and religious aspects. We should by no means allow this subjective (maybe even prejudiced) discomfort to censor a wiki-worthy article. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:WalkingOnTheB • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside Article for Deletion debates.

  • Comment When making a decision some things should be kept in mind.Let us take the Keep votes one by one and see what is going on. The first user saying that the article should not be renamed, merged or deleted is Pax, who has commented on almost every other opinion as well. When we look at his contributions we see that he is a SPI which contributes 'ONLY' on AFD debates, he does nothing else. 95% of his edits are in AFD's. Then we check his talkpage history and we see that he has an agenda. Then we look closer and we see that he has been blatantly canvassing people to oppose deletion of this article. (It is good that a message has been put up to ask people to admit that they were canvassed but frankly I don't think that a guy who has been canvassed will be saying anything. The only proof is in the diffs and they speak volumes about the agenda of this editor).
The Second user to vote for no delete, no rename, no merge is User:Greek Fellows who has only 15 edits to his name, none of which are even remotely connected to this article. Then out of the blue he comes here and states his opposition to changing anything.
The third user is User:BengaliHindu. We see from the very first notice on his talkpage that he used to canvass as well, and of course he created the article so he is going to say keep.
Then there are the users User:DawnDusk and User:Jason from nyc who have come here only after Pax called/canvassed them to endorse this article.
The icing on the cake is User:WalkingOnTheB who has come here to support this article but he has only 4 genuine edits and is currently under investigation for being a sock puppet.
So you can see that the 'ENTIRE' side supporting the article is highly suspicious. Perhaps there is a nicer way of saying this, a couple of the guys supporting the article User:DawnDusk and User:Jason from nyc look ok, but they have been roped in during a canvass, all others are highly suspicious. I hope this is taken under consideration when a decision is made.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please adhere to WP:NPA. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (Note:The comment immediately above was removed after this comment was aded)[reply]
  • Whoa, whoa! That very policy is what I was about to point out. Comment on the arguments, not the people! You went quite a bit out of line, Chitchat. (edit: Not only is it wrong to just attack the opposition in place of arguing the points at all, but some of what you said is egregiously wrong and biased on your part (the Greek gentleman, for example, is someone who appears to contribute a lot on foreign language wikis))--DawnDusk (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stick to what I wrote. I am not "attacking " the opposition. My points were that there has been illegal canvassing and that the users who did not come here after a canvass are have suspicious behavior. Do you deny any of this? I mean no disrespect but that is what the diffs show. This is not a personal attack, this is just a comment. If you think I am out of line please copy and paste the part of my of my comment which you did not like and I will link diffs to prove it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's run through the delete !vote arguments, and see what we have:
  • First, there are the claims that various sources are "biased" or have "opinions" and hence cannot be reliable...except that, as noted previously, not only does that not exclude sources from being reliable per WP:BIASED,"...sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources."
So, these !vote have to be discounted as being founded upon an errant reading of the rules.
  • Next are those who think it should be deleted because Sexual jihad exists (which isn't about rape or slavery) or because Wartime sexual violence exists (which doesn't cover cases like Rotherham, whose section a certain delete !voter keeps attempting to remove in a rather naked display of vandalism), and is otherwise a very long article for which such merge inclusion would immediately warrant forking to a new article such as this one is at present already). Likewise are the editors who incongruously !vote delete while saying the information nevertheless "should be on Wikipedia somewhere" (but they don't have a solution, which at least the isolated keep-and-renames do).
  • Then there are the numerous persons (such as the delete !vote immediately below) enamored of the neologism excuse, except that sufficient RS are using the term, so it's a no-starter.
  • Nearing the end, we come to the delete !voter's trump card (which I delivered to them on silver platter): the canvassing claim based up my reminding six editors (no more than half of the total keep !votes in previous discussions, by the way) that the interminable deletion process was now heading through another loop of Wikipedia's intestinal tract. Except that it's all WP:ADHOM not speaking to the subject. (An example of adhom would be pawing through all the delete-!voting editors contribs to determine which ones have an excessive interest in keeping "bad" things about Islam out of Wikipedia, and noting that such persons have COI and faith problems when they do not reveal that up front. But let's not name any names.)
  • Finally, the last possible hope, is that more delete !vote appears. Except that, as we are reminded by the tag at the head of this AfD (thoughtfully provided by the editor worried about canvassing) which clearly states: "....please note that this is not a majority vote". (Isn't it interesting how irony work?). Pax 04:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you haven't included my argument I'll restate it here. The sourcing for this article does not justify its existence. The article documents a number of cases of sexual abuse by Islamic groups (by copying text from articles) and states that these are all instances of some broader phenomenon called "rape jihad". Virtually all the sources cited just document those instances of sexual abuse and don't attempt to claim that they are part of any broader phenomenon. This is true even of some of the few sources which actually use the term "rape jihad". In order to have this article we need reliable sources which perform this dot-connecting exercise. Without that the subject isn't notable and connecting these instances of sexual abuse is original research. There aren't more than a handful of sources cited which make any attempt to do this, and the quality of those sources is very low - they either aren't reliable or don't devote significant coverage to the subject. Hut 8.5 07:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's Justification section connects the dots: ISIS and Boko Haram make it abundantly clear what they're doing and why. Given groups on separate continents engaging in the same mass enslavement and rape of kufir with identical justifications (publicly pronounced) rooted in surah authorization, that a "broader phenomenon" exists is not in serious dispute. Pax 07:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear-cut original research: your interpretation of the justifications presented by these groups is that they are the same, so you wrote an article stating that they are part of the same phenomenon. You aren't allowed to draw that conclusion here unless reliable sources do. Hut 8.5 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS says its views are supported in the Qu'ran and the Hadiths; Boko Haram leader says "Slavery is allowed in my religion". This is not original research, and the two statements are functionally equivalent. In fact, Wikipedia has a whole article on it (even linked from this one). Pax 03:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about Islamic slavery, and if it was we would delete it as a duplicate of that other article. Furthermore I'll bet the sources cited by that other article do actually discuss slavery in Islam, rather than just using the term "Islamic slavery" to describe an instance of a Muslim enslaving someone. Hut 8.5 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I must point out you're essentially agreeing with Pax at this point. --DawnDusk (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no he is not. He is saying that every rapist who is a muslim is not doing "RAPE JIHAD". saying so is blatant POV, OR and bigotry. If this is allowed on any encyclopedia ever it will lead to pages like "Christian incest", "Jewish necrophilia" etc etc. because the minute you start to think that you can label another person as something or that you can label their act as you wish you are committing POV editing. Bring a 'Single' source which says that the rotherham guys themselves say that they were doing jihad . let us see if this article can provide even a single source for its existence. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Pax's previous response to this. This simply means the term, not the phenomenon, is an inappropriate descriptor for that part of this article. --DawnDusk (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely am not "essentially agreeing with Pax at this point" and I'm baffled as to how you could think that I am. The problem with this article is that very, very few of the sources that it cites actually document Islamist sexual abuse as a phenomenon, rather than simply describing some instance of an Islamist group sexually abusing people, and the few sources that do aren't very good. That problem remains regardless of what label is used to describe Islamist sexual abuse. Pax's response has been to claim that such sources aren't necessary, which simply isn't true. Hut 8.5 17:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources cited do not use this term. This is a WP:NEOLOGISM being applied to a notable concept. I cannot say where this information should go. It should be on Wikipedia somewhere, but not under this title and with this kind of WP:SYNTHESIS to tie all of these events together without citations. Perhaps turn this into a list article, like "List of X events"? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me if it seems like I'm pestering all delete votes. Please see my response to Chitchat under his delete vote and do join the discussion regarding the issue of coherent unsynthesized phenomenon and neologism. It seems to be the discussion that needs to take place. --DawnDusk (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally (and this argument was also addressed in the previous AfD, improperly closed IMO, but I digress), it is not necessary for most of the reliable sources to use the term, only that a sufficient number do (and a half-dozen is sufficient). Other claims in the article need their own sources, and that is indeed why they are there. So, another delete !vote based upon misunderstanding of the requirements. Pax 00:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't buy the "well 5 sources cover the term so that should be enough for an article" argument, because if we take away the other 30 we're left with a neologism that too few sources use and we're helping spread, which is explicitly not our role. There's way too much synthesis and original research here, and we should wait until this is sufficiently widespread. It also seems this is the work of two or three editors deadset on preserving it at all cost. Two AFDs and one DRV so far, it's time for it to go. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted several times above, the article has been entirely rewritten from the last two AfDs, and recently survived a speedy deletion review. Pax 04:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is false statement. The article has not been changed in anyway. Rather new synthesis, POV, OR, bigotry and unreliable sources have been added to the article since then making it a mockery of NPOV. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're calling me a liar when it takes me like ten seconds to link a comparison? What is wrong with you, ChitChat? Not one sentence is retained intact from the old version. On the talk page, it's become clear that you get your information from Russian front-groups and Islamist propagandist outlets. In light of this, questions as to why you are here arise. Pax 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chitchat, you keep going way too far. I don't like commenting on people over arguments, but I looked a little at your history and saw that you have a past of getting blocked for being incorrigible and violating policies in article matters such as this. You need to drop the stick. --DawnDusk (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'only' time I was blocked it took a puppet master and his five socks to get me blocked. Due to my efforts (sacrifice seems to much lol) he was unmasked and subsequently blocked. Yes people have tried to get me blocked but boomerangs are not uncommon in those cases. And FYI you are also guilty of adhom now. Comment on the article not editors. My comment stands, everything added since the last AFD is 'synthesis(taking a bunch of things and making them look like links in a chain based on an opinion piece from a controversial unreliable source), POV(saying that something is a phenomena even though there are no sources saying that it is, aka saying that every rapist who is muslim is committing "jihad" when they themselves did not say so), OR, bigotry(creating entire content of a page based on 4 or 5 highly biased controversial and unreliable sources) and unreliable sources'. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling Ymblanter a sock-puppetmaster for blocking you for for violating 3RR, or is this a Freudian slip on your part? (From your extended contrib history, I find it hard to believe you are a "new" editor fresh on-the-scene as of last Dec. 14.) Pax 00:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I am calling This guy the puppet master. The guy who does the blocking is only an uninvolved admin lol. Where did you get the idea that I was calling the blocker a puppet master? Perhaps this is just another false statement on your part.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....Yes. I freely admitted that in the very comment you replied to. Allow me to explain: if you didn't make the connection, my point was that it's a bit damning that you got into a revert war over an article on that looks poor on Islam when you have been blocked for doing so in the past. It's quite different than your claims of sockpuppetry of above; you see, you've made bigotry and controversy your fighting points against Pax a couple of times here. This is why I felt it necessary to bring up that history - you've responded with one-liners that beg the question when Pax challenges your objections, which suggests that you might have a conflict of interest or something else riling you that clouds your ability to take and respond to his objections the way he responds to yours. And that is a legitimate concern much different from the above. I fear we are getting a bit too into "you" and "me," but I'm more than willing to continue this discussion here if you'd like because it is relevant. --DawnDusk (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me but you made me laugh implying that I have a COI and I don't want this article because it mentions Islam, cuz you see I routinely add content which depicts the extremism which some muslims are engaged in. I just don't like adding content which is pure POv simple as that. Next time you want to cite COI on somebody make sure you read their history thoroughly. I already explained that my edit war was necessary to prove sockpuppetry, and I will not go into that as it removed a sock master from the encyclopedia. You can see from the Islam article that the content which I removed was later permanently removed so your citing that as COI is kinda amusing. And so far no one has responded to even the very first of my objections, which is pretty simple. The objection is "Please show a Single source where the Rotherham guys say that they were committing Jihad when they raped those girls".Let us see if there is any response to this. When you reply please reply to this objection first then respond to the other part of my comment.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nicer I try to be, the ruder, more aggressive, and more confrontational you get. Take a good long hard at WP:STICK and WP:BATTLEGROUND sometime. --DawnDusk (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok I will ask politely. Perhaps you did not post a source because of my tone, so lets get that out of the way. I am sorry for being rude with you. Can you please post any source where it is written that the Rotherham guys claimed that they were committing Jihad when they raped those girlsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Never heard about this. Rape jihad does not exist at all.-- AHLM13 talk 17:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AHLM13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside Islam/Muslim-related topics.
Note: This user is currently blocked and unable to respond.

ISIS is raping women in public, then selling them into slavery. Really: it's in today's news. (This also gets to the heart of my reply to BlueRaspberry above: the additional sources are included because there are a lot of people who adamantly refuse to accept that these atrocities are actually happening even though the perpetrators are openly boasting of their deeds.) Pax 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having read this afd i would like to express my admiration for the cogent arguments that the participants have put forward although the passion being displayed at times may have put off some editors from taking part. That said, the article appears to meet WP:GNG, however some parts are WP:OVERCITE (eg. 7 refs, and some repeated, for a 2 line sentence about the Rotherham incident) These refs in the article all (but 1:)) have Rape Jihad in their title and look notable - [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (the last one although titled Mystery of Love Jihad has large part discussing Rape Jihad). Could one or more of the deletionists please explain why they are not suitable (but not a generalisation like "they're all not notable":). thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment Quite a bit of discussion (or whatever) has taken place since this AfD was started. In light of this, I would like to put forth a few more arguments in support of my stand.
    • First off, the existence of this article hinges on a five sources of dubious reliability. Per WP:BIASED, while sometimes non-neutral sources are the best available, it is in the case when the idea is presented alongside the mainstream view, giving proper weight. Here there is no regard for the mainstream view, but an article to suit a particular POV, sufficiently covered by WP:POVFORK. WP:BIASED also points out, that while sources are not required to be neutral, they must be reliable, which is not the case here. Per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited".
    • There is no known mainstream usage of the term in the media. Creating an article on such a topic falls afoul of WP:NEO. MOS:NEO is also worth reading in this case.
    • No sources actually define the phenomenon in a manner that "X refers to P, Q and R of A, B and C by J and K". Whatever sources we have use the term as an alternative or mention it once or twice. Again the sources which mention are of a dubious nature. What we have here is a struggle to define the term by connecting different pieces of information, not done by RS.
    • The article in its current state links different unconnected incidents of slavery and sexual vioence, and presents them as a single coherent phenomenon under the current title, which is plain WP:SYNTH. There is no evidence of this dot connecting exercise by RS, and in most cases RS do not even mention the term. Removing these things from the article will leave a few ines of text sourced to unreliable and/or biased sources. There were such arguments that the article should be moved to another title, but what holds the article together is OR, so to whatever title the article is moved to, it will again fall afoul of Wikipedia policies. In this case, too, there will be no evidence of dot connection.
    • There were also arguments that content cannot be accommodated on other articles as they are "too long" or "the events were not a part of a war". The fact is, most of the information covered in the incidents section has been copy pasted and already included elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If it has not been already, that is a poor argument in support of retaing the article. If the information has not been included elsewhere it can be included or is simply not suitable for inclusion. Per WP:CFORK, forks are allowed when there is a need to create a summary or related article (Introduction to general relativity) or when a subject warrants analysis from different points of view (Islamic view of angels). Note that WP:SPINOFF also states that the fork must maintain NPOV, if not, it comes under WP:POVFORK.
PS, some delete arguments at the two previous AfDs (1,2) are still valid and apply to the current article too. It will also be worthwhile to salt the titles if this discussion is closed in favor of deletion
Also, if you disagree with me regarding what constitutes a reliable source, what is a neutral POV, or what is or is not OR and SYNTH, then you have reached a point beyond which I am unable to argue meaningfully with you. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a POV original essay. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to share how you came to the conclusion the article is an "original essay"? Did you mean original research (which the article obviously isn't)? Pax 04:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a neologism coined by certain sectors of the press to stir up particular emotions. It is an inherently POV title, and I don't see any reason why the topic can't be covered under the far more neutral Wartime sexual violence. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
If you'd read the preceding commentary it is explained why there are multiple reasons why the article cannot go into Wartime sexual violence, why the neologism argument is overcome by sufficient reliable sources using the term, and why the title is not inherently POV. Pax 04:56, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of African supercentenarians[edit]

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

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 26. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: For the following reasons:
1. The new version of this article includes more cases and more sources (such as news reports) than previously when only the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) was sourced.
2. One basis for deletion in the two previous deletion discussions, was that the GRG is not a reliable source, which is no longer considered to be the case.
3. I think that this article will improve over time as more cases with references are added.
4. There are similar articles for each of the other continents so I think it would be discriminatory not to have one for Africa as well.

Thankyou. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For the following reasons:
1. All the other continents on Earth have been already considered in separate articles, therefore Africa as important continent, cannot be postponed.
2. The article has been created in accordance to the research performed and published by the Gerontology Research Group, which is world's leading authority in research into extreme longevity and supercentenarians tracking. The credibility of the GRG is unquestionable.
3. The improvement of the article is certain as the general world's life expectancy is improving, hence more future cases of supercentenarians are expected to appear along with their positive verification. The Gerontology Research Group also successfully includes more and more areas of the modern world into its research.
4 The article serves as an important source of information and education for the society about how long can the individuals truly live in the African countries in comparison to the rest of the world.

Sincerely, --- Waenceslaus (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Why should we have similar articles for Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Oceania but not for Africa? Or otherwise: Why are these articles not being considered for deletion? I cannot understand this inconsistency.

Sincerely, --- Kachelus (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping this article. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This argument sounds like discrimination against the continent Africa and all of its people in my opinion which can be seen dangerous and I do NOT think this is what wikipedia should be. So I would prefer not to state an argument with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this case. Best wishes, Kachelus (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per User:JJB four years ago. There are no reliable sources. The only reference used are GRG tables. As stated at the WP:WOP page, there is "no consensus" that the tables are a reliable source. The GRG itself may be reliable, but the tables are not. It also states that information from the GRG is to be used as a backup source only. The data in this article is synthesised from the various tables. The GRG links do not demonstrate notability, nowhere on the GRG website does a "List of [continent] supercentenarians" page exist. I believe WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies as Wikipedia articles are not here for the GRG to keep track of its own information or for the GRG to supplement their own tables. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:USEFUL arguments also fail on their own merit. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "No consensus" as of about four years ago, I believe, around about the same time as the previous deletion discussion. Oh, and "no consensus" does not mean "unreliable". Your comment "The GRG itself may be reliable, but the tables are not" makes no sense. The GRG is considered to be an authority on supercentenarian research by Guinness World Records and is mentioned constantly as an authority by various news sources. They verify longevity claimants, so how you can call verified information unreliable I don't know.
The GRG tables list all cases by place of birth and death. WP:SYNTHESIS might say "Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" but the only thing not explicitly stated in the source is that certain countries are in certain continents, and you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Otherwise I don't see how simply making a list using this information is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another point: this is a list article, so I don't see why any further sources than the GRG tables are necessary. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:SYN does not prohibit combining or citing multiple sources in an article, unless this combination is used to come to a conclusion to which neither source comes. I am not sure this article comes within its scope. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad, that you have finally come to this, that the GRG is the reliable source, CommanderLinx. The numerous media citations, in many different countries, will help you to further convince yourself in this belief. However I still need to assure you, that the GRG tables, being published by the reliable source, which is the GRG are no less reliable than the very scientific institution, that publishes them. In the last few days, upon the passing away of Misao Okawa, GRG and GWR-verified world's oldest person and Gertrude Weaver, GWR and GRG-verified world's oldest person, we could see massive GRG citations by the media in countries such as Jamaica, Netherlands, Poland and other. I'm glad other Wikipedians understand this and they conscientiously vote for maintenance of this article. Therefore there is no need for you to further vote for the deletion of this very article, which bases on the Gerontology Research Group's research, pictured in the tables, links to which have been given in the references of the article.

Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There are similar articles for other regions. The article does need more sources, but that is no reason to delete. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:17, 9 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. Tone 06:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Baillie[edit]

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

Clearly fails all parts of the biographical guidelines of WP:CREATIVE, per those guidelines, very limited sources for anything of interest concerning this person, practically no secondary or tertiary RS of use to us, no involvement in major creations, not written about in books, etc. What we would call almost a "one-hit wonder". CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 23:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-I just put up the prod for this! Not notable. Wgolf (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-As nominator, obviously :) Sorry about that Wgolf, I just thought we could shift it faster than a week through AFD! CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 00:58, 3 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, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 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. Snow Keep. After reviewing with the OTRS team, no valid reason for deletion was presented. Nakon 04:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind[edit]

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

Request from subject of the article to delete - OTRS Ticket #2015040110028951 " Due to the high volume of inaccuracies, falsehoods, and libel that appear on his page directly impacting he (sic) reputation and court case in a negative manner" Flat Out let's discuss it 22:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, the subject has the right to nominate or request nomination on their behalf and has done so. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article doesn't appear to fall under anything in WP:DEL-REASON. The article is also heavily referenced.LethalFlower (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is accurate, subject is notable. Complaint should be rejected as bogus. 85.210.161.130 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since Kent Hovind has proposed that the article be replaced by a recent version with his edits[29], it follows that he feels the article has content worth retaining, and its deletion would create a potential for copyright violations.BiologicalMe (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Edit Article Using Kents Revisions The article is full of libel and defamator remarks. Kent Hovind has already brought a court case against rationalwiki for the same type of disinformation. Please use his recomendations in the following video[30].DonnaCAGLE1972 (talk) 24:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So because a guy who sues people a lot doesn't like his article we should remove it? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - All the crap that he and or other editors disagree with can and should be removed, We shouldn't remove well sourced articles just because he doesn't want one, No valid reason to delete IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 01:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete until all libel corrections are made - A case has been made against rational wiki for libelous content. This article is no different. Delete article until all corrections are made according to the videos above. BAvarado (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep notability clearly established, well sourced, meets BLP with sources providing references for content. Nothing meeting Reasons for deletion. This should be a snow keep. Editors making claims of libel or defamation should be clearly notified of No legal threats. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Kent Hovind made a video on youtube entitled, "Pastor Kent Hovind responds to email from Wikipedia". Unless edits are made according to Kent Hovinds demand that it is said that wikipedia will be included in a lawsuit he has against rationalwiki. CBombWorthy41 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete until all corrections have been made. - A man's reputation should not be subject to a popularity contest by his enemies. Wiki will be held accountable for false and libel comments. LoneStar1776 (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps the subject could provide a list of the "inaccuracies, falsehoods, and libel", so they could be addressed? There doesn't appear to be anything in the article which isn't reliably sourced. He is clearly notable, with plenty of coverage. And legal threats aren't going to help. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And the SPA's have arrived. Who could have predicted that? --NeilN talk to me 01:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit or Delete Hello Wikipedia, Kent Hovind has made a video of all the 46-edits that should be made. I tried to copy and past the video here but it is being blocked for some reason. You can view edits by looking on youtube under - Pastor Kent Hovind responds to email from Wikipedia -. margeforsythe (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO notability as supported by WP:RS citations. Keep WP:NPOV based on the sources. Reject on its face demands of the subject for content removal or change unless in keeping with RS/NPOV/etc. Subjects do not get to convert our neutral encyclopedia into a spin-doctored version that fits their opinion of themselves. All objections to content can be discussed specifically on the article talkpage (AFD is not for cleanup). And many of them have. Dozens of times. And the article is the result of their policy/guideline-based analysis. Block on sight any editor making WP:NLT demands. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until all edits are made despite anti-christian SPA's If Wiki wants to maintain its integrity as an online encyclopedia it must remain truthful and correct. According to the slanderous and wrong information on Kent Hovind's page it is a disgrace to the "truth" wiki promotes. Please do what is right and edit this article or delete it all together. If you are to write a truthful account you would take Kent Hovind's edits in to consideration. I have been told the youtube URL is blocked on this page. Please make CORRECTIONS according to Kent Hovind's wishes BY SEARCHING: Pastor Kent Hovind responds to email from Wikipedia. I am seeing some very hateful and anti-Christian SPA's to the liking of Peter Reilly, Deanna Holmes, EX IRS Agent Robert Baty and the bunch. These type of people have an incredible Bias and are ruining Wikipedia which in this case is slanderous remarks towards Kent Hovind. Do the right think Wiki, please. WikiUser2k15 (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what an SPA is? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. There's no chance that this will ever get deleted. He's too notable. If there are neutrality or reliability issues, they can be resolved through normal editing. WP:NPOVN would be a better forum for these issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously, the subject of the article is notable. The article is extensively referenced. Famspear (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable. Any potential neutrality issues go to another place, not here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, sinply no doubt about notability. Also, block all the SPAs for meatpuppetry. BMK (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Snow Keep Per WP:SK reason 3. I suggest the correct solution for this is Kent can discuss any changes he likes at Talk:Kent Hovind. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per WP:SK. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:00, 3 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) 07:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Devine[edit]

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

Notability, and a ridiculous level of COI/POV that requires complete rewrite.

  • 7 of the citations are written by subject himself.
  • one is a youtube video (and in any case, not about subject)
  • 1 is an article about subject's father.
  • 3 are local newspaper articles about subject and his conviction for shoplifting while being a small town mayoral candidate.
  • 1 is is bio page from his city job.
  • several do not mention subject in any fashion whatsoever.

Article is filled with peacock puffery and ephemeria like

  • [ed:note, this sentence is about subject's father, not subject, in addition to being unencyclopedic] Devine's father died on Christmas Day, 1965. He was remembered by his alma mater, St. Patrick's High School in Elizabeth with the annual presentation of the "Spirit of St. Patrick's Award" and he was inducted into the city's Hall of Fame in recognition for his vast contributions to the community
  • In fact, Devine is an ardent feminist whose positions on health education, abortion and reproductive freedom as well as women's sexual choices are widely documented
  • Perhaps to compensate for the loss of his father, a big part of his childhood was dedicated to Scouting. Devine belonged to Cub Scout Pack 316 at Madison-Monroe School #16, where he earned ranks of Bobcat, Wolf, Bear and Webelos
  • In 2009, he helped Joe Menza defeat the powerful Union County political machine to win election as mayor, in what was called 'the Hillside humiliation' by the politickernj.com website.
  • Another early influence in his life was Devine's study of martial arts. As a sixth grade student, he began learning karate and judo at Jerome Mackey's Elizabeth dojo. As years passed, Master Kenny Chin converted that Broad Street location to a Wu Shu Kung Fu studio, and Devine's practice adapted to the Sifu's style with Eagle Claw kung fu and Choy Li Fut. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable political consultant and journalist; once ran for mayor but got only 300+ votes. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 9 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ModernBB[edit]

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

No outside sourcing or indication of notability. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All of the sourcing in the article is primary. I was unable to find any coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Ref provided are all primary, as noted above. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:29, 8 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 Deleted (G7) by Tom harrison. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Knowler-Davies[edit]

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

I can't find enough coverages in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article does not currently contain any non-primary sources that validate the notability of the topic, nor even a single non-primary source which so much as discusses her to the extent a single sourceable statement. Cursory searches on my part turned up no additional sourcing which does so, so this seems a pretty cut and dry case of failure to meet either WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY#ARTIST both. Snow let's rap 23:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, surely you can't get more reliable links and sources than the ones provided from the ones provided which include the artists own website and Vogue

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Bikes!. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Britton[edit]

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

The only source for this article is the subjects website. This has been the case for over 4 years. He thus falls far short of the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subject's own website alone is not enough to demonstrate notability Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Super Bikes!. We already have an article on Britton's TV show, so if his notablity is in question obviously Jason Britton should redirect to the show. It's rather lazy to claim there is no coverage of Britton besides his own website. Did nobody go to Google News? [31][32][33] or Books? I don't think there's enough to justify an article on both Super Bikes! and Britton himself so merging the two solves that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 27 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Edwards[edit]

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

This person does not appear to have been notable, assuming they actually existed. I have found (and added) a source that mentions someone by that name who appears to have founded the Irish Soccer Academy, but I could find no mention anywhere of a Ronan Edwards who played for the Shamrock Rovers or coached for St. Patrick's Athletic FC. In short, this article appears to be either a hoax or unverifiable, and so should be deleted. Everymorning talk 20:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this may be a candidate for speedy deletion if the content isn't significantly different from the version deleted at AFD in 2010. Hack (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject may or may not be authentic, but the playing career is a partial or total hoax. UEFA records show that Shamrock Rovers has never played Newcastle United F.C. in a European competition in 2002 or in any other year. Moreover, if almost any player had sustained a career-ending injury through a bad foul by a former captain of the England national football team, there would be many references to the incident. None exists. The supposed first goal against St. James's Gate F.C. in the 1999-2000 season could not have happened, because the latter club was not in the league that year (see RSSSF records [34] for 1999/2000). This looks like an elaborate hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 16:05, 5 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 23:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backseat Goodbye[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this could meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. A brand new editor removed prod and notability tag, which had been there for over 3 years. Pinging all who've looed at its notability before: Evb-wiki, MarkBul, Safiel, Michig, Wgolf, Bongwarrior, Largepools. Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopuncture[edit]

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

This is an article which combines novel synthesis from reliable sources describing (albeit speculatively) the ides of acupuncture as a modulator for psychotherapeutic interventions, with ridiculous nonsense cited from unreliable sources, in order to arrive at a point where obvious pseudoscientific drivel with a tiny minority following is portrayed as having both scientific legitimacy and widespread support. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability missing, searched for reliable secondary sources didn't turn up much. I initially thought this was a hoax article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think we need even go into Guy's suggestion that there is an effort here to legitimize pseudoscience (plenty of Wikipedia articles exist for such topics, which are at times notable, regardless of the value of their practices or the strength of their following). I'm more compelled by the observations made on the article's talk page which seem to illustrate that the sourcing used to support the article has been misrepresented to suggest that said sources pertain to the topic at hand, when they in fact do not. Remaining sources are subject to a variety of other issues, most being both primary and otherwise non-reliable under policy, and most all of them being used in conjunction with the synthesis referenced above. Snow let's rap 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines, and clearly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS regarding sourcing for claims about supposed 'treatment'. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Aside from the extreme fringiness and illegitimacy of this topic, this link, provided by Alexbrn during the Psychopuncture discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, should remove any lingering doubt. --Seduisant (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best the article is spam. Basic Emotional Structure Test finds one source on google scholar. Here we have a page overview [35] on page 91. Maybe redirect to something else like alternative medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. Weird. And it likely exists as self-promotion for this unknown modality. LesVegas (talk) 17:31, 3 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 Dexter's Laboratory. (non-admin closure) Looks like a case of fait accompli. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Moore (voice actress)[edit]

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

Haven't found anything to suggest this actress meets notability requirement. Even IMDB only shows one minor role. Eeekster (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do that redirect, because the creator of the article is a sockpuppet of the blocked editor User:Daffyduck1234 (see the SPI here. If anyone disagrees, undo my redirect, no problem. Also, if someone would close this after I do the redirect (if it's not undone) I'd appreciate it, as I've never figured out how to close an AfD properly. BMK (talk) 22:36, 2 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 23:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corina Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer, does not meet WP:ENT. Drm310 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - also fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources about this actor, just social media and wiki mirrors. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 7 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 Deleted (G7) by RHaworth –Davey2010Talk 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Aislinn Begley[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Being a contestant at Britain & Ireland's Next Top Model does not make her notable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:11, 2 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 snow keep. Appears to be a bad-faith nomination in retaliation for another AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toma Ciorbă[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. One physician like many other around the world. Probably he is known, or even notorious on local geographical area, but globally, definitely he's not notable. Also, from the only 2 sources the first one does not count as it is the website of the hospital which is named after this individual. So it's not reliably third-party published source.

94.102.49.88 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article was tagged for AfD by the above IP editor, who posted the above text on the article's talk page and then transcluded the talk page to the daily AfD log. I'm completing the nomination process as a courtesy to the anonymous editor, but the article looks like a clear keep to me. The subject having a postage stamp in his honor, while not in itself proof of notability per se, is surely an indication that if there's a problem with the article, it's an insufficiency of sources rather than a lack of notability. --Finngall talk 20:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an infectious disease hospital named after him. I agree that the issue is with lack citations, not notability.[1] RobBertholf (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC) WP:Clearly notable[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Company Overview of Hospital for Infectious Diseases Toma Ciorba". Bloomberg Business. Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 2015-04-02.
  • Definite keep While sourcing could be more robust, those citations which exist as of the most recent version of the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. The nominator should also note that notability, as regards Wikipedia policy does not hinge on a "global" familiarity, but rather on sourcing, and that AfD's should not be filed before one is familiar with the relevant policies and has done due diligence in searching for additional sourcing. I trust that the nomination was made in good faith, but it was clearly not altogether appropriate in this case. Snow let's rap 23:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep refs 2 and 3 are more than enough for a claim of notability. And being depicted in a stamp is one of these sort of things that does not happen if you are not really notable. Looking at the relevant ANI thread, it looks just a retaliatory AfD, please close it soon. Cavarrone 08:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 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. per SK1 & all that lovely stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanush 2[edit]

Amanush 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film that I remember being deleted before for this page-oddly it says coming April 2014 and being not out yet.... Wgolf (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ALT: WP:INDAFD: Amanush 2
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) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MichaelQSchmidt and per these [37][38][39][40][41][42], Was BEFORE not followed?, I'm lazy when it comes to finding sources but even I found some..... –Davey2010Talk 01:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn-Okay it is odd since I could of swore this was afd, maybe it was a prod or something I don't know. Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 8 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 23:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brocagh Emmetts GAC[edit]

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

Unsourced article, tagged as such since March 2013. Subject is an athletic club based in the Irish village of Brocagh, which is a red link. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate sources for this article, but were unsuccessful. Recommending deletion as the subject does not meet general notability and is lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The club does appear to exist, but no coverage in reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 9 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability, could be a self-published book for all we know from the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik.P[edit]

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

I can't find enough coverages in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The subject is an author of a non-notable book, hence fails WP:AUTHOR. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:52, 2 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) Esquivalience t 20:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Böszörményi Zoltán[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.. sources seem self published JMHamo (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly worth noting wiki articles in Esperanto, French, and Magyar, Wikidata authority links, 176 non-English-language news hits per sources template; may benefit from review by subject-matter/language expert. If kept, definitely needs better sources. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above by Biruitorul (the ones by NyJ are mostly primary). Cavarrone 20:51, 5 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. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humble Bundles[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not intended to be exhaustive. This list seems to have the goal though. This information is already reasonable covered by the parent article. The parent article may not list what the weekly bundle for Jan 1st, 2014 was, but that doesn't really seem all to important. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (But not prejudiced against deletion) At the talk page of the Humble Bundle, we have a slow discussion about the approach for these two pages now given how frequently the bundles are compared to when they first started (when it was only one every few months), and we recognize this is verving on DISCRIMINATE. These aren't as regularly covered in the sources as they used to. But we haven't moved on how to deal with reorganizing yet. I'd prefer to keep this page here for now (at worse, I'd ask for userification) as we figure out how to trim up things to reflect the nature of the Humble Bundle today. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to you userifying this. But as it stands right now this is completely unnecessary. You have 11 of the 12 main bundles, almost every owner named bundle, most of the android bundles, and others. The discussion looks to have ended more than a year ago. Anywho, the information is in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason to userify if deletion is opted is to merge any trailing information into the article or use it to build out categories. If we know what we know now on the HB approach, I'd likely not have created this list. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a template at one point before this, if I recall correctly, that contained all of the bundles. It seems to be gone. The information in the article is mostly if not completely in the article. There's nothing really in the list to justify keeping it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page contains significantly more information than the article, such as the price and how popular each was, and organizes it in a more readable format. I have personally used this page multiple times in the past. It most certainly is not unnecessary or redundant. I see your point that it is a lot of information, perhaps close to the point of too much, but I do not think that it has reached that point yet. If it did I would rather some information be pared down than deleted outright. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 20 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 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry, but I'm not buying the arguments here. The fact it has "significantly more information than the article" is a bad thing, because there is way too much detail here. The page is enormous, many of the games aren't notable, the article itself is woefully sourced, and WP:NOTDIR/WP:LISTCRUFT seem to come into play. I see no value whatsoever in having a generic list of every Humble Bundle ever. What next? A list of every Steam Sale ever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Masem. While there are some definite problems with the list as-is, I think we need to come to a conclusion on how to incorporate the noteworthy discussion of early humble bundles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lukeno94. Given the frequency of humble bundles, I just don't see this list being maintainable and a lot of these bundles aren't noteworthy. Any bundle that received significant coverage can be be covered in the Humble Bundle article. – The1337gamer (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I recognize the delete !votes and their arguments but I think it would be a shame to full-on delete the article. There may also be a more maintainable version (I'm skeptical) that someone light bulbs on if it is kept. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What good would userfying this do? Also, how would any form of this list be valid? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some information that should be reflected back into the main article if this is deleted - obviously not the whole list, but, for example, the first 10-some numbered bundles, that were bringing in millions in revenue, could be documented as example of the success. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the pretty easy retort to the first question WP:USERFY (c.f. the last sentence of the first paragraph)? Besides, you wouldn't be able to stop him from asking an admin to userfy it for him should the decision here be to delete the article, anyway. My !vote just skips that (WP:BURO) step.

    Maybe Masem finds some way to strip down the list such that it becomes maintainable while also passing WP:NOT, which is the only policy that I can conceive of the article today failing.

    An alternative location might be the Draft namespace. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article does serve a distinct purspose compared to the parent. I agree that the article has way too much information on it, though. It may be sufficient to remove the list of games from each bundle? That should still give a good overview of the salient data points without overloading the reader. Alexbrainbox (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the games (which are all in the article) you are left with numbers(that are in the article). While it serves a distinct purpose, the question is if it actually serves an encyclopedic purpose. It has trivia, trivia that is mostly in the main article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the list of bundles would be due to include at the main article, it's an appropriate stand-alone article. I would say this passage from WP:EMBED applies: Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.. And I would argue the list is due to include as part of the identity/notability of Humble Bundle in general (each of the lists attracts a decent amount of coverage individually, though certainly not enough to merit stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That entire argument falls apart when you consider that they shouldn't be included in full in the main article, as most of the bundles are entirely non-notable. Routine coverage of a bundle is, well, routine, and doesn't constitute notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we have an exhaustive list of every Steam sale? No, no we wouldn't. This is exactly the same as that would be, just on a bigger scale. The fact that this would be insanely excessive detail in the main article does NOT justify the existence of this list. HBs, for the most part, have been extremely regular for a long time; this list does not serve any real purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's clearly not a very good analogy. Steam sales are not the set of events that comprise the entirety of the subject. Steam sales are not the products themselves, these are. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant difference here is that, compared to say the lists of hip hop artists, or the like, these sales only happened for a limited time, and thus no longer possible to even buy them. So we should be looking at the long-term effect. And this is where things get tricky. The first several Main bundles (the numbered ones) had high visibility, bringing additional attention to the games included, adding in the strong charity efforts and developers producing DRM-free versions on all three major platforms. Clearly that influence can be documented. But once they began running bundles on a semi-regular schedule, the attention dropped, and while they were still making charity efforts and other factors, the impact on the individual games included no longer because a major factor. As such, the bundles today are basically like a storefront, like steam. But that's why I've argued that to keep is to figure out where to draw the line as to what are bundles that really did have attention, and thus that have become routine. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest that the earlier bundles have no notability their self and actually paint the (for lack of a better term) entity behind them as notable. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting that the individual early bundles had their own notability for a standalone (IIRC, we didn't create this article until #3 was out, but going off memory here). However, the amount of coverage of the early numbered bundles was huge, and the games included received additional attention from it. There were near-daily articles about reaching $x million marks, unlocking of source code, etc. Today, even considering just the main bi-weekly bundle, you might find it mentioned in passing in game deals, or sometimes called out but nowhere close to what the initial bundles got. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note is that when the Humble Bundle started when they weren't regular things, the individual bundles did receive attention, itself changing the model of how HB worked. But that was the case for only the "main" bundles, and most of the rest are truly not notable. Hence I think there's a subset to be kept, but definitely not the whole list. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Humble Bundle is extremely notable, being huge successful as a tool of selling games and raising a lot of money for charity. Therefore it makes sense to keep a list of the game deals for future reference, as it has had such a huge influence on the industry. It is well maintained and comprehensive. Also the WP:NOTEVERYTHING deletion argument is weak as it is in no way indiscriminate. The various bundles are still referenced in forums that I visit, so have long lasting appeal amongst PC gamers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme notability? So I guess the Valve corporation would be Uber mega extremely notable. While the case that the [[Humble Bundle], the "tool", is notable has been made, no one denies this. I'd probably just call it notable and not extremely notable. The list is completely indiscriminate, the very definition of the word. Every humble weekly bundle from the start til the week of December 18, 2014. Every Pop up humble bundle until february of this year. Most Humble Flash bundles til when ever. We are just missing the humble ebook bundles I think. Beyond the fact that this is an indiscriminate list it reproduces information already in the parent article. The list serves no actual purpose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree much more, and I think it's a shame that consensus is clearly going to ignore common sense and the size of the page, and will result in the page being kept. Most Bundles are completely non-notable, with nothing bar routine coverage cropping up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wrote "The list is completely indiscriminate" well I stopped there, if you can't see how this list is not indiscriminate I give up really. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the list is verving that way, which is why while I'd like it kept, even then it needs a lot of pruning. Because HB is running weekly and biweekly bundles, even though there are charitable efforts on each time, its effectively a catalog, like documenting what was each big-box store was selling in their sunday ads. To that degree, there is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG here, and why either that if this list is kept it needs trimming, or that if it is not kept, it is trimmed to summarize the major, less frequent bundles that made it influential in the past. --MASEM (t)
  • OK so you're saying the article may need trimming due to technical or other reasons? That I can accept. However, this is an AfD: what is being debated is the existence of the article. So the size is not directly relevant to this discussion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessarily a size issue, but an issue that the list presently contains both some discriminate information and some indiscriminate information, with the latter starting to outweigh it, and indiscriminate information can lead to size issues. I believe that the list should be kept with trimming of the indiscriminate information to fix it, but I'd also accept deletion w/ userification or merging of the discriminate information into the main Humble Artist (itself needing a rewrite knowing what we know now). So discussion of deletion is completely fair here, and there are definitely valid reasons to delete. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're effectively voting merge? Well I think that's a poor solution given each articles length. If you're voting delete you're saying the whole should be deleted, not that elements should be merged. And I still don't understand how any of it is indiscriminate, it's all highly specific. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to keep with the understanding massive trimming is needed, but would support a merge to incorporate only the discriminate material. And the reason it is indiscriminate is that, taking any random bundle they offer today (in 2015), it's just a specialized form of sale with a charity aspect. It is nowhere close to the level of community aggressiveness we had when the first 5 or 6 bundles came online. This is just listing out sales, which is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG making it indiscriminate. A way to measure this indiscriminateness is to look for sourcing for a given single bundle, and you'll find much less about them today than those first offered. If we're the only ones assembling this, that's likely a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look indiscriminate according to Wiktionary "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." How can a very precise list, carefully and exactly constructed, with no margin for argument, be indiscriminate? I'm convinced you're using the wrong word. Maybe you mean "I find it uninteresting"? In no way is it indiscriminate. However, I feel I might be wasting my time arguing this point any further. But please look at some dictionaries. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not precise, carefully and exactly constructed. It's a messy, exhaustive, incomplete, almost entirely unsourced directory. Many bundles aren't listed and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be). The several IP editors that had the dedication to keep updating it gave up a long time ago. As Humble continues to expand this list becomes less maintainable and less useful. In it's current format this article has no chance to succeed. If it isn't deleted or significantly reworked this time around then it will inevitably be nominated again. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I disagree in almost every way. Overall I'm impressed by it. There is considerable preciseness, verging on the extreme. And it is carefully and exactly constructed, I really don't understand how this could be improved. Maybe it is incomplete, but that is difficult for me to verify: but it is probably the most complete list on the web. As for messy: I consider it extremely well organized. As for the details: I really don't think it would benefit from additional details as you describe, that would detract from readability. It is also not a directory, please look at a dictionary definition to understand this. You don't think it will succeed: well so far most of the !votes have been to keep. It's also an extremely popular page, with 36,770 views in the last 90 days, which should count for at least something. Isn't that succeeding? It is for the benefit of readers after all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preciseness is a problem. We're here to summarize , not go into excessive detail; that's one way something can be indiscriminate. And while what is indiscriminate is in the eye of the beholder, we have to consider that the average reader is not a video game player, and that the bulk of the information in this table is useless to them. If we limited it to the main numbered bundles - the ones that have raised the most for charity, the data there helps to explain why the HB system was important. But taking any random bundle out recently, not as much. (also be aware that page view counts mean nothing, as outlined at WP:ATA.) --MASEM (t) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK so Masem thinks there is too much detail, and The1337gamer thinks there is too little, I think it's about right. Where is the correct place to discuss this? On the article talk page. Not at AfD really, lets not count chickens until they're hatched. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say there was too little detail. I said it was both incomplete and exhaustive. Incomplete does not mean it is lacking detail, it's a different problem entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said "...and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be)" i.e. it is missing pricing information, which is an additional detail. And incomplete is the opposite of exhaustive. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding me. By exhaustive I mean that this article is trying to cover all Humble Bundles (which it should not be doing). By incomplete I mean that information is missing. Two different problems. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or another way to put it, we go into far too great detail on the bundles themselves, but we're also missing large swathes of bundles to be listed. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I contend that the list is remarkable complete, I cannot see any missing bundles at all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example, it is missing the last few (including the present) main bundles and weekly bundles since the start of 2015. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it misses the current bundle, I'm sure that will be remedied. As for the lesser bundles, these are of less significance. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which pretty much confirms how we are saying this is indiscrimiante if you consider those "lesser" bundles. (which I agree). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrjulesd, No I wouldn't say, "I do not find this interesting." or what ever words that you are trying to put in my mouth. I do actually find it interesting, but I also find it to be indiscriminate and ultimately unencyclopedic. The numbers of those that have viewed this article do not make it any less indiscriminate or any less unencyclopedic. The was no (or little) descrimination used in the creation of this list. The majority of the information is trivial and contained in the parent article. The list is overly excessive. The list also encourages this over excess. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I think I've said the majority of my points. But I will say this much. There seems to be no question over the notability of Humble Bundles. If that is the case, page view statistics become highly relevant. The fact that there has been 36,000 views over the last 90 days suggest their is considerable interest in this list [54]. We should put the readership of Wikipedia in high consideration in debates like these. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they ought to be. It's a WP:COMMONSENSE argument. A notable topic, with considerable public interest, ought to be kept. Remember the readers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense means that we give them proper things to read, not a messy list that manages to be overly detailed and incomplete at the same time. Page views are meaningless; a page on SkyDoesMinecraft would get a huge amount of views, and yet he doesn't meet notability guidelines/doesn't have an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page views on their own are meaningless, but with notability they become significant. I contend it is of high quality: but if you think it can be improved, why not improve it? --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Page views are meaningless full stop. Why should I waste time improving something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is a grossly oversized and overly detailed list full of non-notable things? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 8 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 Andover, Massachusetts. Nakon 03:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pike School[edit]

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

Not a high school, so it has no presumption of notability. Fails WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard for a private school. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nominator is correct that this prep school goes only to grade 9 and thuse doesn't qualify for our usual presumption of high school notability. HighBeam turns up quite a few sources about the school [55], including some that might be taken as evidence that it's an elite, notable school, such as [56][57][58][59]. And here's a news article that explicitly refers to it as "prestigious" and "elite", although it does so in the context of reporting an accusation of sexual abuse by a teacher. [60] I'm on the fence about whether this is quite enough; it wouldn't take too much more, though. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for finding those, but I disagree on their utility as notability sources. Two of the five were not directly about the school but more about prep schools in general. The two sex abuse stories may go a bit further, but until the situation resolves, we cannot use them due to blp concerns and NOTNEWS. The story on oratory is great and should be added to the article. The biggest problem is they are all out if Boston, which is essentially local. They do nothing toward satisfying ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have this page on my watchlist. I think you're right that this page on that basis is not notable, even with the news story and the information that's about it. Even looking at it, there's not much to be put on Wikipedia about it besides the speech team, so I would say this doesn't warrant a page at all. It's already on stub and low class in two or three WikiProjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanic1c (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to its locality per long-standing precedent as documented at OUTCOMES.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I change my mind. I think you're right on that idea Mechanic1c (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD regarding the treatment of ordinary primary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 10 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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pemiscot County Does[edit]

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

Day three, and the third nomination from @Gourami Watcher:'s personal InformativeMurderPornPedia project. This was previously AFD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississippi County Does where it was kept due to lack of activity, don't make the same mistake twice. Like Tempe Girl, this article also hosts amateur self-illustrated portraits - File:Pemiscot County Unidentified Male Recon 001a.jpg & File:Namus 5158 Reconstruction 009a.jpg.

The murders are not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does not cover every murder, even if every murder is covered by a reliable source somewhere. There are no reliable sources other than local news and crime databases. No significant independent coverage of the case. - hahnchen 17:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've said before, the page meets criteria for WP:VICTIM/ONEEVENT, as the crime was unusual, since both victims have remained unidentified for nearly four decades. The crime has been covered by national resources such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the government-run National Missing and Unidentified Persons System which are both credible and have national importance. The fact that this article contains "amateur self-illustrated portraits" has absolutely no relevance to indicate if the cases are notable but simply reduces the amount of non-free images to be uploaded. On another note, I'd appreciate the absence of offensive and unnecessary phrases such as " Gourami Watcher's InformativeMurderPornPedia project." You have the right to your own opinion, just don't be a jerk--GouramiWatcher(?) 02:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the criterias at WP:VICTIM and ONEEVENT. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 5 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baghal Rajput[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is a state of this name, and at least one raja of the Puar or Panwar who was called Baghal, but otherwise there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss this alleged clan. I suspect it is just another Indian surname.

The article was PRODed but that appears to have been contested. Sitush (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very difficult to make anything of this. I suspect there are some language issues here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the AFD so I apologize if I've messed anything up or missed something out. –Davey2010Talk 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:The Puar or Panwar or Parmara or alike are already listed on wikipedia among Rajputs. Observation by Sitush finds its correct place on the article Parmara. A separate article for Baghal seems to have no scope at all.Sitush is right, the surname is in use in India by a non-Rajput community. -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless some sourcing can be provided to verify the notability of this topic or extend its content beyond eight words, this is as clear-cut a case as one ever gets on AfD. Snow let's rap 23:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I may be wrong, but I thing it's a duplicate of Baghela (also unreferenced) using a different transliteration. That makes this a CSD A10 candidate, with an AfD to follow for Baghela.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult to be sure, given the lack of info/sourcing in both articles. There are many similar-but-arguably-different groups, eg: Bhutta and Bhutto, Soomro and Soomra. Baghela does at least appear to exist, although whether it passes GNG might still be moot. - Sitush (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 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) — kikichugirl oh hello! 01:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andra (singer)[edit]

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

In gauging notability, I think we can safely discount the tabloid interviews, the PR bio from the subject's employer, and this bit of puffery, which leaves us with this - a short announcement that the subject won the MTV Europe Music Award for Best Romanian Act at the 2014 MTV Europe Music Awards. That may or may not qualify her under WP:MUSICBIO point 8 - "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award" - but I think, given the examples listed, this does not qualify as a "major music award". Within the context of the MTV Europe Music Awards, I would imagine that the international awards (Song, Video, Female, Male, etc.) do count, but the case for regional awards like this one seems weaker. Coupled with the fact that this is essentially the only thing drawn from a reliable source that one can say about the subject, I would say she may be notable in the future, but not yet. - Biruitorul Talk 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Sourcing seems sufficient to pass WP:GNG (albeit not by a terribly robust margin) which makes any particular facets of consistency with WP:MUSICBIO moot; notability on the basis of awards need not be established in that she is discussed (at a mininmally acceptable length) in reliable sources. I understand Biruitorul's concerns, but going by the letter of policy, she is notable, even if not an entertainer of earth-shattering reputation. Snow let's rap 23:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" - plural. One of the article sources is the website of her employer, and can safely be disregarded as a conflict of interest. This one is quite simply so biased as to be unquotable - every single paragraph drips with adulation. The final source tells us nothing about the subject other than her having won the award. - Biruitorul Talk 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 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) 04:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEXX[edit]

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

Let's start by analyzing the sources:

Well, we don't even have to dig further into the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, because the article plainly lacks credible sources that would attest claims of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: A notable band with charting record that reached the top 3 of the Romanian chart. Article duly sourced by multiple publications despite the objections of proposing colleague for deletion of article. NEXX hit "Synchronized Lips" reached number 2 in Romanian Singles Chart staying in the chart for 10 weeks. See: March 8, 2009 entry at List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2009. Multiple hits. Winner of Eska Award and Romanian Music Awards. werldwayd (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive claims, to be sure. Present reliable sources, and they'll gain credibility. - Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of the sourcing is quasi-primary and some of the secondary sourcing is bloggish in nature, but at least a couple of the sources are from acceptable secondary publications that represent reliable sources and it seems likely more could be found to further support notability. Snow let's rap 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you to elaborate on which sources strike you as reliable? - Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some sources are from reliable and acceptable grounds.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Never heard of them till well now, but upon reading that they have had success, seems to be a keep! Wgolf (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above votes are basically instances of WP:ILIKEIT. Just which sources attest the band's notability - the cruft, the blogs or the tabloid gossip? - Biruitorul Talk 21:02, 8 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 Paw (band)#History. Nakon 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Without Horses[edit]

World Without Horses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure album with no references that was a obscure band's only release. Wgolf (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:33, 2 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 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrueShip[edit]

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

Can't find any non-press release sources about this company. Sam Walton (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search results are the same as nominator's. I found lots of press releases and nothing else. Fails WP:CORP for lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 10 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, leaning keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Yee[edit]

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

seems to be known for only one thing, therefore BLP1E and fails to reach required level of notability nonsense ferret 14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename Originally the article was named Arrest of Amos Yee. It could be renamed to that with almost no other changes then would not be subject to rules about biographies and obviously pass WP:GNG. That aside, this person has been covered in media over time for multiple reasons. Most of their coverage is about their 2015 arrest, but in 2012 the person also went in the news for making a controversial video, and there is other coverage about this person's acting in a mainstream movie. It might be meaningful to rename this content and frame the coverage around the international news coverage of the arrest and its response if WP:BLP1E is a concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that changing the name of an article does not stop it being subject to the rules about biographies, indeed the first line of BLP states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". --nonsense ferret 01:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This non historical people should't be in wikipedia, and where this person also critical founding father of independent Singapore Late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Shujuan5210 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename as per User:Bluerasberry's reasons. DORC (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant international news coverage, plus doesn't look like it will die down anytime soon (though thats mainly due to the delay between the arrest and the sentencing). Thats the wiki-me speaking. (Though personally, I would have voted delete as it feeds his ego.) Zhanzhao (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. While notability is an issue, I feel there are very good non-policy reasons as to why this article needs to be deleted: there is speculation that the subject of this article has narcissistic personality disorder; having seen the video clip of him walking out of the judicial courts after being charged, it strongly appears that he doesn't care about getting negative attention, he just craves it. Having a Wikipedia article on him will surely feed his cravings for attention more, and I believe this web site has a social responsibility not to let him indulge in his narcissistic fantasies. P.s. I was already planning to log into my long-disused Wikipedia account solely to just nominate this article for deletion, on the basis of notability and my stated reasons as well. --A.K.R. (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gathered, you believe this article should be deleted because you disagree with this person? Wikipedia should not be censored because you disagree with the subject matter.
Also, as others have pointed out, Amos Yee has reliable sources that talk about him. Therefore, giving him notability. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Amos is obviously not notable enough. There are many people who has either made seditious remarks or slander against the government, charged and jailed but do not have a wikipedia page. Most notably, Joe Gordan, jailed 2.5 years for insulting the Thai Monarch (http://asiancorrespondent.com/71546/american-jailed-for-2-5-years-for-insulting-thai-monarchy/). Why should a nobody like Amos Yee have a wikipedia page. Having international media reporting on him for a day to cover the lack of interesting news doesn't equate to notability. --muckysock94 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Other stuff exists" (or in this case doesn't exist) isn't a strong argument either way. See WP:OSE. Just because no-one has gotten around to writing about Joe Gordon yet isn't relevant. What you are suggesting would lead to an impasse. "We can't write about Notable Topic Ranked 5,000,001 yet because Notable Topic Ranked 5,000,000 doesn't have an article yet." SageGreenRider (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a tough one. WP:BLP1E challenges the notability of the bio version of the article (it looks like most of the information about his other work are sourced to articles from the last couple days) while WP:EVENT and WP:GNG require coverage that persists over time. We might consider WP:WEBCRIT for an article about the video, but that too assumes coverage over time. It does look like coverage will continue, which inclines me to !vote weak keep since it seems like there's a notable topic in here, even if it requires renaming/refocusing. The problem is that it's conceivable, albeit far from likely, that the arc of the story dies off over the next day or two (for example, if all charges are dropped and no new videos come out). If that happens, it would wind up failing GNG/EVENT. That such a situation is possible makes me hesitant to say keep on a strict policy level (personal predictions of future coverage are not supposed to factor in). I will say, however, that the delete !votes above are particularly poor. @A.K.R.: non-policy reasons are typically discounted by whoever closes this discussion. The idea that we should only cover a person accused of a crime if that person doesn't want us to cover him/her is seriously problematic per WP:NPOV (and WP:BLP). @Muckysock94: what he did to become notable isn't really important and nobody has argued that "'he slandered...' thus he's notable", so you're burning a straw man. All that matters is whether there has been significant coverage in reliable sources -- coverage which persists over time. You should also be aware that arguing for deletion on the basis of no demonstrated coverage over time just means it'll be deleted for the time being -- it doesn't prevent it from being recreated as soon as that "over time" is satisfied. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some unnecessary confusion here. Is the article unquestionably a BLP? yes. Does it therefore fall withing BLP1E? Yes, in this case it does. Will there be future coverage of this person? It is clearly inappropriate to base an argument for keeping an article based on what we think might happen in the future, it is clear that WP:TOOSOON applies in such a case. --nonsense ferret 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep ignoring the cites from 2012 which are about the prior video, his acting prize, and his appearance in a notable film? Just curious... SageGreenRider (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several of the cites are from 2012 about the earlier video, so the coverage and notability (or infamy) is sustained. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Now that I've had the chance to look, yes, there are sufficient sources from before the last few days to satisfy one or more of the notability criteria. Beyond those in the article also see: Popspoken, SINdie, Alvinology, and, the best of these, Yahoo News. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This argument fails to address the fact that this is a BLP we are dealing with, not just any old notability guideline. The precedent is quite clear - if you are known for only one thing, you don't have an article about you no matter how many milion news articles there might be. --nonsense ferret 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nonsenseferret: sure it does. If you are known for only one thing... The entire point of my comment was that there's sufficient coverage from outside the event of the last few days to satisfy concerns of BLP1E. — Rhododendrites talk \\
  • Strong Keep With nearly twenty citations from clearly reliable sources, notability is clearly not an issue. WP:BLP1E is not relevant in that only one of the three required criteria for invoking that principle is met (Yee's role was both central to the issue at hand and well-documented, and it seems likely coverage of these events will persist, with a correspondingly raised profile for the subject). The few other objections raised above have no policy basis, with the singular exception of Rhododendrite's observation that persistent coverage may not be established. However, as SageGreenRider's notes immediately above, some sources have spoken to the topics notability extending back to 2012 and, far more compelling, the context that this is a censorship issue attached to Lee Kuan Yew's name means that the resulting legal battle will almost certainly be subject of ongoing coverage. I fully appreciate that there is an element of WP:CRYSTALBALL in any such assessment, but I feel fairly comfortable that this topic can be (even at present) said to be one of non-transient coverage. Snow let's rap 00:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This analysis of BLP1E seems to me completely at odds with well established precedent such as Ian Huntley and Ian Brady, both of whom have thousands more articles in the press about them but do not qualify - it really looks like different standards are being applied to the current article for some reason. --nonsense ferret 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because information about Huntley and Brady are already present in large volume in another article. The same cannot be said for this article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that argument doesn't work at all - those articles were deleted not because there was other articles, but because they did not qualify. --nonsense ferret 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, note that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and not relevant to determining whether this article is consistent with policy. I can't speak as to how those discussions progressed (though I can't imagine the fact that the content in question was already found in other articles didn't have an impact as many users will glad !vote for a "delete and merge" option in cases where they would not support removing a notable topic from the project outright), but in any event, as regards this article, the reading of BLP1E is pretty explicit that all three criteria must be met and in this case they are not. Snow let's rap 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't gloss over those precedents without looking at what it means for the present case - why should we create an exception here when so many more difficult cases in the past with hundreds of times the amount of coverage that the present case has were not exceptions to the rule --nonsense ferret 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"disingenuous or clueless" looks awfully like a personal attack - I think you should withdraw that, you should know better. The precedent here is that despite enormous amounts of news coverage over a sustained period of time about both Brady and Huntley, they do not qualify for an article in their own name. That is well established here and you could name a large number of similar cases that have been dealt with in the same way. If Amos Yee is only famous for making some public statements which then get him into trouble, that is no different to Ian Brady carrying out a number of murders.--nonsense ferret 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the conversation here from all angles. There are several perspectives here and it is best that everyone be WP:NICE. nonsenseferret, I think you are sincere and thoughtful. Starship.paint, I appreciate your comments, and hope that you can see how people of different cultures can have perspectives that go beyond what seems best in the context of another culture. The reasons why someone supports a proposal can be the same cause for someone to oppose it, and we should all support each other here for having an engaging conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's multiple things I feel that nonsenseferret has misrepresented or ignored. I don't know if such mistakes are intentional or not, but I hope they're unintentional. Framing the two Ians as being deleted (just because their articles didn't exist) was a mistake, because one was a merge and the other had no AfD. Applying the precedents, this article would be merged (or renamed) in this case to Arrest of Amos Yee. Not answering arguments that Yee had further notability from 2011-2015 before the 2015 video is another mistake. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 22:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mistake - the precedent is clear - there should not be a biographical article about this person. You seem not to appreciate that the calls for rename are an acceptance of the arguments I've been putting forward. The possible existence of a separate article which is not a biography of this person is of little interest to me. Continuing to accuse me of misrepresentation does not represent much of a recognition of not making personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. --nonsense ferret 22:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on your comment "The possible existence of a separate article which is not a biography of this person is of little interest to me."? Does it mean you are in favor of a rename, rather than your original proposal to delete it? Also, my interpretation of the "Keep or rename" opinions is that the person's first choice is "keep" but failing that to rename and not delete. I don't interpret such opinions as being an acceptance of your opinion (as I think I understand it) that the the article be deleted completely. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my latest comments. A rename is the middle ground - then BLP1E is entirely rebuffed. I'm interested in compromise, how about you? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument has been consistently throughout that there is clear precedent to show that there should not be a biography of this person on wikipedia. The inclusion of some of the content about his arrest in a separate article is not of any interest to me at all. Of course someone else may well wish to argue that NOTNEWS would apply to such an article, but that won't be me. My only interest was while I was answering queries in #wikipedia-en-help a helpee asked why we should have an article about this teenager, and looking into it, it did seem to me that BL1E would apply taking into account the many other examples of its application. I totally get why people want to champion the cause of freedom of speech but the decision to move content into an article focused on a biography of Amos Yee was not the correct decision. I assume the bit you wish to stand by was the personal attack of my deliberately misrepresenting arguments. --nonsense ferret 23:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nonsenseferret: - you have misunderstood what you believe to be a personal attack. Feel free to read my previous statement again. I don't wish to repeat myself. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nonsenseferret: - The issue here is not whether freedom of speech is good or bad nor what system of government is good or bad. It's simply one of "should there be an encyclopedia article about this person?" Again I ask you: Are you in favor of a rename, rather than your original proposal to delete it? And again I ask you "What is your opinion of the 2012 cites?" SageGreenRider (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to understand nonsenseferret's position. Personally, I think it's a clear keep. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment editor of this articles, i sure you want it to keep :) Shujuan5210 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, @Shujuan5210, but maybe you are confusing cause and effect? I believe the article should be kept, so I contributed. It is not the case that I contributed, therefore I believe it should be kept. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename - per Bluerasberry. If the BLP violates BLP1E, move it (back) to Arrest of Amos Yee, because the number of international reliable sources coverage means that this is simply not going away. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is enough here to justify notability for an article. It is now obvious that there is genuine notability here, made possible by the reaction of the Singapore authorities – for arresting a kid who is not even 17 for not only not eulogising LKY but also conveniently arresting and charging him for making a vid that insulted him and Jesus. Not only does the whole world now know about Yee's video, it also knows that LKY is not universally revered, and that Singapore has draconian laws as to what can and cannot be said. It has also spawned a host of reactions, including video riposts from other vloggers.

    The real question is whether the arrest and the circumstances surrounding it ("the Arrest") ought to be the subject of an article, or whether Yee passes WP:ONEEVENT and therefore justifies having an article. I believe that his winning a prize for Best Actor at the age of 13, added to this spectacular arrest, is sufficient to make Amos Yee the better (and more complete) subject of a WP article as compared with The Arrest. Typically in situations like this, editors are left to contemplate whether there is sufficient material for more than one article. Before any article on the matter was created, I contemplated making Lee Kuan Yew Is Finally Dead! the focus. However, in the best case assuming we had enough material, we could even have a family of articles namely: Amos Yee, the arrest of Amos Yee, and Lee Kuan Yew Is Finally Dead!. Right now, I judge that one article is sufficient, and that it should reside in the 'Amos Yee' namespace. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability is an issue, the subject has much more negative impact in different sources and I'm fully agreed with A.K.R. (talk). --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This case (and I think this person) is just getting started. He is currently under arrest and the story is getting more attention. Plus I dont think we've heard the last of this case nor of Amos Yee. More and more people are looking for the wiki entry for him to get more info on his situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribleidea (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The subject is clearly notable; editors have done a good job of showing this is for more than one reason. The video is a rare honest voice adding a discordant note against that vast crowd of sycophants who sing the praises of creating a "wealthy" society via massive income inequality and hard labor for all but those at the top. I want to see us follow the political dimensions of this prosecution throughout the world, and I want to be able to track the technical details as they come out (notably, we see Yee talk throughout most of the video, but not during any of the 'anti-Christian' passages that highlight the charges. Hmmmmm....) We therefore have both sound policy and sound motivation to explore this topic in full detail. Wnt (talk) 01:31, 6 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Razumov[edit]

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

Appears to be a biography of the user. Has zero references, lacks notability. Seems to be an everyday businessman. Nath1991 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 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 13:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG as there are no references and nothing in the article gives supporting evidence that the person would pass any other inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 2 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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 19:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three for Happiness[edit]

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

There is solely a single short sentence in the article, as far as I'm concerned that's not enough to tell if the article is notable. VS6507 (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multinational releases
Original Serbian:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
East Germany:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spain:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hungary:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poland:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt English:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep as it is now expanded to give us some context. Let's spend some time looking through non-English sources for awards and reviews. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the reason I nominated this article is because I couldn't find any reliable sources in Serbo-Croatian, and that single one you added is a primary source from the official website. VS6507 (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just expanded the article with Ivo Škrabalo's views. The film was distributed internationally, was screened at international film festivals, winning some awards, and was the subject of scholarly analysis, so I'd say keep. GregorB (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done. The search for sources is difficult... but not impossible. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:50, 27 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 13:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the additions to the article; looks like there's enough coverage to meet WP:NF.  Gongshow   talk 15:00, 2 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 Salt. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yaniv[edit]

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

This article has been created a number of times:

It would be reasonable to presume that a notable person involved with a notable technology news network would have at least some significant online third-party coverage, aside from directories and so on. While the "TrustedNerd.com" website does exist and its creator is a real person, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject about either the website or the person. Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yaniv is a very well known Canadian journalist on the west coast of Canada who has hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers @trustednerd. I don't agree with this AFD at all. 184.65.101.209 (talk)

  • Comment Subject does not seem to have any journalist credentials, nor is he affiliated with, or mentioned by, any publication other than his own blog. Twitter followers have little bearing on whether or not a person is notable by Wikipedia guidelines, and the follower history on the @trustednerd account is suspicious. Leaving as "comment" since I initiated the AfD Tophitch (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The independent coverage required for notability has not been found. The Twitter feed reads like a string of adverts, and no basis appears to exist for attributing any credibility to these "reviews": Noyster (talk), 11:14, 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, North America1000 13:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence of passing notability standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This guy seems to be creating his own page every time it gets deleted. His social media followers seem to be purchased and the Alexa ranking on his website indicates very little traffic at all. Looks like his online presence exists largely to obtain demo products from tech companies. 206.108.31.36 (talk) 08:25, 5 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'. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lendel Abbott[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable per WP:WRITER. Quis separabit? 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sources in the article come no where near establishing that Abbott is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 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 13:38, 2 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 mIRC. Nakon 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Mardam-Bey[edit]

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

Mainly based on information from official homepage, biography of a living person with inadequate sourcing, has been tagged for over 2 years Monni (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to mIRC. In principle, there's something of a case here for notability under WP:CREATIVE, as apparently the sole creator and developer of a widely-used (and undoubtedly notable) computer utility. The problem is that the subject seems to be known for little or nothing else, and sources visible on a Google search give very few personal details about him. Of the current article, some parts are actually more about mIRC than about the subject - otherwise, perhaps half a sentence of basic biographical detail could perhaps be added to mIRC, even if this can only be sourced from primary sources. (I should perhaps finish by remarking that the article has apparently been merged to mIRC twice before - if User:TheCuriousGnome, who reversed this on both occasions, is still around to explain why they weren't happy with merger, I'd like to know). PWilkinson (talk) 23:07, 21 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to mIRC: per the spirit of WP:ONEEVENT. The only thing Khaled Mardam-Bey is known for is mIRC, and pretty much only because his name is on the splash when mIRC opens. ― Padenton|✉   01:19, 26 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 13:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps one sentence of this can be copied to mIRC. I do not think this is a case for merging - the subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 2 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. J04n(talk page) 14:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasah , Padang[edit]

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

The article is about a waterfall that may not meet WP:GNG. Google search doesn't seem to return any reliable source. The page reads like an essay, and (if keep) needs to be moved to a better title. It was WP:PROD but the template was removed without reason. Joshua Talk to me What I've done? 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't find the precise coords but it appears to be in the Harau Valley (here). Google returns many spectacular photos and several hundred other hits (Google for "Sarasah waterfall" in quotes). -Arb. (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existence does not confer notability. "Sarasah" appears to mean "waterfall" in the local Minangkabau language, so it could mean any of the waterfalls in the area. Harau Valley is in Lima Puluh Kota, which is way further inland from Padang. My guess is that the article probably means the Sarasah Gadut waterfall, which was covered in an Indonesia TV news report (Youtube video, also on the Jakarta Globe newspaper website), but I am not sure whether that is sufficient to warrant an article.--Joshua Talk to me What I've done? 10:49, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing any evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:49, 26 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 13:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I dug around and came to the same conclusion as Joshua, I do think that this refers to Sarasah Gadut (some of the features of the waterfall match up), but we'd need a bit more in the way of reliable sourcing for an article. There might be some, systemic bias being what it is, but I've been unable to find it. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I'm trying to find if there is a list of waterfalls for Indonesia which I would say redirect too. but no luck. Maybe something to redirect to but I don't know what! Wgolf (talk) 20:09, 12 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. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be a Master! Pokemon B & W[edit]

Be a Master! Pokemon B & W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Searches into Google, Yahoo! and Bing yield nothing substantial, only fan-based/user-generated websites. No mentions of reviews from reliable reporters or awards etc. In, addition, this manga does not have its own page on the Japanese Wikipedia. KirtZJ (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: - Did you search the Japanese title? I also think it may be good to make an inquiry at the Japanese Wikipedia about this topic. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to make an inquiry there. If it was notable, we wouldn't have trouble finding significant coverage. Show me how this is notable. A manga does not get an article simply because it exists. If anything, it gets mentioned in a parent article. —KirtZMessage 12:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need to make an inquiry there. He's why: the language barrier. I understand that the burden of proof is needed to prove notability and not the other way around, but also please note that many native English speakers may find great difficulty in finding sources in Japanese. Remember that sources in any language may prove notability. Now, if the Japanese fail to find any reliable sources that would cement the case for consolidating this article into a list of Pokemon manga. if they Japanese do find sources, then that cements the case for keeping the article. Anyway, ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers#Question_about_.E7.A9.B6.E3.82.81.E3.82.8D.EF.BC.81.E3.83.9D.E3.82.B1.E3.83.A2.E3.83.B3B.E3.83.BBW_.28Be_a_Master.21_Pokemon_B_.26_W.29 is my inquiry. I also started ja:プロジェクト‐ノート:ポケモン#Help_needed_in_finding_Japanese_sources_for_.E7.A9.B6.E3.82.81.E3.82.8D.EF.BC.81.E3.83.9D.E3.82.B1.E3.83.A2.E3.83.B3B.E3.83.BBW at the Japanese Pokemon WikiProject, and ja:プロジェクト‐ノート:漫画#Help_needed_in_finding_Japanese_sources_for_.E7.A9.B6.E3.82.81.E3.82.8D.EF.BC.81.E3.83.9D.E3.82.B1.E3.83.A2.E3.83.B3B.E3.83.BBW at the Japanese Comics WikiProject. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches imply a search was done in non-English as well... —KirtZMessage 14:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If one doesn't have any knowledge of Japanese (or Chinese, Korean, Arabic, etc.) it may be difficult to make heads or tails of any of the results one gets. It's necessary to ask people who have knowledge of the language, as they can determine what the sources say, and whether the sources are reliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Came here in response to WhisperToMe's inquiry at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. National Diet Library's Search engine with the option to cross-search within all the cooperating database services turned on returned the manga itself and the NDL itself's index. Neither of CiNii Books' content search nor its Article full-text search returned results. Searching within established news sites using news.google.co.jp (with language set to Japanese) did not return relevant hits. A query on books.google.co.jp returned 6 results, but out of them, four was the author's own work. One predated the date this manga was published and is likely a false positive. Another hit (Manga Science) happens to be a manga I'm personally fond of, but that is an educational manga on science and I am sure that the hit was a false positive. In conclusion, I could not find even a passing mention of the manga in any reliable sources, let alone anything that will let me believe that this manga would be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia unless someone can provide a pointer to a reference that proves otherwise. --朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the analysis! It's disappointing but it's good that this was done. If no further sources are found by the end of this AFD, merge into Pokémon (manga) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
based on the above extensively researched information, you really need to provide an explanation.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources have been found to establish notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Extensive research above suggests lack of notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What sourced reliable information is there to merge though? All I see is WP:OR here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete only forty Ghits on this title, and a bunch of them seem to be for a completely different self-published book. It's hard for me to see having an article with a an English language title when there's no real trace of the thing under that title. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Woman's War: Da (Mother)[edit]

One Woman's War: Da (Mother) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor notability and lack of reliable sources. There are only some dependent Iranian references in the article that just introduce the book. There is nothing which can make the book notable. ●Mehran Debate● 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, As the page creator I believe that the subject is absolutely notable. To clarify my point, I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (books) where it's mentioned that "A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article." Having the above point in mind, the subject is notable per WP:BKCRIT:
    • The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. As the article says, a TV program is adapted from this subject.[61] Also, Aryn Baker, the Middle East Bureau Chief for TIME, had a conversation with Seyyedeh Zahra Hossein, the narrator of the book. [62]
    • One Woman's War: Da (Mother) won the title of "selected book" in the second round of Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Awards,"Iran's most lucrative literary award". [63] [64]
    • The translator is notable.[65] Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mhhossein. Meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple reviews, and has won a significant award. -- GreenC 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got author and book confused, it should be WP:BKCRIT #1. -- GreenC 14:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It won the 2009 Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award (in a category) which is Iran's "most lucrative award". This qualifies for WP:BKCRIT #2 "major literary award". -- GreenC 16:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the following discussions, the awards is not a major one in its own category so it would not bring any notability to the book. ●Mehran Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ism schism:The article is about a book, not an author. So your reasons may be irrelevant here. ●Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment somehow is a !vote. ●Mehran Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is on my watchlist. I saw this AfD regardless of what people might post on my talk page and I would have posted here regardless. Most awards in Iran are state, just as they were in the USSR etc.. notability knows no border, if it's notable in Iran it's notable. -- GreenC 22:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was absolutely an Appropriate notification. However, how Iran, Germany, US or any other country is governed has nothing to do with this discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. The totalitarian way Iran is governed precludes reliability, which is a central pillar of notability. As for the notification, there is nothing appropriate about notifying an editor who you know to be disposed to agree with you. User:AliAkar, who has now been blocked for racism and sockpuppetry, tried the same thing with the editor in question.[69]--Anders Feder (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to stay focused on the subject, I don't care how other editors behave. Green is an expert in this field. Mhhossein (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what field? And on the basis of what?--Anders Feder (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that both Anders Feder and Mehran have not edited Wikipedia for a very long time, weeks, then both show up at the same time and place in this AfD and nowhere else. And they are both the only one's voting Delete. And then Anders Feder is throwing around all sorts of bad faith accusations and attempts to frame people for bad behavior. What's going on here? Probably something happening over at the Persian Wikipedia. Anders Feder, is there, how did you find out about this? I don't speak Persian but have access to Google Translate. -- GreenC 04:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what might be happening on Persian Wikipedia. I was following the AliAkar SPI. Mhhossein has edited many of the same articles as AliAkar, including ones on various obscure Iranian books, and has created this one, which you happened to have commented on. That was probably a complete coincidence. If you didn't come here because you was notified, I take your word for it.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Green: You can have a brief view of how Anders Feder has acted similarly in the past by checking this link. Mhhossein (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing that link. Tells me all I need to know. -- GreenC 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The references of the article are not reliable at all, they are not independent either. Tebyan, which Mhhossein showed above, had never been a reliable source and everyone who is able to read Persian can confirm it. All the sources are Iranian dependent websites and you could not find any non-Iranian source that covers the article and makes it notable. The translator's article has been created recently and again it is not notable either and probably will be deleted soon. And please watch out your words, you are accusing Anders Feder and me, I can edit in Wikipedia whenever I like and my next edit may be in next 10 years, so please read WP:NPA and be careful for the future not be blocked for your personal attacks. ●Mehran Debate● 07:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not an admin on English Wikipedia so don't threaten to block people. If you have a problem with NPA than open a case and lets look all the facts, but given what I have seen it would be a boomerang. -- GreenC 14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehran: Unlike fa.wikipedia, editors have to act more precise and choose words more carefully here. Your comment needs a huge "clean up"; 1- Please consider that reliability is a relative concept, So you have to mention for what kind of materials a certain source is unreliable (or reliable). 2- per WP:IS, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic". Could you please tell us how you found Tebyan dependent on this subject? Or, could you please tell us what you mean by "independent"? 3- The fact reported by Tebyan is a FACT which is some thing like reporting weather forecast! So, regardless of the source we know that the book had been the subject of a TV documentary. 4-That the The translator's article has been created recently,changes nothing and his page has no influence on his notability. Mhhossein (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are talking about another Wikipedia project here; 1- This is my job to ask you why you think this is an reliable source? Tebyan is a mirror website, there are lots of copyright violations and non-NPOV contents in it. Of course English people cannot understand Persian and they may be misled by wrong words. 2- Both of Tebyan and Sureh Mehr publications (which has published the book) are subsidiaries of "Islamic Dissemination Organization". 3- The FACT has to be published in a reliable source, Tebyan is even not a reliable weblog! 4- I do not care about the translator, I only answered your first paragraph. ●Mehran Debate● 07:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The parent organization, "Islamic Dissemination Organization" or "Islamic Development Organization", was established "by Late Imam [Khomeini]’s command"[70], i.e. it is state-owned. IRIB TV4, where the TV adaptation (not documentary) of the book was broadcast, is also state-owned. So the program clearly fails WP:BKCRIT's requirement that the source be "independent of the book itself".[71]--Anders Feder (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
East is east and west is west. I wondered how you could make this inter-relationships! There's actually no vested dependance between the subject and the state TV channel! according to the channel official website, the programs is a documentary. FYI, the English translation is published by Mazda publishers located in US. Mhhossein (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder all you want. Denying reality won't make it go away.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been said in Tebyan that the program has been broadcasted on Channel1, while your latter link has mentioned Channel4. Consider these contradictions, that is why they are not reliable sources. We even do not know if such program has been existed or really broadcasted. Please bring some reliable sources ad then we will talk about it. ●Mehran Debate● 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said "you could not find any non-Iranian source that covers the article and makes it notable". Are you saying that on Iranian topics only non-Iranian sources make it notable? Surely you don't mean that, or are you simply misinformed about how notability works? -- GreenC 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have selected one of my sentences and written what you think about it! As I saif before, all of the "Iranian" sources on this article are non-reliable or dependent and I see no reason to repeat here my previous edits again. ●Mehran Debate● 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you are absolutely right on that.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehran: I think you can read persian, then you will see that Channel 4 broadcasted the program for the "second time"! So, there's actually no contradiction. How funny it would be! Mhhossein (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ●Mehran Debate● 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All other things aside, why does the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award not count? I dont see how an award given by a totalitarian regime is any less notable than one given by any other country. Bosstopher (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you think the award counts is up to you and you alone. The notability of the award is not what is being questioned here. It is its reliability as a source. WP:BKCRIT uses the language "major literary award", which isn't very unambigious. Is it major? I don't know. I suppose to someone who supports the Iranian regime, or its legitimacy as an interlocutor of the Iranian people, it might be. But any interpretation that acts as a backdoor around WP:RELIABILITY is invalid as far as I am concerned. And if the award is major, why don't we see an abundance of reliable sources covering the winning book itself?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The book is not notable and the article lacks any reliable sources. Also please discount GreenC's comments as they has been canvassed.Mbcap (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is not what you think it is. The notification was neutral (did not ask to vote a certain way), it was appropriate for an involved editor (I've worked on some of these articles before, including other AfDs, and it was on my watchlist). See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. -- GreenC 03:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also created[72] the article on the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award which is cited here as a source. Certainly your being involved cannot be disputed.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It simply passes notability criteria per WP:BKCRIT #1 and #2. The award adds enough weight to the subject's notability.‬‎--Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to Bosstopher and Kraxler comments, the award is not a major one and would not satisfy the criteria then. ●Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator has opened 4 AfDs. They are all article created by User:Mhhossein. The nom has voiced intention to open more AfDs for articles created by Mhhossein - they will be added to this list if so.
--GreenC 04:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not allowed to do so and I will report this in WP:AN. And please read WP:CANVASS too. This is the second time you are talking about irrelevant subjects. ●Mehran Debate● 10:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not only am I "allowed" to do that as a courtesy to other editors, it's something you should have done yourself which is done all the time when there is a grouping of related AfDs. Are you trying to hide something? -- GreenC 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HullIntegrity: Which comment exactly? (since the comments mostly are irrelevant to the article topic). Your comment somehow is a !vote. ●Mehran Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up @ Mehran I am specifically agreeing with Seyyed as per WP:BKCRIT #1 and #2. I apologize that you did not understand. I should have made it obvious. I was also unaware of any policy requiring comments on every single vote. If there is such a policy or guideline can you direct me to it? HullIntegrity\ talk / 12:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HullIntegrity: consensus on Wikipedia is it the result of a vote and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote (ref). ●Mehran Debate● 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' @Mehran --I was unaware that I was "attempting to structure the AfD process" since I do comment (see, for example, above and below, and my history on AfD and in general), but I will keep your suggestions in mind as we move forward with consensus on this article and any others where we may cross paths. If, in the future, you feel I need instruction on Wikipedia, please consider doing so on my Talk page as it seems inappropriate here. HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BKCRIT #1. Even if the sources are influenced by the State, they do not meet the exclusion criteria under BKCRIT#1. These are major sources of news, and therefore the subject is likely to be familiar to a large population, making the topic of encyclopedic value. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 78.26's comments. Following the "it doesnt count because totalitarian regime" argument, would ultimately mean almost all art, literature and television that comes out of Iran would have to be deleted. Also Note to closing admin this AfD has very likely become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, for a fawiki dispute, please read my comment here for context. Bosstopher (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bosstopher: You are raising the argument that Iranian state sources should not be held to the same standards of WP:RELIABILITY as all other sources lest it would entail a systemic bias against Iran. You are entitled to that view, but the overwhelming consensus is against it.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking that, it was an interesting read. Based on what I said I have to say I partially agree with Seyyed on this. Magazines and papers on zoology and the like published in Iran, should not be considered unreliable just because of political repression in the press. Iran is currently one of the top 10 ranked countries for STEM cell research [isg-mit.org/projects-storage/StemCell/stem_cell_iran.pdf] and high ranking internationally in other scientific sectors. The idea that all scientific papers coming out of the country should be disregarded just because a bunch of Ayatollahs with political influence spend too much time pondering over whether or not touching animals in certain place is Najis, quite frankly seems silly. This article is of course a very different scenario. The sources as it stands seem not to meet the independence standards for BKCRIT, and I didn't realise until now that it didnt win the top Jamal al-Ahmed award, just a minor one. The article also needs MAJOR copyediting work, and some cleanup. However I noticed that the fawiki version of the article has more sources. Could someone who's better than me at reading farsi, check if the sources in that version of the article are independent enough to meet BKCRIT? I've withdrawn my Keep for the meantime. Will work on cleaning up the article if it turns out there's a second independent review. Bosstopher (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bosstopher:Thanks for your comment, I checked the sources in fawiki. [73] only contains a news report and there is no review. [74] is not existed. [75] is a news report that the writer tells she is not willing to create a documentary from her book. [76] is a news report about translating the book into English, and into Arabic as well. [77], [78], [79] are dead links, [80] is also a news report and there is no review, and finally [81] tells us that the publication has sold lots of War books in a specific month of the year. I am here to explain more if it is required. P.S: I also nominated the fawiki article for deletion. ●Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence that the 895+ cases of political imprisonment registered by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran last year[82] were due to the convicted individuals having "touched animals in certain place" is welcome on the RfC. To the extent that any vitally important stem cell research comes out of Iran, it will almost always be covered by external, reliable sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is from the medical field, the stem cell research standing of Iran is known because their publications are vetted, reviewed and cited by other reliable sources around the globe. This is the same way we establish the correctness of a British published academic article where we apply the same standard as, it is also vetted and cited by other reliable sources around the globe. This book does not even come close to the same standards of verifiability. We should apply these standards equally to all articles, otherwise we will be making articles on all sorts of rubbish books. Mbcap (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I kind of went off topic and failed to clarify. My comments about stem cell research where in reference to claims by Anders on this talk page, that all scientific sources coming out of Iran should be dismissed as unreliable. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, so I've copied it there now. Delete The article per reasoning of Kraxler below, and inability to find a second independent review.Bosstopher (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from Comment)

WP:BKCRIT #1 says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." There are currently 5 refs in the article: #1 is ok; the criteria does not require the source being "reliable" (just look at the wording), the source is required to be independent and to review the book, not just mention it. # 2 is the English version publisher, and thus does not qualify; # 3 and # 5 are links to news channels in Persian language, and is unverifiable right now, some Persian speaker may come forward with a translation, and vouch for it's content, though; # 4 is the original Persian version's publisher, and does not qualify; # 5 has an English version of the news, but searching for Zahra Hosseini yields no results. That leaves us at the moment with exactly one of the required minimum of two non-trivial mentions.
WP:BKCRIT # 2 says: "The book has won a major literary award." The book really won an award in 2009, but did not win the top award, it won in one of the minor categories. While the top award of the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Awards seems to be the literary prize with the highest award money in Iran, the minor categories may not be major awards under this criterion.
Something that would indicate notability more than these criteria is that the book had more than 100 editions in Iran. That seems to indicate that it was somewhere near the top of some bestseller list, or may be considered important under BKCRIT # 3, but it would need sources to confirm that.
I also beg everybody to discuss the subject of this deletion proposal, and not the !voters' intentions. Also, it is irrelevant whether a single participant here was "canvassed" or "notified" to participate here. This is not a headcount vote, it's a discussion of reasons to include or exlude something, and the decision is made by weighing the arguments. So, please argue. Kraxler (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kraxler: You analyzed the article very well, I also strongly second your last sentences. Finally you think this article should be kept or deleted? ●Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: There are now 2 more sources, # 2 mentions the category prize for the book, but does not review it. # 3 does not mention this book at all. It says that the top award is worth 110 gold coins, but we know already that the category prizes receive only about 25 gold coins. The previously numbered sources 2 to 5 are now numbered 4 to 7. Mehran, I've not come to a conclusion yet whether the book should be kept or deleted. after considering the below added sources, I think the article should be kept. Kraxler (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Updated. Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checking out the internet I found this: Persian Novel ‘Da’ in Spanish, Character of war memoir “Da” dies at 81, The Book DA, A Different Epic of Sacred Defence and An Iranian Woman's Memoir on the Iran–Iraq War: The Production and Reception of "Da". The last one was published in Iranian Studies (Volume 46, Issue 6, 2013) and should qualify as a review under BKCRIT # 1. Maybe somebody weighs the sources and adds something to the article. I have added these sources to the article. There are now three independent reviews, plus miscellaneous coverage, which should be good enough to keep this article. Kraxler (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Updated. Kraxler (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kraxler: Your second source, Tehran Times, is owned by the same entity as the book's publisher, namely Islamic Development Organization.[83] Your third source, IRIB World Service, is owned by the same entity as Islamic Development Organization, namely the Iranian state. Counting Financial Tribune and Iranian Studies as independent, which one is the third independent review?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Mehr News Agency, referred to above as "ok", is also owned by Islamic Development Organization.[84]--Anders Feder (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources should be "independent of the subject", that means in this case "not directly envolved in the production and (for economical reasons) the promotion of the book". Tehran Times and IRIB are independent enough under these guidelines, they did not produce the book, and they do not primarily promote the book, but rather comment on what interests their readers/listeners. Kraxler (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a novel interpretation of independence. The notes on WP:NBOOK says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough"[85] and that one should be "careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source" considered.[86]--Anders Feder (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you would throw out a New York Times review of this book if you found out that one Iranian citizen bought one share in the paper's holding company? Ok, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I suppose you would vote for the deletion of Earth because, we can safely agree on that, there are no sources independent of that subject, they were all published on Earth. You see, to define "independence" (under the rules cited by you) is not as easy as you think. I still hold the view that neither the Tehran Times nor IRIB are in any way commercially interested in the sale of the book, or that their reviews have been the cause that 150 editions have been sold by now. They reviewed the book because, for whatever reason, it's something that interested their readers. So, Anders, what about this review found by Drako? Is the University of Tehran independent of the subject? Kraxler (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Due to the addition of sources, the numbering led to some confusion. The Tehran Times did not review the book. They published an obituary of a person whose only "claim to fame" was having been the real-life counterpart of one of the main characters of this book. The book was reviewed by IRIB, the outside Iran published academic journal Iranian Studies, and the University of Tehran's Sociological Journal of Art and Literature, currently refs # 6, 7 and 8. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Related ANI discussion that involves this AfD. -- GreenC 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear enough notability ,considering the difficult we have in sourcing these at the enWP. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all previous discussions it is clear the book is not notable. please explain more for us why you think the book is notable? ●Mehran Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the book may have the local notability, the context should be changed. Several parts need more significant references as well as the propaganda which must be deleted. For instance, how important is the statement of the author about Gaza? Why isn't cited to TIME instead of a local web-site?--Sahehco (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per source-SaməkTalk 10:59, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per decent sourcing, passes GNG. Cavarrone 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kraxlr after a lot of horrible flipflopping. Bosstopher (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If notability is the concern of worldwide recognition ignoring the notability in region or popularity in culture then we may discuss further. Otherwise notability in the region and in its customs is apparent itself. In this sense deletion does not cover the parameter of deletion. Nannadeem (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the book has been subject of deep coverage in independent reliable sources. Namely, the academic journal Iranian Studies has published a detailed critique of the book [87], Farsi academic journals have also published multiples articles on it [88][89]; SOCIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF ART AND LITERATURE (published by the University of Tehran) Abstract in English .--Drako (talk) 17:59, 6 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gottschall[edit]

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

If we take this article on good faith (i.e., assume it isn't a hoax), the story seems to be the following: someone rediscovered the works of an obscure 17th-century composer, published them in three volumes, set up a website, and is offering them for sale — for a cool $1,199.00.

OK, fair enough. Still, this encyclopedia does rely on reliable, published sources. Preferably ones not linked to someone selling a product. (If you search for strings of words from the article, you'll find they precisely match this page, although it's been taken down. That might even be grounds for speedy deletion as a copyvio.) And aside from this one website, I can find nothing about a Samuel Gottschall who lived from 1719 to 1811. Now, if at some point in the future, he makes it into Grove or some other standard works about music history, great. I'll have no objection to including his biography. But as things stand, there simply isn't enough verifiable independent content to justify an article. Our job here is to reflect notability as it currently exists, not generate notability for entities that don't have it by the usual means (multiple, independent, published sources.) - Biruitorul Talk 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A well-known search engine, excluding the advertised website and this WP page, lead me to worldreligionnews.com (no comment about reliability), which pointed to the Daily Mail. There is a music score in the pictures at the end though nothing is mentioned. However, this Samuel Gottschall lived during WW2 (and I do not think even the DM article makes him notable, but that's another story).
It's either a forgery inspired from the real story, or a completely unnotable homonym. Either mandates deletion. Tigraan (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Notability is not clear at all from the one source cited in the article, nor is it clear that this is the same Samuel Gottschall whose mementoes were found in the attic in Slovakia. His name does not appear in any reference work of composers. Delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hi all. We're working on publishing the appropriate sources for this. As you can tell from the article, they're not exactly in the world's knowledge set, but we have them. The copyright of the bio page on the website was released into the public domain by the author for publishing here, and was subsequently removed from SamuelGottschall.com. Reviewing the Notability guidelines suggests that this article does conform to a minimum acceptable level of notability. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you do not understand what the guidelines say... If the references are obscure and unheard of, they are not sufficient (vast simplification here, but the point remains). Please quote reliable sources that establish that SG (1) existed and (2) made significant contributions to music (or Jewish music in the 19th at the last) or was notable for other reasons.
If no such source is to be found, it does not mean that SG never existed, or even that he wasn't notable in his time; but it does mean we should not include him in WP because it is just impossible to check. Tigraan (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding reliability from WP:SPS: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." The author of SamuelGottschall.com is Gayther Myers, a composer in New York City. Studied at Julliard, Oberlin, Mozarteum. He has been mentioned in numerous sources and has self-published his earliest findings about SG, which are summarized in this Wikipedia entry. His age and scholarly work makes him exactly the kind of expert we look to for publishing verifiable, independent primary sources. The work itself has been scanned from its original manuscripts, photos of the gravestone were taken, a prayer book has been recovered. He has not masked his identity or published anonymously. While he does have a price tag attached to the publication of the work, this does not violate WP:SPS, as the product being sold is over 1,700 pages long and printing, binding, and shipping the work is not free, but this is clearly not a "for profit" enterprise, as it is intended to be acquired by universities and collectors as the only mass-produced copy of the work in the world. Therefore, this obviously satisfies reliable sources. Regarding notability: SG was a composer for kings and a collaborator with Haydn; that is notable by any definition of the word. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The high price tag makes me guess it is a for-profit enterprise. But we do not care the least: whether GM is a greedy scammer that is selling a forgery at gold price or a honest lover of SG who wants to share his music with the rest of the world is irrelevant. Either way, Gayther Myers is not a independant source of what he publishes. If you prefer, money is a powerful creator of conflicts of interest, but not the only one.
  2. From a quick internet search, there is no evidence that Gayther Myers is notable whatsoever beside what you just said ("He has been mentioned in numerous sources"), and I have the healthy habit to doubt anything that could be linked if true but comes unlinked.
  3. Even if GM was the most notable musician and music scholar of the last century, there would be no evidence that he is the one publishing the website (I can write on my website that it is written in collaboration by Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, they would probably not bother denying). (I would be ready to trust your word here, but the guidelines demand a source.)
You will understand from these, that it does not "obviously" satisfies WP:RS. Finally, "SG was a composer for kings and a collaborator with Haydn; that is notable by any definition of the word" runs straight against WP:NOTINHERITED for the Haydn part and is seriously limited for the "kings" part; add to that that the aforementioned healthy habit suggests to me this claim ought to be sourced.
Tigraan (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. While SamuelGottschall.com could be established as a reliable secondary source, this needs more peer review in the third-party literature. I'll vote for Delete, which brings us to consensus. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hum no, I do not quite see how samuelgottschall.com could possibly be a secondary source for Samuel Gottschall... It is just like a company's website: although companyX.com is probably reliable in the sense it will usually publish reliable information such as the CEO's name, postal address etc., it is certainly not the place to read unbiaised commentary about their latest dumping of oil in the local river.
Now for the technicality, if you change your !vote, you should strike the previous !vote, using the ( <s> text to be striked </s> ) syntax. Tigraan (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Two of Gottschall's compositions appeared in a collection of Jewish melodies compiled by Lewandowsky in the 19th century as "anonymous" -- these composition match Gottschall's arrangements of Emet Ve'emunah and Adoshem Malach. See a transcription here: http://samuelgottschall.com/music/emet-veemuna-p64/ 50.135.255.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a self-published source on samuelgottschall.com. Yoninah (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the sources for this are Lewandowsky's text and the scans of the music in question, neither of which is self-published. The imperative against self-published sources is intended in the spirit of the rule to prevent people from publishing their own primary research as fact. SamuelGottschall is not a source for either of these claims -- the sources are in the public domain. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 20:15, 31 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The Article lacks large number of sources and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia has criteria that subjects have to meet to merit a Wikipedia article. The standards are low and this subject is not meeting those low standards. This fails WP:GNG and other specialized WP:N criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources (only coverage I see is for different people with the same name). Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:46, 2 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.

Veera M[edit]

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

The result was Delete per WP:TOOSOON and other arguments. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well the prod was removed (well it was a BLP prod) this actor falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - lead roles in Mosakutty and a new film; good coverage online in English in WP:RS including two interviews in national media (I haven't searched for coverage in Tamil yet); the Times of India ref says the new film in production is notable because he's in it. Notable per WP:NACTOR. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his career in acting started less than 2 years ago, He's young and his notability could easily increase with his career. but where his notability is at now I don't see it meeting it when I do a google search for 3rd parties. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:TOOSOON, a single significant role in a notable film and the related coverage is not enough for a claim of notability. As usual, the article was created by a SPA editor with the only goal of promoting the relevant film. Cavarrone 11:23, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dormantos: I notice that you've written on your user page, "I am confused why BLP is the only option to judge notability." In fact, that's not a standard on which to judge notability at all. The standard for notability in biographies is WP:BIO. I also see that after creating an account today, you've commented in a large number of AFD biography discussions. Please familiarise yourself with WP:AFD and WP:BIO, before requesting deletion in a biographical AFD. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has been blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that comment and was going "really? Its far from the shortest article and if we really didn't think it qualify it be csd" Wgolf (talk) 01:49, 10 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.

LANGERLAND.TV[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Colm Tobin. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Once-off show sourced entirely to a TV listing and the network's website. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 18 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Colm Tobin (or Langerland.com if an article is ever created for the website): I did a quick Google search and turned up the following -
Irish Independent - Admittedly just another TV guide, but this one goes into quite a bit more detail on the show than the one currently in use as a reference.
The Herald - Only a two sentence blurb, but this one actually reviews the show, which, brevity aside, goes a long way toward establishing notability and allowing for quality article construction.
Cork Independent - A profile on Colm Tobin, one of Langerland.TV's creators.
Tobin already has an article of his own, and while it doesn't make any mention of Langerland.TV, information about his involvement with the series could be added from the Cork Independent article. I el like there might be some good potential refs floating around out there for the website, in which case someone who wants to take the time could create an article on Langerland.com and incorporate info about the TV show there. In the mean time though, Tobin's article is probably the best place for this. --Jpcase (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tobin does not have an article of his own. Clearly this mistake has been made before, as he very emphatically says himself on his Twitter: "I am NOT the writer Colm Tóibín." He does not match the link provided to the "novelist, short story writer, essayist, playwright, journalist, critic and poet" and top-300 intellectual. --Greykit (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for catching that! :) All the same, the Cork Independent article (which I just noticed I had incorrectly linked to, but have fixed), along with this article [90] from the Irish Times that I just found, suggest that Tobin is notable enough to receive an article of his own. So I stand by my vote. And yes, it would seem that he has been mistaken for Tóibín quite a bit, as he even relates an amusing anecdote about it in the Irish Times article. --Jpcase (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to extract information from the sources, squeezing out of them all that I can.

Some observations on the sources themselves:
  • Of the three sources that are about the show, two are definitely by the same writer, while the third could easily be as well, since I can locate no name in it and all three are published by the same company.
  • The sources provide a total of 1 sentence, 2 sentences and 4 sentences of reading respectively. Many of these sentences repeat similar things. Their quality leaves a lot to be desired (what is one to do with, for instance, "The gentleman pictured may look a bit like Bert from Sesame Street, but given the backdrop and that insanely optimistic expression I'd say he's supposed to be Mick McCarthy"? That is one of the 7 sentences).
  • None of the sources focus even as much as a quarter on this specific show. It could easily be missed if it wasn't being searched for. --Greykit (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not suggesting that we keep this article. Just that we create an article for Tobin and include some sort of mention of Langerland.TV there. --Jpcase (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and changed Colm Tobin from a redirect to Colm Tóibín into its own article. So if we're in agreement, then we can go ahead and merge LANGERLAND.TV into that article. --Jpcase (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected it as there have been no further comments for more than two days and no better suggestion in nearly two weeks. I'm not sure there's anything that can be merged. --Greykit (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't remove anything. Apart from which, I put it there in the first place(!) I withdraw the nomination, if that's any help. --Greykit (talk) 10:51, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Michig: Actually, it would have been fine if Greykit wanted to withdraw the nomination, per WP:WDAFD - though admittedly, in that case, a note should have been left on this page. I have to say, I'm a little bit surprised that the admin decided to relist this discussion, seeing as though it seems that all of the important points have already been evaluated and agreed upon. But I guess there's no harm in waiting another week and seeing if anyone can bring something new to the discussion. --Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would have been fine. There does appear to be consensus already - just a matter of whether there's any more to be merged to the Colm Tobin article - presumably you are happy for this to be closed now as a redirect? --Michig (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While this article has a bit of information that I didn't include in the Colm Tobin article, it doesn't look like any of it can be referenced, and I'm not sure how appropriate it would be in Tobin's personal article anyway. So yes, I think the way to go would be to close the discussion as a redirect. --Jpcase (talk) 17:12, 2 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 Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tournai Phoenix[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 26 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, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 3 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. Canvassed vote discarded Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florescu brothers[edit]

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

I proposed merging this article, but received an objection from a single-edit account, so I've come to AfD to hopefully sort things out.

Basically, the only remotely noteworthy achievement of these two individuals consists in having directed So Bright Is the View, itself a film of borderline notability. The entirety of what exists about them - much of this material being of dubious quality - revolves around said film. If they go on to make other films, have other achievements, or receive coverage independent of the film, we should perhaps reconsider, but for now, a standalone article simply isn't justified. All that can be said about them can easily be said in the article on the film, and they do not meet the criteria set out at WP:ARTIST. - Biruitorul Talk 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the Basic Criteria. If the basic criteria has not been met, then reference should be made to the Additional Criteria. The Basic Criteria are as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Basic_criteria). The coverage qualifies, with multiple independent and reputable sources from various publications (none of which is dubious, and none which qualifies as a "self-published or questionable source"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). Finally, whether the film is good or bad is not relevant. Whether it is a blockbuster hit or an indie/arthouse flick is also not determinative. However, the film's premiere in the Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival (a "significant exhibition") and its subsequent acquisition for distribution in North America is indicative, for better or worse. Paperpencils (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)paperpencils — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Paperpencils (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils[reply]

    • That's a nice spin on WP:ARTIST point 4, but I'm afraid it isn't going to fly. The clause provides that "the person's work.... has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Now, it's true that the MIFF is a significant exhibition, but it's not true, at all, that the Florescus' film formed "a substantial part" thereof. Well over a hundred films played at that festival, and only one of theirs - indeed, the only film they've ever made - was exhibited. In no sense does that constitute a "substantial part". Especially as their film was not even in competition.
    • As for the rest, this is about the film (and is a blog post, one of those dubious sources I mentioned), this is about the film, this is about the film, this is about the film, this is about the film, and the remaining two are about their uncle. So, no, the brothers have not in fact received anything remotely approaching the standards set by WP:BIO. I'm still waiting to hear a plausible explanation as to why they are notable, as defined by one of our guidelines. - Biruitorul Talk 22:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSuperseded by later keep vote with clearer rationale below "Additional Criteria" is not necessary, as "Basic Criteria" is already met, i.e. significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. "Additional Criteria" do not need to be met, as the subjects of the article are notable for two events: the making of So Bright Is the View, and the creation of the Romanian Independent Film Collective, the first democratic film collective in post-Revolution Romania, where independent, non-state financed and non-corporate financed film is a rarity. Nevertheless, the "Additional Criteria" is also met under WP:Filmmaker. Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival is a substantial part and distinguishes films of artistic merit from films there for the "film market" and other non-Official Selection films (e.g. commercial premieres, retrospectives). Biruitorul is incorrect to say that the film is one out of 100, as the list he provided is not a list of films in Official Selection but of all films presented. He misunderstands film festival terminology. WP:Filmmaker therefore met. Of course most of the articles are going to be about their film, because they're filmmakers.

Paperpencils (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)paperpencils[reply]

  • Merge I am the creator of both articles. Biruitorul wants to merge this article with the film, not to delete the information. I see no problem with merging the articles. Marian1981 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have merged the pages, in accordance with what Biruitorul wishes. I have done my best to make it look right. There is now no need for more discussion on this. Marian1981 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are there any sources that contain biographical information on the brother beyond a very brief outline of their film career? If not, then merging to their only film seems like a good idea. Irregardless of notability, if there is no additional RS information about the brother than what is already in the article it doesn't make much sense to have separate film & biographical articles. That isn't a judgement on importance (which is what notability often means in the real world, but NOT what it means on Wikipedia), just a reflection of the best way to organize our content. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paperpencils: Articles should not be merged while being discussed at AfD. Therefore, I have reverted you. Mdann52 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify, it is Marian1981, not Papercencils1, who keeps trying to short circuit the AfD and merge the article prematurely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is discussing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils1 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met: Multiple independent reliable sources. If someone disputes this, let him call out a specific source and name it as unreliable. The nominator has only claimed that one is a blog. The rest are reliable and even the one he has named doesn't appear to be a blog. (Update: I have removed the alleged blog and the somewhat redundant sources). Therefore WP:GNG are met. No need for Additional Guidelines once WP:GNG are met. Furthermore, the subjects of the article do not meet the three necessary conditions that "each" need to be fulfilled to call for merging under WP:BLP1E. Size of the article is a fallacious argument, per Wikipedia rules (WP:ASZ). Finally, at least two out of the three (and possibly three out of three) "reasons to avoid merging" are present: Merging would be clunky with inappropriate biographical information appearing on the film's article, and the topics are discrete subjects "even though they might be short" (WP:MERGEREASON). To say an article looks good or looks too small are fallacious arguments (WP:ATA). The rules of Wikipedia should be read and respected to maintain an open, inclusive and enthused community and to prevent arbitrariness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Though the article is a short stub and would hopefully be expanded in time, the sources show notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing administrator - this vote was canvassed: see here. As a quid pro quo, the canvassed user asked for a vote on another AfD, which was given by the original canvasser. - Biruitorul Talk 20:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • False That's not right. Check the timing of all the posts. There was no "quid pro quo." I asked for his input. I also asked for other people's input above, all of which turned out to be against my vote. You seem to jump to negative conclusions easily.
        • By all means, let's check the times.
    • 19:16 - Paperpencils canvasses Billy Hathorn.
    • 19:22 - Billy Hathorn promises his vote and canvasses for another AfD.
    • 19:26 - Billy Hathorn votes here, delivering on his promise.
    • 19:37 - Paperpencils performs quid pro quo, voting where Billy Hathorn directed him to.
        • So, yes, we have a classic case of canvassing combined with a quid pro quo, an exchange of votes. Something that is, of course, not allowed under WP:CANVASS. - Biruitorul Talk 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • So what happened between him "promising" his vote and him voting? Nothing. Thank you for proving my point for me.
            • There was no "promise" to begin with. What are we arguing about here?
              • I'm done with this particular discussion, and will wait for the closing administrator to decide what to make of the situation. - Biruitorul Talk 23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated I’ve added a source on the Florescu Brothers article by Mediafax. I don’t think anyone can dispute the reliability of Mediafax, a news agency (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_news_agencies). For those of you who aren’t Romanian, it’s Romania’s equivalent of Reuters or AP. The article isn’t too long but it references the brothers and their history, going beyond the film. The brothers were notable enough even to be named in the title, which makes sense because they are quite well-known among Romanians in the art film/indie circuit. Hopefully this will end the discussion. But I would’ve liked us all to have had a kinder debate. I think I might have made some mistakes, and I’m sorry. I’m new here and so I’m clumsy. Paperpencils (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils[reply]
    • No, this will certainly not "end the discussion", which is scheduled to run through April 1 (one week after it began). Because the link you've added, based on a press release, more or less includes the exact same text as this and this, both of which were already cited in the article — in other words, you've added nothing new. Like the filmreporter and cinemarx pages, this article deals with the film and its screening at the MIFF, not primarily with the directors of the film. Yes, they are mentioned in passing, and they should be mentioned in passing in the article on their film, but thus far, nothing you've brought forth either deals primarily with the brothers, or validates a separate article based on any reasonable interpretation of the biographical notability criteria. - Biruitorul Talk 23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are not mentioned "in passing." Half of the sentences in that article refer to them! More than half if you include the title! They are a substantial part of the article. Yes, I agree that there could be some duplicate information between this and the other sources, but if you want, you can take down the sources you think are redundant. So at this point are the sources reliable? Yes. Now the only question is whether all the information from the two pages should be on two pages or one. If you think it's appropriate for biographical information on the directors to be present on the page about the film, then that's an opinion you and I don't share, and I've addressed these arguments above in my "Keep" Vote. Let's just agree to disagree for now and let the admins decide. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only mention of the brothers in this piece of news (other than the one that cites their opinion on the film) is in the last phrase that states "The Franco-Romanian twins Michael and Joel Florescu have begun their filmmaking projects in Bucharest, as part of the Romanian Independent Film Collective, a group of professionals and amateurs in the movie business, that was assembled and is functioning based on democratic principles." - actually, most of this phrase is about the group they are with.- Andrei (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half of the article refers to them. The third paragraph is about, of all things, their educational background and about their aesthetic style. The fourth paragraph refers to their production method and views on independent filmmaking. The last paragraph refers to their ethnic origins and the beginning of their creative efforts. Short of an explicit biography, you can't ask for much more. If you want to help expand this admittedly short page, then please go ahead as there is more than enough information to do so. Lastly, as a matter of fact, "their opinion on the film" is never even stated.
  • "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" WP:GNG. The admins may use Google Translate to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make it easier for the closing administrator, I've struck all the comments of the socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 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, default to keep. After two weeks of discussion, I doubt we're converging towards any particular consensus. The previous AfD was 5 years ago (and the article in its current form talks about events after 2010) so speedy G5 definitely doesn't apply. Deryck C. 13:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoAnything[edit]

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

This has been deleted several times in the past, but the article is considerably expanded, so I am not comfortable with speedy G5. There seems to be extensive advertising, but also a negative analysis of its web site & the position of its stock in sections which does have references, but seem greatly excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there any specific sections which you see as advertorial? RobBertholf (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the version by User:AplombBomb is quite improved over clearly promotional versions from years ago. If we take a look at similar wikipedia articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States we will see a number of similar companies which have not been nominated for deletion and have less notability and citations: MagnaFlow_Performance_Exhaust, CSK_Auto, Pep_Boys, JC_Whitney, Western_Auto. VIP_Parts,_Tires_and_Service, Carquest, Belle_Tire, etc. If the other articles warrant their spot surely this one does too. I think the answer should be identifying any specific areas in the article which are problematic and flag them for a resolution rather than arbitrarily removing it all together. RobBertholf (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect - and this is not a guideline - but I recommend that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other, related articles isn't a justification for this article to exist. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this, I will read now. All constructive criticism is appreciated. RobBertholf (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would there be "inherent notability" for any article in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category?RobBertholf (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would not say so, no. A business should ideally have a Wikipedia article due to coverage in reliable, secondary sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we are to judge each article on it's own merit (as it should). This company is clearly notable and I believe AplopBomb did a good job at adding citations and keeping the article neutral. Looking at past versions which clearly should have been deleted, there is a significant change in the current article. If there are any specific items in the article you or the nominator can recommend changing I would be happy to make the changes. I went out of my way to augment this article and would hate to see it all lost. Wish the original author would also chime in. RobBertholf (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. Like the nominator, I'm concerned about the tone; however, I feel that it should not be difficult to fix the tonal issues with the article, though these fixes definitely have to be made for me to be okay with the article remaining on Wikipedia. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad to help with tonal issues if you or the nominator can advise what aspects in particular are of concern, any advice you could give would help me understand how to create better wiki articles. Possibly the original poster could help fix as well. Not sure how I would reach AplopBomb but I will leave a not on their talk page. RobBertholf (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • From a quick read through, the "other services and endeavours" could be cut down to just be a sentence or two as part of the main history, and the website redesign section could go for some trimming. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AutoAnything lacks notability for me, When you google them you get their pinterest, their Facebook, linked in, groupon, etc. so I see a ton of stuff about them, but nothing out of the norm of any other business. The purchase of Autoanything buy Autozone is notable but one notable paragraph can't justify an entire article when we have an article that paragraph can go into. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that sources are pretty good, you have ones talking about its sale, its profits, and a book source talking about the website design. AplombBomb (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article is consistent with articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category, it has undergone intensive rewrite to include more citations than any other article in its category and does not read as promotional. If there are problematic areas of the article trim them down but the article should stay. RobBertholf (talk) 15:39, 27 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are inappropriate and the burden is not on the reviewers here to sort them. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are low and this article does not meet those low standards in any obvious way. Someone can point out the 2-3 solid sources which establish WP:GNG or name another criteria that this passes, or otherwise I am comfortable deleting this without further consideration. This article is in opposition to Wikipedia standards and anyone comfortable spending the time to write and re-write it ought to be comfortable meeting Wikipedia's standards too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that some of the sources are niche, but there's definitely coverage of the subject in sources important to the industry, including a book explicitly discussing the quality (or lack thereof) of its website AplombBomb (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Struck duplicate !vote Hobit (talk)), This is a well formed article improved by User:AplombBomb after Senior Editor III User:New_Age_Retro_Hippie provided guidance on problematic areas.
    • WP:PLENTY Well written article with plenty of relevant citations.
    • WP:Clearly notable Authority for automotive accessories as indicated by numerous top positions in Google Searches for notable keywords such as "rims" (#4), "headlights" (#3), "floor mats" (#3), "seat covers" (#2), "tonneau covers" (#1), etc.
    • WP:GOOGLEHITS Google returns about 971,000 results for this term. [1]
    • WP:BIG Ranked #2,864 in the United States on Alexa and #11,519 most popular site in the world. [2]
    • WP:ALLORNOTHING The article is consistent with articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category
    • WP:MERCY WP:PLEASEDONT I spent some effort on this one and now feel invested in it. Please have mercy and do not delete :) RobBertholf (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, these aren't actually guidelines - they are, in fact, links to "arguments to avoid." Being big, having many sources, being in top positions for Google search results, having many Google hits, having similar articles, these aren't reasons to keep an article. Pleading is also definitely not a reason - while Wikipedians don't want to upset people, and people should be respectful in these discussions to those defending an article's existence, it shouldn't be a reason to keep.
      • With that said, I'm not convinced that the article does not satisfy notability criteria. It does have tonal issues and some sourcing issues, but it has enough decent sources that cover it in a nontrivial manner that I can't agree on the sources being problematic. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to AutoZone which now owns AutoAnything. I am not that impressed with the references and I'm inclined to think the company never did meet the requirements of WP:CORP, but a redirect and merge would keep some of the information here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, IMHO AutoAnything met GNG before AutoZone acquisition and serves a different market (Retail vs Online). Recommend keeping as is. @Rob talk 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "About 971,000 search results". Google. Retrieved 2015-04-02.
  2. ^ "Alexa Ranking". Retrieved 2015-04-02.
  • Keep a little of it. It's notable enough. Shouldn't be more than a paragraph or two of straight facts, though. - Richfife (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per MelanieN. Between the spammy nature of the article, WP:CORP and the lack of solid sources, I don't think we should have this as a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 11:46, 15 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 Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Steelers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:12, 26 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, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 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 Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charleroi Cougars[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 26 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, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 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 Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liège Monarchs[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 26 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, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 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 Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. Sam Walton (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grez-Doiceau Fighting Turtles[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 26 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, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ' Merge and redirect' Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; I assume the oher teams in the league will be treated similarly. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: The Andenne Bears article has already been merged and redirected, and there are pending AfDs for each of the other teams in the league. Don't forget to register your opinion in each of those AfD discussions, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so I did, but you forgot to nominate La Louvière Wolves . I'll comment in this field, if its as obvious as this. but I'd rather not nominate DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 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 23:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivonne Soto[edit]

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

Unotable actress-her Spanish wiki has been deleted twice even. Wgolf (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling the actress and looking at the article history I don't see enough material here to make an article out of. Maybe in the future if she has more notability down the road. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just being an actress is not enough to be notable. Needs significnat roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In theory, an article could be created from the news sources at Google. That having been said, she's more a minor celebrity, it appears from glancing at the Spanish headlines, than a genuine actress. Does anybody have bueno Spanish skills who's willing to write a decent stub upon userficacion? Bearian (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-well I took Spanish in HS but of course I really don't remember lol. Wgolf (talk) 19:04, 27 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:19, 2 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.

David Newstone[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on the balance of policy-based arguments. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Presently almost unsourced. Couldn't find even trivial mention in the web, likely fails WP:BIO. Brandmeistertalk 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not given the chance to add the reffernece list!

For notable publications by the artist first see, Suite: The Humber Bridge - can be found whaen typed into bing He is listed as David J Newstone, on that record, . As i stated i did not get the chance to list all other records, for example, Old Faithful, come on you 'ull etc.

it seems no effort was put into the internet search before the banner went up!

The page is on a musician local to Yorkshire and the humber, who has had hits with songs,like old faithful. He is well known in the hull area. And has worked with notable stars. After an interview with this indervidual i decided to add him to wiki as i could not find him listed. I know he may not be known to people outside of yorkshire but this does not mean that he is not woth listing. While i am starting the page there are others who wish to maintain it. Please state why you feel this person is not worth listing as many others he has worked with are on wiki. Balyputalk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all for articles that show potential being given the chance to grow into great articles, I just don't think there's enough material here to add onto it. I googled David Newstone and didn't find anything standout in the first 3 pages. If the article had more to go on maybe, but as is I don't even know what the guy looks like to possibly try and add more. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it says there is more to be added including images and refs but it is stated that there is no point if it is being deleted . There are many individuals on wiki who are hard to find on the web. I followed the instruction on the humber bridge info and found this person, he wrote and composed both the rock and orchestral pieces. I feel people like this seem to be forgotten to easy. Give the guy a chance to build the page before jumping to deletion.

Suggestion It appears that this article was created directly in article space, rather than in a users sandbox or as a draft or via AFC
Balypu is complaining "I was not given the chance to add the reffernece(sic) list" and 109.155.97.173 states "it says there is more to be added including images and refs but it is stated that there is no point if it is being deleted"
Suggest article is moved to draft, or users sandbox, where they can add the relevant information, rather than rushing to add this now, or not bothering if it is going to be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was in the process of cutting and pasting from a word doc, and within 2 min the bannar for SD went up, so i stopped working on it.Balyputalk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:15, 2 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. MBisanz talk 03:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinhwa filmography[edit]

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

This article is supposed to be a Shinhwa filmography, but a lot of what's listed are individual film and TV drama roles by its members, which are already listed on the individuals' articles. Shinhwa only appeared in one film together (a cameo in one that a whole ton of groups were also in). Other than that, it's a list of variety show appearances, both group and individual, and a poor one at that as there is hardly anything listed for 1998-2011, even though the group (known as the original "variety show idols") had a huge amount of variety show appearances during that time. But regardless, it's already been established that indiscriminate lists of variety show appearances are not appropriate for Wikipedia anyway. There might be a little bit of info on here that hasn't made it to one or more members' articles, but I think it'd be easier to selectively move the info (which I'll do) instead of trying to figure out which of seven potential articles to merge it to. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like saying this, but yeah, "per nom", basically. Once this is properly pruned there is no reason this should be an article at all. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Shinhwa article per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the group's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. My suggestion that the information be merged is meeting with too much confusion. Any editor who wishes can expand and add it to the article whenever they wish it. No need to state the obvious. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said the same thing on every AFD discussion, and I'm confused as to where I said filmography articles aren't allowed? Just to clarify, I never said that. I said huge lists of variety show appearances aren't appropriate. Of course filmographies are allowed on Wikipedia and can be very good articles. :) Also, what content do you suggest be merged back into Shinhwa? Shinyang-i (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Schmidt, since you misread the original EXO deletion then copied and pasted your incorrect statement to all Shinyang-i 's other nominated deletions could you please correct that statement now? It is confusingly out of context on all the pages and clearly you'er the one that is saying misinformation at this point. If you are not going to use watch notifications or check back on these discussions then you really shouldn't spamming a bunch at a time without even reading them once carefully. Thank you. Peachywink (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a lost point... a list that has specific and discriminate inclusion criteria is not "indiscriminate", but I have struck my merge. List articles ARE indeed ALLOWED on Wikipeida, (MOS:LIST, WP:LISTPURP, WP:SALAT) so any claim that they are inappropriate is misleading. Any editor who wishes can add sourced information to the Shinhwa whenever they wish. I do not have to suggest it here. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, now you've expanded your claim that I said filmographies aren't allowed to encompass all standalone lists. I'm going to go bang my head against the wall for a few minutes now, and hopefully when I return this will all be over. Thank you. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol Shinyang-i I love you, stay strong.Peachywink (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete salvage what you can to be merged back into the main article but that is the tragedy of the older groups. Getting sources for Shinwah's early tv shows, even though they were a big deal and did so much at the time... its beyond my and I'd say most peoples capabilities to find the article references.Peachywink (talk) 04:18, 26 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge As per the nom's observations and various comments above, this content is all better covered in the articles for the individual members of the group; collecting it in one location here on the tangential link that these individuals happen to be in a band together is a clear case of the type of arbitrary cross-categorization that WP:WWIN advises us against. Snow let's rap 00:20, 3 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.

Apink filmography[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 principal reason for inclusion appears to be that without this article, endless fancruft gets added to the main article. It would be hard to think of a worse rationale for having an article. Policy-based arguments for deletion win the day. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another group filmography which is actually a list of TV/film appearances by individual members along with an enormous list of variety show appearances. The latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia and thus I don't see a real purpose or need for this article. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Apink per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the group's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. Let whomseoever wishes expand as they have time. My suggesting a merge is meeting with too much confusion.. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please remove your untrue claim that I said filmographies aren't allowed, since I clearly said no such thing. Also please be more clear about what exactly you feel should be merged rather than deleted. Context isn't the problem here, content is. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then your statement about filmographies "the latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia" was not clear... and implied that separate filmographies were somehow not allowed. But I am striking. Let whomsoever wishes expand at the Apink article when and how they may wish... adding content to support the group's context. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A stand alone list for APink filmography is needed because the list is too large to be put in Apink main article's filmography section.
  1. @Shinyang-i: Can you please explain about this statement? "The latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia and thus I don't see a real purpose or need for this article." Can you please refer me to the policy regarding this? I saw some non kpop list of filmography like Aerosmith_videography and Lady Gaga videography so I don't see why kpop group cannot have the same list?
  2. Can you also explain the reason why we cannot include individual member's filmography? APink members (except Eunji) don't have separate article so It only make sense to merge them to APink's filmography.
  3. When you reviewed kpop group filmography and nominate them for deletion, what criteria do you use to decide that a standalone list of filmography needed or not? Are there any group that pass your criteria so you didn't nominate them for deletion? Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to Sonflower0210 this filmography is not meeting the standards of the Aerosmith_videography or Lady Gaga videography. For example if you read the shows listed under television for lady gaga you might notice there are no tv interviews listed, which you would think must have done some, I know for a fact she was on Ellen so why was that left out? Because it's not noteworthy. The people creating her videography only kept important appearances worthy of note like a TV special, a Saturday night live appearance, and the rest were episodes of shows she acted in. K-pop filmographies most often list every single tv appearance with no regard for what is actually relevant and very few if any references. If you want to argue all are super relevant then find the sources to back that up. As for your complaint about individual members: add it to their member blurbs if no one is willing to build them pages yet. Peachywink (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachywink: I don't think that is a valid reason to delete the whole standalone list, According to WP:NOTESAL:
"Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.".
The article may need improvement so it can reach wiki standard. Though I have to ask what is the wiki standard for a good list? Can you give me an example of the few K-pop filmography that you said meet the standard? So it can be used as reference? About the solution for Individual member filmography, I don't really understand what you mean, can you explain what do you suggest here? Sonflower0210 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sonflower0210 the sort of list that quoteit talking about where each item doesn't need individual notability, is stuff like a list of academy award recipients. For a videography/ filmography usually each needs to show notability. Anyways there is a huge problem with sources that prove this for kpop videographis/ filmographies which is why the editors are trying to crack down. This also means there are not many good ones to show as examples. In fact the only one I know of is the one I myself made Got7 videography, I had it approved by outside editors before it was moved out of drafts. I wrote on the talk page a lot of the questions I had for myself while makeing the page.Peachywink (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachywink: You just created a similar videography for Got7 and get approval so I don't understand why you think Apink filmography should be deleted instead of improved? I just look at GOT7 videography, you put individual member on the list as well,why you disagree with APink members Individual activities to be included here? Not all of the content are without sources, many have inline citation to the other article so repeat citation is not needed. I'm willing to improve the article but the problem is I'm not yet sure the criteria for a good videography, everyone do it differently and just like any kpop article there are no standards here Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonflower0210 look at the bottom of the a pink filmography then look at the bottom of the got7 videography page see the difference? It's the references. The apink references aren't only missing, the youtube video one that is there links to a private video so it should be removed. As for why I have Jackson's stuff up, well that's frankly because I felt it was important information about the group since his variety talent and has gained additional recognition for the group. Also the rest of his group appears in each of these programs at some point but I don't plan to add anymore shows he will be signed up to do in the future. And yes standards are all over the place, we're trying to change that....which bring us to here now. Peachywink (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachywink:You still haven't answer my question on why do you think Apink filmography should be deleted instead of just adding reference and improving their content? Also how this mass AfD part of setting/improving the standard. A standard need to be set and informed before/during mass Afd so other editors outside of the "exclusive group" also understand why the article need to be improve or need to be deleted. Shinyang-i as nominator didn't refer to any specific wiki policies or previous discussion that established this article not appropriate for wikipedia. That's why I was asking what kind of criteria did he use when evaluating videography article. Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to restart the indents for this. Anyways Sonflower0210, I think it should be removed because once we take out individual member activities you have 2 variety appearance and 7 reality programs left which isn't that big a list. The reality programs can be moved to the main article the variety shows will most likely be dropped unless you prove noteworthiness with sources, so that's only one maybe two categories. Since it woln't clutter the main page I don't see why it can't be added there. Also, don't look at it as a bad thing, it's just how the page is being organized. Big bang doesn't have a separate filmography/ videography either. It's basically there are two methods of organizing: one is to have a separate videography with film stuff and music videos both on it, the other is to put the music videos in the discography and move the film stuff to the main page. I feel videographies are the better route but since your article is closer to being organized the discography route it makes since to keep going that way. plus Shinyang-i didn't mention the rules broken by the article directly because the rest of us understand since we see a lot of these. More than the problem with no sources the key fault is this page is what Wikipedia is not ... i'd say number 2.10. I mean it's clear from the prose at the top someone really was just making a list for list sake because it mentions none of the groups film accomplishments up there to tell us why the list exists. with no refernces, no context, and no reason to keep it I agree it should be deleted. Anyways we are not a secret club you can come find most of the k-pop editors and our past discussions on this and many other topics here- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture :) Peachywink (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peachywink: One of the main reason I can't agree with most of kpop editor's "clean-up mission" is because the double standards used. For the same issue, on a page where they're regular contributor, they are inclusionist where on other page they're deletionist. That's the reason why I want the same standard/criteria to be applied on every article which are not the case right now.
This is why I have problem when you vote for the deletion of Apink filmography while you just created one yourselves for Got7 who have far less notability on their filmography than Apink. I'm not sure how you got only 2 variety appearance from? Did you open the table for the year 2011-2014? As I've said before, I said I will work on improving the content and reference if this page not get deleted, so I don't think this can be the reason for deletion. As per this policy WP:ATD - "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." If you use the same standards for Got7 and remove all individual and non-notable variety show, they will have less content than Apink. Moreover, if you are suggesting this page to be moved to main article, why you created a separate article for Got7 filmography instead adding them to main page as per your own suggestion? There are almost nothing on Got7 main page beside lead paragraphs and 5 sentences of content. Anyway, I'll stop challenging your opinion and will agree to disagree. Thanks you for the discussion. Sonflower0210 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonflower0210: Sorry for the late response. There have been many discussions and agreements that long lists of variety show and other such appearances are not appropriate for Wikipedia. That's for fan sites. It's been observed the absurdity of the Apink filmography being longer than the Christopher Lee filmography. Clearly something is very wrong here, namely that a mention of every single time Apink's faces show up on TV does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia!!! (Notice there are no talk show appearances on Lee's fimography.) For the record, I found about 12-15 kpop filmographies, and I nominated half of them for deletion. Later, I will nominate the other half. I didn't see a single one that wasn't about 95% variety show appearances and individual works, mostly entirely unsourced, and that includes the one for my own very favorite group (and I AFD'd it). So I'm afraid there is no "correctly done" kpop filmography to refer you to. In general, there are damn few kpop articles of any kind that are fit for emulation. One should always look at the standards and articles that have reached "Good Article" status as a model, not other articles with bad ratings. Apink members don't have their own articles because they aren't notable, which I believe has been discussed quite a lot previously (I did not take part in those discussions so don't yell at me - that's a discussion for somewhere else). Their very few individual appearances in real acting roles or regular hosting on other shows can be included in the blurbs in their articles. That's what those blurbs are there for, to talk about their individual info. You can "improve" the Apink filmography all you want, but if you do it correctly there will not be enough left to merit an article. And since you're flinging personal accusations around, I'd love for you to point out on what articles I have a double standard (on my talk page, please, don't trash up a legtimiate AFD). Shinyang-i (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonflower0210: You keep implying that all we are doing is trying to delete everything, which isn't true, and now you are saying we have double standards for pages we edit. I know that isn't true of Shinyang-i and it isn't true of myself either. As I said elsewhere, when I first started editing K-pop articles, I created some myself by copying other K-pop articles (bad idea). I've merged/redirected some of my own articles already, and at least one other one will probably be redirected soon. If you think I've been biased somewhere, tell me about it (on my talk page) rather than making vague accusations. For the record, I would also vote for deletion of the Got7 videography article because everything important could fit on the band's page (I wouldn't include guest appearances like Weekly Idol.) Random86 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it get's voted for deletion that's fine, I was thinking it might be best not to follow the western model and instead to make all k-pop articles follow the discography style. I already did my research and can move the references to the main page, but I want to keep the prose in some form... so I might be a little messy when I move it, since I'm not great at those things but I will try. It would free me up from feeling conscious about it so that I could finally nominate some more groups filmographies I've been eyeing but haven't nominated because they aren't "that bad". Peachywink (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS> Can we make this a thing? Like just say flat out that no k-pop artist get's a group filmography? I don't know of single one with enought group programs to qualify for one and it would be so much quicker if we could just tell people no they can't have it because no one can....just a thought. Peachywink (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I never mean to attacked on anyone personally. What I was trying to say is that kind of things happens because there are no certain standard to be met. All recent mass deletion left me confused, in this case for example what can be consider a good filmography article for kpop? What criteria it need to meet so it merit a standalone article? Those kind of information will benefit editors like me who wasn't involve in your prev discussion. For editor who work on the project like you guys it'll also be easier since you don't need to re-explained everything and just pointed out to the standard. I wouldn't continue this discussion here and i don't think talkpage is appropriate because it's nothing personal against one person, Peachywink refer me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture, is this page still active?
  2. About this Apink Filmography, Can you guys give me a week to work on this article? After a week, we can review it again and if it's still not good enough, it's still not too late to delete it. I will look for good/featured filmography article for reference.Sonflower0210 (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean to attack anyone. It's appreciated! :) Feel free to work on the Apink filmography more, but neither R86 nor I have anything to do with what will follow. We're not involved in making any decisions, an admin will do that. But usually if there's a lot of discussion he/she will leave the AFD discussion open until a consensus is reached or discussion has stalled, or making some arrangement that will allow an editor to improve it in their sadnbox or something. But I think the point is there isn't enough information that belongs in a filmography to make a whole separate article, regardless of the material quality. Overall, a "filmography" is for acting roles in TV or movies, or maybe a TV host's works, or something like that, not for the non-acting TV appearances of a music group. The criteria for a filmography (or discography, videography, awards list, etc) as a standalone article is size - if its inclusion (of appropriate material only) in the main article makes that article too big (see WP:SPLIT. Prolific actors have standalone filmographies, while many actors who've worked less may have their filmographies presented as sections within their article (GA example Salman Aristo). It would be odd for a musical group to have acted, as a group, in so many roles (or even reality shows) that the list wouldn't fit in their group article. However, definitely work on it - chop out all the variety show appearances, work on getting references, ask for help, etc, and we'll see what's left and go from there. This isn't about anyone trying to win a battle against anyone else, we all (you included) just want to find the best method of presentation for appropriate material. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:15, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added content into the page. Kindly review it. Thanks. Sonflower0210 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've work on the page and added information about 3 of Apink's most notable reality/variety show. I know that there are separate page for similar article like EXO's Showtime but I think combine them into their filmography are better. I think the page now have enough information and notable for a separate article. That's why I still believe the page should be Keep. Please also give any advise on how can the article be improve further. Thanks Sonflower0210 (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it looks messier now because of the additions. It's not normal to include long explantions of each program in the filmography though you can if it provides helpful info but these don't seem to shed any new insight on them other than how the programs functioned. The section on Birth of a family doesn't even mention the group or what seasons they filmed or any information about it like what dog they took care of. Also the blurbs seem to be purposfully lengthy. "Besides Apink, the show introduces key 'behind-the-scene' personalities who trained the girls for their big day. From their company's CEO to their manager, speech trainers, ballet instructors and dance choreographers." The second line isn't a proper sentence but more importantly it isn't helpful for the filmography about the girls to know this. Also it's not normal to include a table of individual episode synopsis in a filmography, and we still have lots of members individual activities listed, as well as one time appearances on variety shows. My vote remains for the page to be deleted or blanked. Peachywink (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Peachywink. It's not the norm to include that much detail on a filmography page. Filmographies are lists of TV/film roles, with a lead section summarizing them. See featured lists like Tom Cruise filmography and Julia Roberts filmography. Random86 (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Random86: I've edited the draft on my sandbox here. Let me know what you think. I'll complete the reference too. Thanks Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead section is too detailed, but it's a good start. Since the music videos are already on the discography page, I would just add the list of TV shows to Apink#Filmography, along with a shortened version of the prose. I don't think their videography/filmography really needs a separate article. Random86 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but it looks like a delete to me for lacking reliable sources. I ran through many of the sources on the reference list and they seem to be minor entertainment portals, and Korean Wikipedia doesn't really note these sources (other than perhaps and , that's total of two references only). - Mailer Diablo 23:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mailer Diablo:, I'm still working to complete the reference. As for the reliable source, I follow this guide for reference Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources. Hankook, Mwave, Kpop Herald, Yonhap are considered reliable source there. Can you pointed out the one that considered unreliable please? I'll fix that and I realized some of the references still refer too Naver portal instead of actual newsite and will fix that too. Thank you. Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanna know is why those monstrous lists of variety show appearances are still there. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinyang-i: For the variety show, are we going to exclude all of variety show guest appearance on kpop article or include the most notable one for the group? Sonflower0210 (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's it going, @Sonflower0210:?  :) If there has been something exceptionally notable about a particular variety show appearance that received significant coverage in the media, then it should be discussed in the group's article, which is probably something that has already been done. Merely including the show in a list won't explain why it's notable, and I can't see finding an appropriate "threshold" for inclusion in a list anyway. So I'd axe all of them. Also, I still take issue with individuals' activities being listed in the group's filmography. Those are not group activities, and the only reason they are on this same page currently is because the individuals happen to be in the same music group. But those acting roles aren't related to the group at all. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonflower0210: I finally deleted the variety shows myself. They weren't going to stay, no matter the outcome of this AFD. Additionally, all those music videos belong on their discography. In fact, the discog's infobox claims the content is on that article, not this one. Move it back there where it belongs. Then all that will be left is that tiny list of Apink's own non-notable reality shows. Girls' Generation, Kara, etc - none of them have separate articles just to list their own non-notable reality shows. I think Apink can squeeze that little bitty filmography back into their group article now so we can get rid of this thing. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinyang-i: I added some of their most notable variety show appearance. I added appereances on most important/biggest S.Korean shows and when they had made multiple appearances and for some competition. For the music video, I believe it's more appropriate to put it under filmography/videography rather than discography. Since Discography is for sounds recording. I saw another page like Lady_Gaga_videography and Beyoncé videography and they both also put music video under their Videography. Also you mention about girl's generation and they also put their music video under their videography. The page have been completed with sources and all non-notable item has been removed. So I don't see the reason why the page can't be keep. Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I re-removed the variety show appearances. NO, they are still not appropriate just because you think they are "important". 1) What is your threshold for deciding which are the most notable appearances? Personal opinion. Idol Olympics?! Kill me now. 2) Other editors will re-add all their favorite shows too, and then it'll be as bad as it was before. 3) If these appearances are individually notable, as in something unusual that was extensively discussed in the mainstream media occurred on them, TALK ABOUT IT IN THEIR ARTICLE. Putting a few select shows in a list does not explain their importance and is just a crap list (as well as WP:PROMO). Again with the music videos, put them in the discography. That's where they belong, unless the discography is already too big to hold them (and it's not; the group is only a few years old, they don't need a ton of standalone articles for their stuff!!!). Regardless of what you think a discography is for, Wikipedia says it should include MVs - look at the discography infobox and many, many, many FL-status discography articles, including Girls' Generation's when it made FL status. The difference between Beyonce and Apink, again, is article size. Compare the length of Beyonce's career to Apink's, and the volume of material each has produced. Maybe Beyonce needs both a standalone discog and a standalone videog; Apink doesn't. Put the MVs in the disocgraphy where they belong and the teeny list of Apink's non-notable reality shows in a filmography section of Apink and be done with it. Not a single kpop group needs a standalone filmography, and li'l old newbies Apink sure aren't any different. They are a MUSIC GROUP, not an acting troupe or something. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinyang-i:
  1. I didn't choose my fav show. I chose the appereance for notable show and biggest Korean show like Running Man, 2D1N, Real Men, YHY sketchbook, etc. For weekly idol and AfterSchoolClub, the format is per episode per artist. So basically if they featured, the whole episode is about them that's why I think it's notable. Idol championship because it's a competition and they win some medals for it. There are also source and coverage for all of the show. If that's not notable, then what do you consider notable korean show? I don't believe that all of variety/TV appereance are not notable since It has been covered on other non kpop article too. They didn't include all appearance but only for the biggest show. I assume those show are the biggest in Korea that's why I include them. I also don't understand why it's WP:Promo?
  2. Also I think It's your opinion that all list and table are crap but it has been used in wiki. If something notable can be covered in article, there are no reason why it can't be put on the list/table too.
  3. You always says that all Kpop article are bad so don't use them as reference, but when I used other article like Lady Gaga and Beyonce, you said they have to be as popular as those two if we want to use them as reference.
  4. Recently Got7 videography has been reviewed and approved for creation. I don't see why the Got7 article are more notable than Apink, I believe Apink filmography are equally/more notable.
  5. We assume here videography and filmography are the same. If there's a problem with the name, just change it to videography. Don't keep saying that videography are solely for movie actor because it's not true. Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinyang-i: I understand your frustrations but please remember that Sonflower0210, is 1. here talking with us, 2. has actually done some good research for this artist to try to find sources wether or not they stay on this page, and 3. is a new editor and Wikipedia always needs editors, even if they are only focused in very specific areas. But again I know it has been several long deletion discussions for you and it can feel like you are banging your head against a wall. Anyways, as I was typeing this I saw my Got7 page got mentioned. I suspected it might, and as I have said earlier in this discussion if it comes up for deletion I will discuss it reasonably as I too am unsure if the page is necessary. At the time I made it many groups had filmographies and I was simply trying to create a page I felt was above the standard for a kpop group to have by modeling off american artist pages, and was a page that highlighted important appearances or significant group work. Peachywink (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here we go again: Peachywink I fully respect Sonflower0210 and the work he/she does on Apink articles. That's why I'm still talking to him. What I'm getting irritated with is his insistence that Apink deserves more coverage than other groups/artists, which is what it really comes down to. To Sonflower0210:
  1. The fact is everyone will add their own favorite shows to the list and then we'll have a huge list again. Everyone has their own idea of what shows are most popular, especially people outside Korea who go by what other kpop fans like. Are these shows big in Korea? RM had ratings so low it almost got cancelled (I love RM, okay? Don't yell. And it's bounced back). Fact is, you really can't determine that. And these shows are done for all groups. People I've never even heard of - groups constantly in danger of having their wikipedia pages deleted because they're not idol groups, like Annyoungbada - are on those shows too, esp Sketchbook. If it was some kind of rarity to have a kpop group on a show like that, I could see where it'd fall under "a notable event" and it should be discussed in the group's article. If something really notable occurred on the show, then it should be discussed in prose. Just appearing, just like people appear every single week? No. Because then the list is nearly the same for every group - what's the point other than to advertise for fans?
  2. Stop saying this is "my opinion." There's been discussion after discussion on this "list of reality show one-off appearances" issue before.
  3. I never said Beyonce or Gaga are more popular or more notable or anything like that. I said they have a larger body of work and maybe their stuff doesn't fit in one article. Don't twist stuff to make me sound bad. And unless Beyonce or Gaga's articles are FL or Good status, they shouldn't be used for comparison because an article doesn't have to be kpop to be bad.
  4. I don't know anything about the Got7 article and have never looked at it. Is it FL or Good status? If not, I don't care at this very moment.
  5. I'm assuming no such thing. Even so, I'm talking about having two articles where one will do. The Apink discog is not too large to accommodate the music video list. Thus, there is no need for a standalone article, under any name, just to list their MVs.

And yes, I'm frustrated because Apink is no more special than any other group and I'm so so so frustrated at trying to make Wikipedia better when one editor's actions will wind up with all of the kpop articles being just as terrible as they were before, if he/she gets to single-handedly keep extra info on Apink all over this encyclopedia. Shinyang-i (talk) 17:29, 14 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. MBisanz talk 03:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EXID filmography[edit]

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

This is a big list of variety and radio show appearances, which have already been established as not appropriate for Wikipedia. Article serves no other purpose. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I split this off from the main EXID article because the Filmography section was growing excessively long. I used other Kpop groups' Filmography articles as a basis for this. I was and am unaware of a policy that prohibits this. If the article is deleted, then what information in it is usable on the main article, if any? You only mention variety and radio show appearances, so could the drama, reality, and MV appearances be included in the main article? What about appearances as a regular guest, like Hani's tenure at ShimShimTapa in 2012-2013? If these are usable, then I would like to transfer them to the main article prior to deletion. ComfyKem (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions! I recommend never looking at other kpop articles for guidance, as they're usually wrong ha ha. My advice is to look at all filmography articles in general. It's not that there is a policy prohibiting this explicitly, but previous discussions on filmography sections within articles and as stand alone lists have produced consensus that huge lists of guest appearances on variety shows (or anything else, really) are indiscriminate lists, which have no encyclopedic value and which are one of the things "Wikipedia is not". I'd recommend moving the list of music videos to EXID discography. Shows on which members were regular guests or hosts could be discussed in prose in the EXID article's member section in the appropriate members' sub-sections. Same for drama/film roles. Right now (if I recall), none of the members have gained individual notability apart from EXID, so it's fine and good to have a little subsection for each member similar to that in Apink. I'd also discuss the variety shows (or just list them) in the main EXID article, as well. That's the only thing from here I'd say legitimately belongs in an EXID filmography. Does that help? :) Shinyang-i (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done much of the recommendations. Should the variety show tables just be moved to the main article, Filmography section? ComfyKem (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might have missed something, but I don't think EXID (as a group) has ever been regular guests or the main cast of a variety show, so I wouldn't move any of those tables over to the main article. Good job on the member subsections, BTW. Random86 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added group drama and reality appearances to the Filmography section of the main article. Individual regular appearances on reality, variety, and radio shows are in prose in member subsections. I'll be keeping a personal archive (not on WP) of the article and its talk page if any of the information is ever needed in the future. If there is agreement to delete, then it can go ahead. ComfyKem (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ComfyKem, I thought I would add to this just in case you'er weird like me and wanted this group to have a videography page even if it wouldn't be a giagantic list of everything they ever did. Because it's not impossible to give the group a videography (more commonly used for music artists then filmographies). The Got7 videography was created by me useing wikipedia's "article wizard" so instead of the article being created directly to Wikipedia it had to pass an approval. This meant random editors looked at the page and judged it and after some edits it was able to be get approved. It might be the only kpop videography/ filmography that has been given an article quality scale rank. While this doesn't mean the page is perfect or protects it from deletion nominations it makes it much less likely someone will do so. Peachywink (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created one of these myself when I first started editing K-pop articles, but through discussions with other editors, I've come to the conclusion that a complete list of TV appearances is overly detailed for Wikipedia and is more appropriate for a fansite. If the whole group has their own variety show or is a regular guest on a variety show, these can be mentioned on EXID or listed in a filmography section (same thing for radio shows). Since the music video appearances are for individual members, I would only mention them in prose in that member's subsection. A table isn't needed for things like that IMO. Random86 (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to EXID per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the band's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. Let whomseoever wishes expand as they have time. Suggesting a merge is pointless. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • MichaelQSchmidt, what are you proposing should be merged? Some of these filmography articles are very long, like Apink filmography. I believe Shinyang-i is saying complete lists of every reality show and radio show appearance is not appropriate for Wikipedia (not that separate filmography articles aren't allowed, which is obviously not the case). Just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. (This also applies to the other K-pop band filmography AfDs you commented on.) Random86 (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup... just that. Merge them and give our readers context. Eventual split out can be discussed on talk pages. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's asking what you think should be merged. Not the entire thing, surely. Did you look at this article and at the EXID article? All of the keep-able information is already there... And eventual split out...what are you talking about? Split out into what? A new filmography? For what? I'm having a lot of trouble following you. You seem to be talking in generalizations and not in relation to these specific articles. Also, do you mind modifying your many comments where you said I said filmographies aren't allowed, because I never said that and I don't like erroneous information persisting on AFD discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the entire thing can be sourced to the films themselves, yes... and it could be latter split off as a SOURCED spin-off article per already existing common practices. I am however striking by merge opinion. Have fun. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the films themselves"...EXID has no films in their filmography. If you are unfamiliar with the particular problems editors face in kpop filmographies where fans will list the even the five seconds a group member appeared during a half hour broadcast that's fine. But you should at least look at the article before you say wether it should be deleted or saved or other. Also...."it could be latter split off" was that a joke or accident or do you not know you should have used the word later?... because if you don't know what the word latter is it would explain some of today's misunderstandings.Peachywink (talk) 04:30, 26 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm voting for deletion because there is no value in leaving up the foundation of this page when they are far off from needing it. Most of the things are small guesting on variety shows and the YouTube reality seasons can be mentioned on the main page. Individuals in the group that are cast members of shows can have that placed on their own page.Peachywink (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking WP:RS, and from the looks of it, many of the material might not be sufficiently notable for inclusion. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 11 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. As it is now past 7 April and no significant sources have been added, this article is Deleted. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The London Session (Umphrey's McGee album)[edit]

The London Session (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · (Umphrey's McGee album) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A yet-to-be released album which does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. I've tried to find a way to fix the article per WP:BEFORE. I've posted on WT:ALBUM#The London Session about it as well as on the article's talk page, but still have not been able to get very far. Album is discussed here in Rolling Stone but the coverage seems somewhat promotional to me. Moreover,that is only a single article and "WP:NALBUMS" says that albums are to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." (Added emphasis is mine). This simply appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC); Edited to strike out subjective opinion of Rolling Stone article - 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 16 March 20 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. SilentDan (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as WP:TOOSOON. Imo the article title is too generic to be a suitable for a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With the album coming out in a few weeks, being from a band that has 8 prior notable albums, and there already being a large article about it from such a big name, mainstream source like Rolling Stone, deleting this seems like an exercise in time-wasting. The Rolling Stone source is a very detailed article, and considered a reliable, usuable source per WP:ALBUMS/REVSIT - to brush it off merely as just some "promotional" article is not accurate. Sources like this are going to keep popping up, not to mention advance release reviews. If it doesn't have enough coverage yet, it probably will be the time this discussion closes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that RS is a mainstream reliable source. My "seems somewhat promotional to me" comment was in reference to tone of that particular article (at least my perception of it) and not the reliability of the magazine itself. That is, however, my interpretation of the article which may or may not be relevant in this particular case. Therefore, I have stricken out the comment to avoid any further problems. My understanding of notability is that it is something established through sources which already exist, not sources which may someday exist. This debate is not about the possible "future" notability of this album; It's about it's notability right now. If we allow such a rationale to be used in this particular case, then the same could be essentially argued for any article deleted for reasons of notability. That is something which really seems contrary to the spirit of "WP:TOOSOON". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was me that described that Rolling Stone article as a "puff piece", actually. I take Sergecross73's point that there's a likelihood that this album will become suitably notable for inclusion. At the same time, I'm concerned about the apparent conflict of interest that's seen a previously unregistered editor push so hard to retain the article. Not only that, but I've had cause to doubt the quality/notability of two other articles relating to Umphrey's McGee, including one of those previous eight albums: Similar Skin. There, after close to a year, we have one source that's a specialist music publication, The Aquarian Weekly; the rest are clips from the band's YouTube channel. It's easy to think the foot's in the door, so to speak, thanks to previous articles on the encyclopaedia – and I'm suspicious. If in two or three weeks' time, we find other quality sources come to light, then fine. But I really can't see why this article should be kept until then. It doesn't meet notability requirements currently, and Wikipedia has just been serving as a promotional platform for the upcoming release over the past few weeks and continues to do so. That can't be right. JG66 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I certainly agree that articles shouldn't be used strictly for promotional purposes. But that's a rationale for cleanup, not deletion. Also, 5 seconds of searching lead to finding 5 sources dedicated to Similar Skin. It's a notable album, it just needs clean up as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sergecross73: Thanks for the finding another source for Similar Skin. If it hasn't already been added to the article, I'll see if I can figure a way to make it work. If you find any sources which help establish the notability of The London Sesssion, please add them to the article. This debate is about an album's notability or lack thereof, not it's tone. I'm not sure if it's possible for us to establish notability by simply cleaning up the wording. If that can be done, then I'm all for it. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only brought up tone because JG mentioned it as a reason to delete above, which is faulty - it's not like I used it as a reason keep. I'll concede that I'm having a hard time finding sources, it's just that, as I said above, it's so close to release, that it's going to have the necessary coverage. It'd be different if you nominated this last January, but it's so close to release. If you're interested in wasting time and effort, sure go and delete, but artists that get long articles dedicated to them by high profile sources like Billboard don't have main studio albums that fly under the radar. Deletion is choosing the beaurocratic route, not the practical route. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, with Similar Skin, I concede I didn't bother to search for more sources at all. (Brendan Bayliss was the other article I tagged, btw.) Thanks to Sergecross73 for spending the requisite 5 seconds(!) – those American Songwriter, PopMatters, Rolling Stone reviews via Metacritic obviously quell any concerns I'd had about Similar Skin. As for The London Session, I'm all for avoiding the bureaucratic route, on Wikipedia as in real life. Right or wrong, though, I still hold on to the principle that the article appears to have been used as a promotional platform all this time; and whether there's just 2 or 3 weeks until its release (accompanied by reviews and further media coverage, no doubt), it's still 2 or 3 weeks more that the article, in its current state, doesn't belong. I admit that seeing now how Similar Skin did not in fact go unnoticed, I do it as inevitable that The London Session will become notable enough for inclusion. JG66 (talk) 14:22, 18 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The band's four most recent studio albums have charted and have received critical attention from multiple reliable sources; I expect that, upon this album's release in two weeks, similar coverage will emerge to warrant a standalone article. With this in mind, I see no harm in a redirect to the band's page, and little to be gained by outright deletion.  Gongshow   talk 01:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found this WXRT radio interview with the band explaining their experience of recording this album at the Abbey Road studio. For me, this, the Rolling Stones review, and the fact the band is fairly established pushes me into keep territory even if the album is not yet released. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:26, 26 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:00, 2 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 Based on the balance of policy-based arguments. The lack of reliable independent sources was not addressed by any of the Keep !votes, the majority of whose arguments amount to WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:USEFUL. It should be noted that WP:BAND is meerely a guideline as to which bands are likely to fulfill the foundational criteria for inclusion, which are based on WP:V and WP:NPOV, and which lead directly to the general notability guideline. The wording of subject specific guidelines like WP:BAND is, regrettably, inclined to lead people to believe that x mentions in sources they consider reliable is an automatic entitlement to an article, which is not the case. The lack of policy-compliant sourcing is well documented below. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dethcentrik[edit]

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

Not notable. Dethcentrik have not charted, not recelieved any major award, lacks significant sales (gold). Albums are not release by an "important indie label". They have not been on national rotation or the subject of any substantial broadcasts. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. They lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Article suffers from a major bombardment of sources but most are simply bad sources. There is only a few worth looking at

Metal Storm. The best of a bad lot but they are indiscrimiate. Send them your metal cd and they will review it.
Terrorizer and Decompression. Inclusion on a cover cd is not significant coverage.
Campos, Cristian (2011). Metal & Hardcore Graphics: Extreme Art from the Underworld. This is an art book that lacks any depth of coverage about Dethcentrik. Loft Publications specialise in house and gardens.

This is a bloated advert for a largely ignored vanity project. It's repeated reconstruction and maintenance on Wikipedia has been a massive exercise in bad faithed editing by a mostly single purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest. AfDs have repeatedly been !vote stacked by sock\meat puppets. A vexatious SPI was created. Article has repeatedly been bombarded with misrepresented unusable sources (eg [91] 16, 18-29 are not playlists featuring Dethcentrik). BLP violations have been inserted to make the band look more controversial. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing and get rid of this tripe. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to Cry BLP over a non-biographical article.-BusyWikipedian (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article in question is of no importance whatsoever, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: I'm afraid I must agree with nearly every one of the multivarious reasons stated above, but most importantly this article doesn't establish Wikipedia:Notability, which is the preiminent guideline for considering whether or not the article should be included in Wikipedia, or immediately deleted. WP:BAND applies specifically to this article, but it has no special magical phraseaology which will surprise anyone. Wikipedia is not Myspace. The band has not made any significant impact on the world and despite the incredible effort put in to stacking sources, a close look should be taken at the citations before any judgement is made. It is clear that the subject has not actually been the subject of repeated independent coverage in reliable third-party reporting. Much of the sources cited offer completely trivial mention of the group, or include little more than a track listing. Most are not edited, many are instead user-submitted and therefore are not reliable. Some of the copious links in citations lead to no mention of the subject at all, such as the one labeled '"Dethcentrik Songs". Billboard.' It is too bad that we keep having to revisit this. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No significant coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:BAND. Jbh (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In regards to Terrorizer and Decompression, read the cited pages, it's not just inclusion on a compilation. Both users wanting deletion are failing to mention multiple sources, including these and other reviews: http://www.rockfreaks.net/albums/4612; http://ventsmagazine.com/the-fourth-reich-by-dethcentrik/; http://www.side-line.com/reviews_comments.php?id=49349_0_17_0_C; http://oliverarditi.com/2013/09/04/various-artists-album-roundup-024/ Also "Send them your metal cd and they will review it." Even if that's so, it has no affect on an artist's notability, see WP:MUSIC. As far as heavy metal and industrial are concerned, much coverage is online. In fact, many of industrial's most important artists are covered online most if not all of the time, and many of the genre's most popular publications are exclusively online. Not to mention, this band has released through the IODA. Closing administrator, please be on the lookout for (intentional?) omission of facts and blind agreement in deletion arguments--BusyWikipedian (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IODA was basically self-publishing, that is irrelevant to the discussion. The blogs you mention aren't reliable sources. That they are published online is not a problem at all. The reason for these standards is for the sake of verifiabilty. Anyone can pubish a blog with any number of unverifiable claims. Hiddencodes.com gets over 3 million hits a month. They claim that Obama is actually a reptile. I invite anyone not familiar already to look at the totality and use some common sense, you might also ask yourself if sources like the side-line review are really reliable sources when they don't list an author and offer no information about themselves on the website. oliverarditi.com , could not more clearly be a personal blog. Also I'll remind you that "Intentional? omission" is pretty close to an accusation. It isn't really one, but try to stay on the right side of WP:AGF. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic, every online publication is as reliable as Hiddencodes.com. You're implying every online publication is a blog, and every blog is unreliable. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGC is useful here, "... self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Furthermore, opinion peices, such as reviews are not generally acceptable as sources for facts, though that's how they are used in the article. Just read WP:Identifying reliable sources and you should then understand why none of those sources work to establish the notability of the subject. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, that still avoids admitting that there's coverage in Decompression and Terrorizer-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::::I have no way to verify if the subject was ever even mentioned in the magazines you cite, much less that there was lengthy, in-depth coverage. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in a free promo compilation cd and a line in the accompanying track list in the magazine does not come close to qualifying as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: I was reading this discussion and felt compelled to add my two thoughts, partly because I'd never read a debate on deleting articles before. Though, this reads more like a battle of wits, law a court case, then a real debate of Dethcentrink. It seems to me that while some of the links for Dethcentrik might be lists or mentions in compilations, one must also remember that not every band gets on compilations, nor repeated compilations, particularly with a reputation and musical style as extreme as Dethcentrik. For those of you who may have curiously youtube'd the group you may agree Dethcentrik is on the far fringe of industrial and for many reviews, if you actually clicked on the sources cited, the unlistenable end of industrial. It's more likely than not, from my ear's opinion, that a band like this wouldn't get on a compilation, let alone wouldn't get any mentions anywhere but be quickly forgotten. A band like this should vanish after a short while, but Dethcentrik seems to be outlasting expectations and continuing to produce music. And, not just is Dethcentrik moving forward but also getting attention from respected folks in the industry like Chris Vrenna, whose resume includes Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails. I doubt Vrenna is going to remix music for a band nobody cares about and has no musical value. This all says up-and-coming to my ears and thus not a reason for deletion, other than the fact that the band hasn't had a hit or gotten reviewed in a certain magazine. For the record, Rolling Stone is no longer considered the de facto source of great music reviews, making or breaking artists. While, the debate over blogs that review everything and anything seems to be ignoring the fact that a few of the blogs cited do not review everything but are selective, but somehow everyone is ignoring these because the idea was put out all the citations are either just lists or review everything. I guess nobody is actually clicking through all the links to verify this accusation. It would be one thing if Dethcentrik had a handful of links and those were a few years old, but there seems to be a growing list of links from an active band that is expanding its horizons. If Dethcentrik is deleted now, at one point could it come back to wikipedia? When it gets reviewed by a certain magazine, though its likely that will never happen. When it has a hit on the radio? Which will be never. When it doubles the number of compilations and citations and reviews. But, according to some folks here that doesn't mean anything. Though, one need only look at other pages on wiki to see bands with a lot less reviews and links and the lack of debate there. It's more the fact that Dethcentrik is fringe, out of the box, that the group doesn't seem welcomed here. I think it's also interesting to note that while this band has been up for deletion previously, there certainly must be a reason it didn't get deleted. There obviously is value in listing this band. Okay, that's my two thoughts times a large multiple. Good luck to whoever needs it. I won't be checking back on this so if you're up to argue with me or point out my personal faults or biases or lack of credentials (I'm a published history author in print), find me on another forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3F00:AB1:6025:83C7:F62D:8ED0 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Unfortunately none of what you bring up adresses the dramatic failure of the article to meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. It is indeed impressive just how much effort was put into making links to put on this article as source citations, but none of them are reliable sources and the unverifiable claims made don't establish notability. The boldest claim to notability in the article appears to be that the band had a video removed from YouTube once. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal for editors involved on the articles concerned to be involved in the deletion discussion. Letting me know about the discussion is not WP:Canvassing. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only editing involving this article either of you have is attempting to delete it, and if duffbeerforme was concerned about a fair debate, he would have posted to other editors of this page, not just you and I-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does not matter to me. This article was on my list of things to consider for AfD and I know neither of those users. As for sources, please read WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source. Also please read WP:BAND for the type of coverage needed to be considered notable. This band does not meet those criteria. Can you show that they do? Jbh (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND says inclusion is a notable compilation, so inclusion of compilations from Decompression and Terrorizer, and inclusion in Electronic Saviors should be more than enough to satisfy criteria 10. Being written about in the publications Side-Line, Vents, Terrorizer, Decompression, and Brutal Resonance (amongst others) satisfies criteria 1. Angelspit, Dawn of Ashes, and Chris Vrenna's work for the band fit under criteria 6. And they meet criteria 7, they are the by far the most notable representatives of industrial from Colorado Springs, and are accepted in the international industrial scene. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for reliable sources; Brutal Resonance, Decompression, Metal Storm, Side-Line, Vents, Terrorizer, and The Gauntlet (to name a few, again) are perfectly reliable sources, and are very authoritative within their subcultures -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Angelspit, Dawn of Ashes, and Chris Vrenna aren't even mentioned in the article. Also your "work for" wouldn't match criterion 6 even if they were, since that clearly states that a band may be considered notable if it includes two or more notable musicians as members. Deth Centrik most certainly does not. The rest, we've already discussed. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Karl from Angelspit and Kristof from Dawn Of Ashes are on a Dethcentrik album, and Chris Vrenna helped with production for a compilation track. The rest has not been discussed. You simply avoid and dismiss anything that goes against your argument. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @BusyWikipedian: please stop marking all of your edits here minor. Only edits which result in no substantial change in a page should be marked minor. Marking other edits as minor can be considered disruption. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have trimmed some of the most unreliable sources and unverifiable claims from the article. It should be a little easier to judge the notability and the potential verifiability of the article now with out all the wikipuffery. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found Wikipedia to be useful resource for finding out more about bands I find out about, and I've read about this band in many of the online magazines I frequent (Side-Line, Vents, and Brutal Resonance namely, although reviews never affect my opinion of a band, I tend to look up bands I read about to hear them, or decide if I like them when I hear them). After hearing about them constantly around here, and on an online radio show recently, I decided to finally look more into this band, and I've got to say, this has to be one of the best resources to learn about them on. I understand the concerns about whether or not this band is worthy of keeping here since Wikipedia does have standards, but in terms of Colorado's industrial music scene, they're extremely important. They're one of the best known bands around here, and I do know they've gained recognition from places that usually only acknowledge the bigger bands in the genre period. They aren't mainstream, but they're an important part of the fabric of modern industrial music, and the coverage they get is with the biggest of the big in terms of the genre. I did see a book mentioned in this discussion, and I'm wondering why that's not still on the list of resources, because that's big. There's a copy of that book at a college library in town, and the bands I saw in that book were huge Slayer, Dimmu Borgir, Korn, etc. There are many articles about this band in big publications, so I don't see how one can't find the articles themselves and see that this band is noteworthy within the genre's scene, and I don't want to see this article go away as I've noticed a few others, of perfectly notable bands and albums have. People here need to understand that to fans of industrial, this is one of the biggest artists right now, and there are many other artists, albums, and people in the scene who aren't here but should be -128.198.17.62 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This anonymous sockpuppet/meatpuppet asserts that they are "one of the biggest artists right now", that's bold. WP:AGF exists, but we aren't supposed to pretend to be idiots. Said "book" has no significant coverage of the subject of the article, just an album cover. The "magazines" mentioned are even less significant. Vents isn't the vents magazine you get when you google "Vents Magazine" but rather a non-notable podcast that may or may not even mention the band. I didn't feel like listening to the whole thing to find out. The article doesn't cite the other two, because they are not reliable sources, not by a long shot. Other than that the above sockpuppet/meatpuppet only cites his/her personal opinion. This is another pitiful attempt to cover up for utter lack of notability. I hope that the proper admin will not take anything for granted in his/her appraisal of this discussion and the relevant article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have taken the time to properly word what I wanted to say, but I don't appreciate being called an idiot over that. This from what I see is a debate, and anyone is supposedly welcome to chime in, and from what I see here this debate has to do with opinions and whether or not the band has enough press to stay. I mentioned the magazines I did because they have written about the band. Vents has a review of the band (http://ventsmagazine.com/the-fourth-reich-by-dethcentrik/) and an interview (http://ventsmagazine.com/dod-beverte/) with the frontman (albeit, it's about all of his projects). That's two articles, and it is the site you find when you Google "Vents magazine." I haven't heard the podcast myself, so I don't know if they played a track by the band or actually talked about them. I figured it would be valuable to mention myself that this band is widely accepted as an important group in industrial music. I found this a useful resource to find more about this band, and they're important enough that the article needs to stay, and they aren't unknown. I certainly won't bother doing one of these again if it just gets you insulted by the opposing side of the argument128.198.17.62 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
128.198.17.62, it's nice of you to join this debate, and while I do agree with your points about where you've read about Dethcentrik being notable, you also bring up other points that we'd have to take your word on and it is your first time here. Metal lunchbox did not call you an idiot by the way, he just didn't think you had a very compelling argument and that it was suspicious that you don't have a history here at Wikipedia. Perhaps it's your first time seeing an article with an open deletion discussion, maybe you've seen articles disappear and now you know how it happens; maybe you have seen these debates before and thought you could finally chip in. Perhaps you should wait before joining one of these again. I see you mention a college library, if you're in college that means at some point you've likely had to use citations, and if you have then you know how Wikipedia works to an extent: we write articles with information that can be verified through sources. Those sources have to be reliable, just as they would in your papers. I've had to write papers, and I was told never to use Wikipedia as a resource. Ideally, we don't want Wikipedia to be that unreliable. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken, the Vents citation was from the vents magazine that you get when you google it. There were so many unreliable citations that it's hard to remember all of them exactly. The Vents citations you provide were removed from the article (by me) because they aren't reliable sources, just like all the sources used in the article. A review, is an opinion piece, and generally can't be used to verify facts here on wikipedia. The second source is an interview with the subject of the article, so it's just what he says about himself, so cannot be used to verify claims either. This entire debate would not be necessary if someone would just read WP:RS for once. I'll repeat what another editor has said to you in the past, your idea of what constitutes a reliable third-party source and significant coverage are not compatible with the consensus here at wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, please see my contibutions before simply agreeing with this. I do agree I haven't edited much outside the topic of music, but I don't feel that was the implication-BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BusyWikipedian: Sorry, when I looked at your contributions all I saw were edits related to Død Beverte who is a member of Dethcentrik and Død Incarnate Records including the Deathcentric albums which are not even remotly near passing WP:NALBUM. I should have looked deeper. Striking SPA and will do so at the other AfDs related to Deathcentric. Jbh (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - — 128.198.17.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jbh (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The album articles for this band have all been placed at AfD. Jbh (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since there is a lot of conversation and not a lot of policy citations here let me address how Deathcentrik stacks up against the criteria of WP:BAND.
  1. Not the subject of multiple non-trivial works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
  2. Not had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
  3. Not had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  4. Not received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country
  5. Not as released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.
  6. Not contain two or more independently notable musicians...
  7. Not become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.
  8. Not won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
  9. Not won or placed in a major music competition.
  10. Not performed music for a work of media that is notable
  11. Not been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
  12. Not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
If it can be shown how this band meets any of the above criteria I will happily change my vote to keep. Jbh (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I previously responded to you about these concerns earlier in the debate -BusyWikipedian (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where you did. To try to make a concise area of discussion without all of the noise in the rest of this page please say what criteria it is you believe this band passes and how they pass it. It will aid in my understanding quite a bit. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest I was just feeling lazy and was hoping you had the energy to read through some of the malarkey to find it. This AfD has been going forever. Anyway, the cited album reviews are from notable sources: Side-Line, Brutal Resonance, Rockfreaks, Metal Storm (which, as a user pointed out recently is listed as a reliable source in WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES), and articles from Vents magazine and The Gauntlet (which, I do recall seeing articles from on Google news). They have been in numerous compilations (which criteria 10 counts) including a compilation of exclusive tracks released by Metropolis Records and two in printed, ISSN assigned magazines, amongst others. Criteria 6, when you factor in the musical genre, is met by the fact that Dawn Of Ashes, Angelspit, and Chris Vrenna have contributed to Dethcentrik. And they are the most prominent industrial band from Colorado Springs. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the sources you mentioned only one is RS per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. I see nothing that indicates they are the most prominent industrial band in Colorado Springs they may well be the only one from Colorado Springs but that does not count. Criteria 6 is notable members not people who have played with them but actual members. The only way I see them passing is if they have songs on notable compilations ie ones that have or could have their own article. Are they on such a compilation? If so, which one? I know industrial is hard to find sources for. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GNG an article can in fact be cited for a Wikipedia article that isn't about the main topic of that article. Terrorizer and Decompression talk about the band (read the write ups), and WP:RS says that a source doesn't have to be listed specifically to be reliable, and you shouldn't always have to check Wikipedia and find that other sources are considered reliable. There also is not a minimum number of sources, and if a band is the only band in their genre in their city, they are still the most famous band in that genre from their city, they are still the most notable from that city. If you consider Terrorizer's sales alone, you realize that it's not only a notable compilation, but the write up constitutes coverage in a reliable source, Decompression would count for both as well. If you consider the compilation Electronic Saviors and its importance in the modern industrial music scene, it's definitely a notable compilation series. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is getting pretty loose on notability in my opinion. Yes you can cite sources in an article that are not specificly about the subject but they do not count for notability purposes. For the most part those are considered 'passing mention'. I can think of several 'most notable' bands if you define geography and genre narrowly enough. While there is no numeric minimum significant means more than one or two sources. My firm opinion is if you have to reach for notability then they are not notable. Based on the album closes maybe the community has a different view of this than I do. I consider significant coverage to be at least as high a bar as national charting, the types of awards given as examples etc. it is not a low bar. My bet is this closes NO CONSENSUS most AfDs with this much text do. Jbh (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "write-up" is more like a mention. The song is included in the terrorizer promo cd that they bundle with one of their issues, and they have a kind of track listing on page 3 with a few words about the band. This is not in-depth coverage. And the promo compilation cd bundled with that particular issue isn't notable. It was never mentioned in any books, no one wrote a newspaper article about it and it has no significant impact on the world. Your idea of notability and reliable sources are both radically deviant from Wikipedia norms. RE: no consensus- That the author of the article objects to the deletion based on exaggerated claims is not a proper basis for "no consensus". Consensus is not unanimity - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PR and promotional material is specifically excluded from coverage counting towards notability. Jbh (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider "a few words" an underexaggeration. And if charting and awards is all that counted, there would be too many omitted notable artists, including Throbbing Gristle, Coil, and Psychic TV, three of the most important industrial bands. And yes, WP:GNG specifically states that articles in which the topic of the Wikipedia article are not the main subject of the article do count towards notability. And what makes a source reliable should be the criteria for a reliable source, not whether it has an article on Wikipedia or whether it is listed as a reliable source, the list itself even says that, and most sources dismissed in this debate meet WP:RS, but are being dismissed solely on the fact that they aren't on Wikipedia as an article or on the list. Third party sources with editorial oversight are being dismissed here without research, because they aren't all over Wikipedia. And the assertion that "that particular issue" of Terrorizer is not notable; Why only that issue? Because it includes Dethcentrik?-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting my words, it is the promo cd included in that particular issue that I claim is not particularly notable, based on the criteria set forth in WP:NALBUMS and other descriptions of what is generally considered "notable" on wikipedia. It is actually a few words, not paragraphs, that is not just my personal opinion. The coverage is not in-depth. Read WP:RS for god's sake! We aren't claiming that it has to be specifically listed as a reliable source by name on wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jbh, Metal.lunchbox, I have seen no reliable evidence (or any evidence for that matter) that Terrorizer's compilation series is a "promo cd." If that were considered a valid point, then all of Wikipedia would be based on anything a user decided to say -BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BusyWikipedian: It looks to be a CD put out by a magazine to promote or showcase artists. It is not sold as an independent release but as part of buying the magazine. That is the very definition of promotional material. Jbh (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case this is unclear, decisions to delete or not delete articles related to this one, should not have any significant impact on the decision to delete this article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:25, 13 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. We do not relist AFDs three times (User:The Herald), so I'm closing this now with the finding that no consensus was reached in over 21 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Center (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There's only one and a half good entries, and that's already covered by an existing hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With both a book and astronomical features, there's sufficient dispersal of topics to support a disambiguation page. (There's probably a Star Wars article or two that could be added to the list without too much digging.) Pax 08:25, 14 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 03:06, 17 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 25 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, -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:50, 2 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 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar bowl (A Series of Unfortunate Events)[edit]

Sugar bowl (A Series of Unfortunate Events) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is pure fancruft. The topic is not notable and anything important mentioned in the article can (or already is) mentioned on other pages relevant to the series (e.g. A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Slippery Slope). The article is not referenced (other than The End, which isn't an appropriate primary source for any information in the article) and large portions are original research, such as claims that the sugar bowl is a MacGuffin, that it "could ... contain something of great power, perhaps even greater than the Medusoid Mycelium" and the notion that "it is (probably) indirectly mentioned in The Ersatz Elevator by Esmé." — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seeing little reliable secondary sourcing for the sugar bowl itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:19, 2 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 minor planets: 4001–5000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4058 Cecilgreen[edit]

4058 Cecilgreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Not worth merging either, though a reidrect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000 would be fine. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:09, 3 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. Should the subject meet WP:NFOOTBALL in the near future, please ping me and I can provide a copy of the article. Nakon 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Brannagan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that he Has not made an appearance a fully professional league yet. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't understand the claim re "fully professional league". Surely his appearance, albeit as a sub, against Oldham would count? If it doesn't, surely this would have to be because "subs aren't notable", which isn't how I read the team sports practice so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that to qualify under that guideline a footballer must have actually appeared in a match. Simply being named to the bench is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if the UK guideline is specific on that.
I still wouldn't delete it (maybe userfy it). I suspect it'll be coming back very soon and there's no point in sheer make-work. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 6 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 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dammartin-en-Goële hostage crisis[edit]

Dammartin-en-Goële hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete request. This was a spectacularly major event. OK, the text looks like direct autotranslater output that needs tidying. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a very unnecessary page, and I don't see anything in this article that is already mentioned in the Charlie Hebdo shooting article. There is just a lot of unnecessary bulk that was put in to make sure it seems necessary. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the above discussion. Plus, there has been no more attempts to clean up the page. A deletion is necessary. CitiV (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 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 Comparison of video codecs. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video encoders[edit]

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

This list is a poor content fork of Comparison of video converters with only three items, two of which don't belong in it! Codename Lisa (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, makes no sense, and at least HandBrake is covered by Comparison of video converters. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Comparison of video codecs, the more comprehensive article. (This article simply lists a few apps which include one or more codecs). Pax 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... The name is certainly suitable but the contents are like apples and lizards. "Redirect" here would mean "delete and make a redirect". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the name is poor, because "encoder" (as opposed to codec) does not refer to a standard with known parameters; instead it refers to products. So, not only will there eventually be inevitable promotional issues if kept, but the article will suffer from constant obsolescence as products go through upgrades. Many of the products also contain more than one codec, making comparisons even more difficult. Given that virtually all present encoders are simply GUI shells running codec command-line scripts under the hood, codec comparison is just going to be the more useful article now and in the foreseeable future. Pax 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... in the interest of remaining on topic, I just say that I have no problem with leaving a redirect after deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 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 07:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect , to the Comparison of video codecs would be fine. Since It already includes all these Codecs list, their company and some apps being listed in this article. --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This article on "encoders" is redundant. There are software applications to handle video and there are codecs that those programs use to handle specific file formats, we already have articles for those two topics. Comparison of video codecs is the more appropriate redirect target. Alsee (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Comparison of video codecs - as above, this article is redundant and less complete.Dialectric (talk) 16:26, 8 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension 8[edit]

Dimension 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album that has been marked for notability since 2009 that apparently was never released public (redirect be the best) Wgolf (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I googled to see if I could find any 3rd party reviews of the work and I could not ( in the first 3 pages of Google at least I'm not omnipotent by any means) I think if we do a discography we can have all the tracks of all the albums on a single table instead of every album having an article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:47, 26 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 07:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't find any independent source to judge notability and coverage. Google results fail to show any of them except their own website/blog. --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 08:31, 2 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. j⚛e deckertalk 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cl4 (programming language)[edit]

Cl4 (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. ― Padenton|✉   05:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE No sources at all. I tried a few search term variants on Google, and all I found was a single 9 year old forum post mentioning it. Alsee (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zero references not counting the now removed dead home page link. The PROD contest came with an empty edit history comment, that was the second SPA contribution 16 months after the creation of this article. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So rare that nobody has heard about it perhaps? I have read multiple textbooks about programming language construction and have never encountered this. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything about this in Google scholar, and it has no sources that would suggest any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on what little is known, Cl4 appears to have been designed in particular with embedded systems and Client/Server applications in mind. I thought I had a few promising leads on finding some more info, but they've all petered out.  :-( Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At the very least I would suggest that it falls under WP:NOEFFORT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceannlann gorm (talk • contribs) 11:09, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete A programming language that the article claims was "used widely in Australia, and some of the Asia Pacific region" should have a fair number of people trained in its usage as well as things such as reference books, journal mentions, and probably even a couple of websites supporting its user community. I have repeated the web searches mentioned above and received the same results. The lack of sources where they should be found clearly shows lack of notability and also suggests that this article may be a hoax. --Allen3 talk 11:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the other hand, just because it's obscure doesn't mean it's automatically a hoax. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be just a coincidence, but the original Siemens / Keith & Koep SIMpad was referred to as CL4. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Thought there might be a CL4 language/Qtopia linkage, but it was probably just a coincidence after all. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:54, 9 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. Nakon 23:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tijs Tinbergen[edit]

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

Non notable film maker that also has a not inherited issue-yes he may have famous uncles but he does not seem to be famous (his foreign wikis are the same also) Wgolf (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:00, 26 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) 05:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No indication why the nom believes the subject is non-notable or what they have done to determine this. His famous uncles neither make him notable nor non-notable. There appears to be sufficient coverage from the Netherlands and he appears to have won a significant award for one of his films: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (edit conflict) Google Translate of NL:Tijs_Tinbergen turned up what looks like a minor but Reliable Source interview, and via Google I found source naming him winner of a Golden_Calf_(award). I'll add both to the article. There were a substantial number of general Google hits. I didn't see anything else usable, but it seems possible that someone who speaks Dutch may be able to find more sources. Alsee (talk) 08:20, 2 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. j⚛e deckertalk 13:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Vujanovic[edit]

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

Basically a bio saying this is a painter and here is her site, not sure if she goes under notability or not. Wgolf (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even if we are very liberate and generous when it comes to her she still fails to pass any kind of notability standard. I found very very little about her and all was eather forum posts of local news.Stepojevac (talk) 13:06, 7 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable group lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Bio and three reviews at Allmusic ([97], [98], [99], [100]), and a staff review from Sputnik Music ([101]). Looks borderline but I suspect that there is more coverage out there. --Michig (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or weak keep I don't know what the guidelines are about Allmusic but I do know that they don't review just anyone. Correct me if I'm wrong but those reviews should count as sources. As a bonus, Sasquatch's label is one of the more important ones within their genre (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_rock). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - here's a review from The Aquarian Weekly [102] to go with the above sources. In total, the amount of coverage is not overwhelming, but in my view is just enough to meet WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk 15:11, 2 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. While I found some arguments on both sides lacking in terms of policy (Note that deletion policy generally argues that deletion is not an alternative for cleanup, and there's no sense here that cleanup has been attempted, similarly, note that an article is useful or needed is an "argument to avoid" within our policy), there are stronger arguments here made regarding scope and LISTN. j⚛e deckertalk 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of state and local political scandals in the United States[edit]

List of state and local political scandals in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States was already deleted through an AfD process. Similar reasons apply here:

  • Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source.
  • Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." This list not only omits denials, but also omits acquittals, which is really unacceptable.
  • Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. " Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association.
  • Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “state and local political scandals in the United States” are notable as a group.
  • The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time.
  • The main aim here is apparently to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted.
  • WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures.
  • WP:Recentism is violated (scandals from this millennium are given undue weight)
  • Unencylopedic.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep nomination does not understand and/or accept the section of the article named 'Scope and organization of political scandals' and is otherwise confusing scandals with crimes (convictions) and then saying that because an event is not a conviction it is not a scandal. Nothing could be further from the truth--as anyone with a knowledge of history will now. Other assertions above could be applied to nearly every article in WP--which is obviously not being done. The assertions for deletion are just a grab bag of anything and everything the nominator could find to say bad about articles and have little to do with this particular article. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the names of people who have not been convicted of anything? If those are all deleted, then there wouldn't be much left of this article, unfortunately. That distinguishes this article from a list of federal scandals (i.e. there would be plenty left of the federal list after names of non-convicted people are removed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of a scandal is that it may or may not involve a crime and the people may or may not be charged or convicted as criminals. You are completely not understanding what a scandal is. It is a notorious event. Period. Hmains (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is more like a list of scandalous people than a list of scandals, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't involve a crime, it's trivial unless it's received heavy news coverage, and most of these are crimes. We're not a tabloid magazine. Most of those didn't even result in convictions so they shouldn't be on wikipedia in the first place. ― Padenton|✉   02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list is based on original research. A single editor decided on a set of loosely related criteria to assemble this list. It flatly fails WP:LISTN which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,". The article has no sources that collectively discuss "state and local political scandals in the United States". There are sources available that discuss major political scandals in historical contexts, but none that I can find and that include state and local political scandals (but not national) in the US. A list such as this is far worse in my opinion than the recently deleted List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. The article also has WP:WEIGHT issues and likely runs afoul of WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 02:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is badly structured – the indenting of the Table of Contents makes no sense – I think the states should be a level below the date ranges ... or is it the other way around? But aside from that, this is an inherently bad subject to try to make lists out of, with BLP violations likely due to the vague criteria for inclusion. And there is nothing useful for the reader to learn. Do some states have more scandals than others? Hard to tell from here. Are the number of scandals increasing over time? Yes, drastically ... unless this is just recentism in the inclusions, which is quite likely. Lists of this nature are okay if they are clearly defined, limited in scope, and not susceptible to recentism; see List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded for a good example. But this, no. I under that Hmains and some other editors have put a lot of work into this over the years and will be dismayed if it ends up not being visible anymore (been there, had that done to me). But I think this is an inherently flawed topic, badly implemented. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, other than some copyedits from time to time and reorgs, I did add any content to this article. I will not be dismayed about anything; I wrote above what I thought and that is all. Hmains (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia prohibits some but not all original research. The compilation of lists and the application of categories is a sort of original research which is commonly encouraged, so I am not concerned that the compilation of this list is original research.
I expect that the items in lists come with references, and the items in this list do. I expect that the categorization of entries into a list will be mostly noncontroversial, and I think that the categorization of the events here as "state and local political scandals in the United States" is noncontroversial, even if it is controversial to give prominence to these events.
Some might say that the individual events listed within this Wikipedia article do not pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and would not pass WP:AFD. That might be so, but not every item in every list needs to be considered in the context of passing WP:AFD, and multiple concepts which are not individually notable might be combined into an article like this list and collectively pass notability criteria.
I think an article with this title should exist. In the past I have also supported the development of a similar article, List of scandals in India. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like added reason to delete this article. If it is deleted, there would still remain List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes which is a very valid Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the apparent inclusion criteria of this list (essentially anything that is widely covered in the news at some point and involves a politician), yeah I'd say everything in that list could validly be added to this article, and the same problems with that list are present here (with the addition of WP:UGLY). Though of course, it looks like this is clearly pointing to delete, so don't bother. List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes is the only one that I think should remain. Mere scandals are more appropriate in that person's article rather than a list. There's just not enough space per person in a list to provide objective information without violating WP:UNDUE. Granted, some unconvicted scandals are notable (i.e. Watergate, LewinskyGate (sorry, couldn't resist), maybe JFK's affairs), but these are notable enough to merit entire articles by themselves, where there is plenty of room to provide due weight and all sides of the incident(s). ― Padenton|✉   18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Wikipedia is not a compendium of tabloid scandals, especially as what is or is not a "scandal" has no clear or concrete definition. What is sourcable and relevant from this list should be noted in the BLPs of the people involved. No reader, upon reading this mess that looks like a regurgitation by 1,000 howler monkeys onto their 1,000 typewriters, will come away with any deeper understanding or insight into political scandals in the US. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Howler monkeys? Takes one to know one. None of these entries are from tabloids, they all have reliable sources, multiple if necessary.Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Scandals can be covered either in their own article if they are deemed major enough or in the persons article if they are minor and play a notable part in their career. That way due wieght and context can be provided. What we have here is a laundry list of mainly minor politicians with mainly minor scandals. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reeks of PoV fork to me. The low visibility of the page (given that few of the people connected link to it) preventing people from noticing it and checking to make sure edits are wikipedia-worthy and follow WP:BLP. Also, WTF is up with the Table of Contents? Each entry needs looking at. If not deleted outright for inadequate sources, they should be merged to the respective people articles or the related state/local government page. ― Padenton|✉   02:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you had looked at every entry, if not, how do you know it reeks of POV? I see none. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the exact same reason we deleted the other one. These should not exist. They are POV magnets and eternally a BLP violation just waiting to happen. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
POV magnet? Aren't all political articles POV magnets? This one is well researched with minimal comment. Again, I see no POV. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - those stating Delete are simply wrong. This is a list that is needed, and is notable. That it might not be formatted correctly is a issue that needs to be brought up at the articles talk page. AfD should not be used for clean-up or formatting issues. There also seem to be different opinions concerning PoV, so I dont see a reason for deletion at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mr. There are multiple concerns in the article concerning original research, undue weight and PoV. Perhaps this would be better as a category rather than a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no POV violations in any entry, if you do, change it. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a scandal is inherently PoV. --Enos733 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It appears to me that most of the people here have been convicted or at least resigned their positions under fire. This includes entries who quit their jobs to avoid prosecution or make prosecution moot and/or those who are obviously working at the direction of others. Official investigations, indictments and charges are never made lightly and should be noted. State and Local investigations, charges and convictions are just as important as federal ones if not more so and this list makes a valuable contribution. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The huge problems with this list can be illustrated by considering the first three scandalous people on this list: Mike Hubbard, Terry Spicer, and Lowell Barron. The entry on Hubbard unfairly fails to mention his denial: “Mike Hubbard expressly and emphatically denies any wrongdoing”.[103] Spicer was convicted so he's on the list of convicted state or local politicians, so this entry is superfluous. As for Barron, this list completely fails to mention that all charges were dismissed in August 2014.[104] This list is full of bogus and misleading information like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadyglenns:Resigning under fire does not mean anything necessarily happened. Investigations, indictments, and charges are indeed made lightly, all the time. ― Padenton|✉   17:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is clear that this is redundant considering that there is a page that has a list politicians that have been found guilty of criminal charges, Would be slanted towards a negative PoV and may violate the biographies on living persons policy, Most of the entries seem to have just a single source and it would talk far more time then it is worth to solve all of the issues of the article. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Uncompletable and ill-defined list which is essentially a coatrack for politicized slagging... Let's just call this "unencyclopedic" and move on. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically synthesis and cherry picking, as noted by the many Delete !votes above. "Keep" opinions, like "this is a needed list" are utterly ungrounded in policy and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)>[reply]
  • Delete per TheGRVOfLightning. Also, don't we have categorizes for such a long list? - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 11 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) –Davey2010Talk 03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyes (EP)[edit]

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

This album is'nt notable and no receive any pleace or notable chart please redirect to T-ara discography (Pikhmikh (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the better solution is merging Lovey-Dovey (T-ara song) into the article. Contrary to what Pikhmikh said, the album charted on the national music charts of Korea and Japan. That doesn't guarantee notability, but the lead single is definitely notable and a merged article could likely be further improved and expanded. Random86 (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oricon Chart is in the Wikipedia:Record_charts#Recommended_charts, so this seems to meet WP:NSONG. If you reply to me, please echo me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This album did chart in Korea as well as Japan. As with another article, I think I deleted the Korean charts in a fit of pique because they were messed up and unreferenced and an editor was harassing me over a proposed merge. As with the Kara album this nom also AFD'd, this EP spawned at least one hit, which is kind of how Korean EP's work - they are vehicles for a big song release. If there's not a lot to say about the song and EP separately from each other, per WP:SONG, it's best to merge the song into the EP, which has been proposed. I don't really get the nom's rationale for claiming this EP isn't notable. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This nomination was not correctly transcluded to the AfD log. It has been added to the 2015 April 2 AfD log page. North America1000 02:15, 2 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. Nakon 23:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day & Night (EP)[edit]

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

This album is'nt notable and is without chart please redirect to Kara discography (Pikhmikh (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't see how this meets WP:NSONG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The absence of chart placements on this article doesn't mean the EP didn't chart. In fact, I think I may have removed it one day because it was all screwed up and unsourced. It hit #3 on Gaon and was in the top 100 for the entire year of 2014. Beyond the non-charting claim, I can't really understand the nom's assertion that this album isn't notable. It need only pass WP:GNG, and there are already a couple of RS on the article. The article needs work but I can't see any basis for deleting it, especially if the proposed merge of its hit single goes through. (Psst, @Piotrus:: this is an album, not a song. ^^) Shinyang-i (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This nomination was not correctly transcluded to the AfD log. It has been added to the 2015 April 2 AfD log page. North America1000 02:15, 2 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Dynamics[edit]

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

I don't see why this outfit, which merely releases stand-up comedy sets, is notable. There is a claim of Grammyness (under the old name), but apparently no Grammys were won--moreover, one would think that the honor would go to the people on the album, not to the record company. Also, lack of sourcing, etc. You'll find a kind of directory in the history, but I do not believe that this is the kind of label that ought to be deemed notable because there are releases by notable people: it's not the label in this case that produces albums; I think they just release them. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Dynamics is a comedy production and distribution company. Its independent archive is the largest in existence and it is second in producing content, only behind Comedy Central. It also produces a library of specials for Netflix. I am currently working on sourcing all of the releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedydynamics (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unless better sources to establish notability are found and the COI issues are resolved. Eeekster (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial improvements have been made and will continue to be made. I don't believe the page should be up for deletion anymore. comedydynamics — Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are still not significant references from independent reliable sources, as required by WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organization or product HAS attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, including The New York Times. Notability is not synonymous with fame or importance and the organization has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture and entertainment. Just because large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability doesn’t mean smaller organizations and their products can’t be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.ComedyGuy15 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkos Design[edit]

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

I believe this firm fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I did find one source from a link they provided that still works[105] but, I'm failing to find reliable secondary sources that talk significantly about the subject. Perhaps others can prove me wrong. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a routine business with no particular claim to notability. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 4 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. Appears to be a lame attempt April Fool's humour. Michig (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk County Council[edit]

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

Obvious hoax, no claim of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - obviously notable. I respectfully suggest that it is this nomination that is the hoax. Just Chilling (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find it respectful that you think it's a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please explain why you think a well referenced article on a major local authority is a hoax? Just Chilling (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Norfolk" should be "The Northern Folk of the East Angles", abbreviating the true name is grossly insulting.
  • "In 1902, the council consisted solely of landowners"- not true, they were all farmers.
  • "The United Kingdom local elections, 2013 saw UKIP become the second largest party in Norfolk County Council and the Labour Party third"- that can't be true, because Norfolk isn't full of racists, the only people who would vote UKIP.
  • "First past the post"- they actually just throw pitchforks at each other to decide who gets elected.
  • As you can see, this is an obvious hoax page. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The article is clearly notable. Every other county council of England has their own article because local government is considered important. The nomination shouldn't be taken seriously - you need only read the nominator's so-called reasons for deletion above. Duffit5 talk 07:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:31, 2 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. j⚛e deckertalk 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Diaz (soccer)[edit]

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

Concern was despite making a U.S. Open Cup appearance for Orlando in 2014, he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL because it came against an amateur side. He also fails WP:GNG because he hasn't received significant coverage. PROD contested by IP user without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– User:Elopez76 -keep has signed two pro contracts, has played an official first team match with his first club in a federation sanctioned cup competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.108.183 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I said? A player does meet WP:NFOOTBALL by playing in a domestic cup match IF the match features two fully pro teams. While Orlando was a fully pro team, Ocala Stampede was not. And signing a professional contract does nothing. – Michael (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes I read everything you wrote and I disagree, I believe since he is a professional player and played in an official match for a fully professional team that should qualify him as notable. I find it ridiculous that college basketball players and other collegiate athletes can qualify yet soccer players did not. User:Elopez76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.108.183 (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. His one match was against a PDL team, which is not fully pro so he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 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 Built to Spill#EPs. j⚛e deckertalk 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabonis Tracks[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 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 delete, criterion A7. The original editor all but admitted the subject is not yet notable on the talk page, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Clear case for speedy delete. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Glover[edit]

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

Not sure about notability here-had the blp prod removed a few times, too soon? Wgolf (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:35, 2 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 Silverchair discography. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Freak Box[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 2 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Philippines Earth 2015[edit]

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

Reads like a crystal ball and advertising. No sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is the major issue with this article that we are to consider when discussing deletion? It surprises me that Miss Philippines Earth (or any beauty pageant) has a wikipedia article for each year, but apparently that's the way it's done. It appears that there is a stand alone article for each year of Miss Philippines Earth and the ones I looked at do not have any issues with sourcing. I suspect after the pageant occurs, there will be plenty of reliable sources to add to the article so I don't really have any worries that this article will be fully and reliably sourced the way the other ones are. Perhaps it's a little early to have it in mainspace. Personally, I would keep it in my sandbox until the pageant, but it's only a couple months out, so it's not unreasonably early. Do you think we should delete the article and re-create the article in 2 months? Bali88 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't fault User:The Banner for being absolutely ignorant of reliable sources in the Philippines, but the Philippine Star and the Freeman are reputable newspapers, and the Philippine Information Agency is the government's news agency. Rappler has its faults but usually passes RS often enough to be consider reliable. Missphilippinesearth.com looks like a primary source and should only be used on things such as candidates lists, which what was done here. –HTD 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please keep your PAs to yourself? Thanks.
    • When you start looking properly, you can see the part about the pageant itself is absolutely unsourced. It is only the list of entrants that have sources and most of those those sources are related so prove nothing. The Banner talk 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several third party verifiable sources that support the article. Actually, some of the participants are drawing attention in various newspapers in the country of origin (and even in other countries) in their participation to the pageant . The following articles are examples:

For sure the pageant will draw more attention as the pageant progresses. --Richie Campbell (talk) 00:53, 4 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) 07:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lineup Atlantic[edit]

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

No indication of notability, all their sources are primary. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a article I have been wondering to put a AFD or a prod or what for a while. I will say delete. Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND. They have some industry connections, so might well become notable one day. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References are from unreliable sources. Deb (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The best coverage I could find were in two college newspapers: brief mentions on the subject as an opening act to Aaron Carter. Too soon, it appears.  Gongshow   talk 07:58, 8 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skin (Hayder novel)[edit]

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

Rather obscure novel with no refs that has been tagged for notability since 2009 Wgolf (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com:
    1. From Booklist:

      *Starred Review* Tired of all those lame vampire and goth horror books? Ready for something really scary? This is it. Easily today’s best writer of visceral and elemental horror, Hayder handles her genre specialty in a way guaranteed to creep out even the strongest of heart. No Lovecraftian excesses here. Hayder writes about monsters that could be real, yanked from some dank recess of the id. This combo of police procedural and African mythology continues the story from her earlier novel Ritual (2008) and marks the fourth appearance of Detective Inspector Jack Caffery and forensic diver “Flea” Marley. The enigmatic monster dubbed the Tokoloshe is also back and intertwined into a murder mystery that may, or may not, involve the supernatural. What it definitely does involve is someone or something that likes skin—especially when it’s separated from its original owner. Thus far, Hayder has been too edgy to achieve widespread recognition, but this just could be the book that launches her beyond cult favorite to mainstream star. --Elliott Swanson

    2. From The Daily Telegraph:

      Warped ... bloodthirsty ... No matter how much you despise yourself for getting sucked into such places, Hayder is brilliant at making you read on.

    3. From the Daily Mirror:

      Hayder is the closest we've got to Stephen King ... the goriest thriller writer this side of the pond

    4. From The Guardian:

      Hayder's gory insights into the dark are compelling

    5. From The Guardian:

      Fast paced and absorbing ... complex and gripping

    Here are other sources about the subject:
    1. Anderson, Patrick (2010-01-02). "Book World reviews Mo Hayder's 'Skin'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
    2. Levin, Martin (2010-04-09). "Review: Skin, by Mo Hayder". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
    3. Beecroft, Weedy (2009-06-18). "Skin, Mo Hayder". Lawyers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03 – via LexisNexis.
    4. "SKIN by Mo Hayder". Kirkus Reviews. 2009-12-15. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
    5. Sutton, Henry (2009-03-27). "Books: Gore Blimey, It's Mo; Book of the Week Skin by Mo Hayder". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Skin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_2&oldid=1142626968"