Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 July	2 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Sargent[edit]

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

Not all romance novelists are notable. I can't find much about her or her books, so I believe she fails WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created this early in my Wikipedia editing career, and I don't think I would do so now. I can find some of her books reviewed in newspapers, but I can find no critical discussion of her books or biographical material on her. I also can't find any mentions of her work in scholarly discussions of romance writing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Christie Can you say where you found the reviews?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I searched newspapers.com and found a couple of very short announcement-style reviews. For example, Kitsy Babcock, Library Assistant is reviewed in the Gaffney Ledger (a South Carolina paper); the review is two sentences long and is really a description of the plot rather than a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see what you mean.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a couple of Proquest newspapers searches - because these are older books - and found even less than Mike Christie did. i.e. , I found nothing at all. genre novels and their authors don't necessarily attract any coverage at all, even when their books sell, as these must have done because they kept being published. There is nothing here to justify keeping an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps turned up nada, even an unfiltered one; agree with nominator and delete comments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I found stories about several other Joan Sargents, nothing about this one. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:14, 7 August 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Academic, Cultural, Technological and Scientific Olympics[edit]

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

~~Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Not discussed or reported on any place other than NAACP sites. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - heavily promotional, however, plenty of non-primary coverage - [1], [2], [3], [4] [5]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:37, 2 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E. A. Sargent[edit]

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

This businessman doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he doesn't. Questions. I suggest that this article is extremely short, is about somebody who has probably been dead for over a century, has never been remotely promotional, does not seem likely to ever be subverted for promotional purposes, and might at some point attract a knowledgable addition that would shed some more light on the short-lived boom of merchandising of images of Japanese exoticism by foreigners to foreigners -- am I wrong? How does/might the presence of this article detract from Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would lower the notability standards so that, if allowed to stand, it would open the floodgates to just about anybody. Also see WP:HARMLESS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In the article namespace, this article is linked to only from Adolfo Farsari and yields no information beyond what already is in Farsari's article. If someone were to search for this article with information useful and well-sourced enough that it would demonstrate notability, they would likely be willing to re-create it. That, by the way, looks quite unlikely to me now, as nobody has asserted notability in nine years of E. A. Sargent's article's existence. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adolfo Farsari, as Sargent's partnership with Farsari constitutes the whole body of E. A. Sargent, and nothing is added beyond the content already in Farsari's article. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's true there are no significant changes to this stub since I created it years ago, but the hope was - and is - that someone (maybe even me) will add more information and flesh it out. A redirect to Adolfo Farsari would be misleading and I see no reason why the little thing can't sit happily as it is until someone is able to take the time to make it bigger. Pinkville (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources can be found. There's nothing really notable that is alleged. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of in-depth third-party coverage, basic notability does not appear to be adequately demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 22:15, 4 August 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 WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Ward Productions[edit]

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

Jay Ward Productions may not be Notable in its own right. Notability for its cartoons and other productions may not carry over for an article about the organization itself. There are no Reliable sources discussing the organization, which doesn't inherit any Notability from its owners or its products. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC) *Keep A book was published in 2014 about Jay Ward and his associates which mentions the company at least 24 times. Reviews indicate that the book focuses on the business and creative side more than typical fan content. An editor using that book could greatly improve this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in the history of animation and early television. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 15:03, 2 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Long[edit]

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

Person seems not notable, only some primary sources are given. Article is not well written. Seems like promotion. Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 21:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS, highly promotional.Pincrete (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article. May be a copyvio as well, there is a lot of close paraphrasing, for example Yvette Long#Summer Camps and [6]. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while I haven't looked into whether if this is a copyvio, or the notability of the subject at hand (hence the weak); the article definitely takes a promotional tone. WP:NOTPROMOTION.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some in-depth coverage here in which she won an award from the state of New Jersey, plus a nice write-up here although it was in a local paper, plus she's included in Psychology Today as a therapist here, and she is one of those excellent people really making a difference in the world. However, the strength of the sources is not that great, unfortunately. So I am on the fence on this one, maybe slightly in the keep side.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:25, 5 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rohom Khonsari[edit]

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

Precious little coverage about the subject, fails WP:BIO. I thought about redirecting to Khonsari Law Group (both articles are obvious creations by a COI editor) but I don't think the company is notable either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a run of the mill attorney. He also fails my long-established standards, for virtually every standard. There's no evidence of bar association leadership, nor law review, nor referee work, nor anything else that might make him notable as an attorney. Lots of lawyers, even me, have had notorious cases and worked for the district attorney. Go ahead, Google "Gregory V. Brown", "shrimp lady" and take out the results for eatery, or "Charles Collins" + "chicken manure". Lawyers do not always inherit their clients' notability. Lawyers are supposed to represent people who get in the local news: that's our job. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated previously Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 12:34, 5 August 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 soft redirect to wikt:teething troubles. Swarm ♠ 19:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teething troubles (figurative)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC, only content is a definition of the term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fair number of articles link to this page. Please suggest an alternative way to handle these links. Biscuittin (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use wikt:teething troubles and WP:PIPE it the same way you would any Wikipedia link. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. This is very unlikely to grow beyond the dictionary definition. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary:Teething troubles, which is more suited than this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Wouldn't it make more sense for Teething troubles to be soft redirected to Wiktionary rather than this implausible search term? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That term can be soft redirected as well, but I don't mind keeping a soft redirect containing "figurative" to catch hits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What hits are you referring to? I don't see how this would generate hits at all, especially due to the disambiguator "figurative". Sure, it might be "figurative" but that's what an idiom is... It begs the question: why would we have soft redirects for idioms that have figurative definitions? I'm not following the logic here. See also Template:Wiktionary redirect which states: "Do not place it on every possible word. It is only for dictionary definitions and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created." I don't see this being recreated in any fashion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:55, 7 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Romano[edit]

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

Non-notable local producer. References are trivial single line listings and lack depth, are PR related , or are picture captions. reddogsix (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 01:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the Chairman and Executive Producer of New York Emmy Awards, a major organization. Even the recipients of the New York Emmy Awards are considered notable.--Dolly Cao (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us how this meets the Criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as puffery. 1. Producers are almost never considered automatically notable, due to the ordinary and common nature of their work and that fact that most TV shows and stations have several producers, unlike film directors and other creative people. I personally know three (3) television producers in New York/New Jersey markets alone, good long-time friends, one of whom has won New York Emmy Awards; they all complain about how meaningless their jobs are, how much turnover there is amongst their co-workers, and how little they get paid despite having gone to college. My domestic partner produced a film that appears on IMDB and was in the Cannes Film Festival. So what? While the local Emmy awards themselves are wonderful and notable, merely winning one from the New York, New York local market, is not considered notable by itself. 3. Producers must meet basic rules of notability, which include having significant coverage in multiple good sources. 4. Wikipedia is not a resume website or social media. We are a private charity that actually has some standards. Not everybody gets their own page. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As if to make my point, this month's AARP noted, "female producers" ... are "notable [b]ecause only 17 percent of directors, producers [etc.] ... working on major feature films are women, reports San Diego State University." (see here for the article.) The subject is male, as are all four of my friends heretofore mentioned, thus another reason they are not notable. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not consider the NYC (or the LA) as purely local markets for television or other mass media. But Iagreethae status of all local emmys is dubious as a proof of notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, DGG. Bearian (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the criteria for WP:GNG Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 12:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. A google news search didn't come up with anything to help his notability either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 7 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gibsun[edit]

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

SPA re-creation of an AfD-deleted article. Some new sources, but all of them insufficient to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A closer look on the new sources: ref #1, only a passing mention as part of an announcement. #2 interview fluff as part of an announcement campaign, no independent detailed information #3 passing mention with a short quote #4 trivial schedule entry #5 whatever that is, it's not independent in-depth coverage #6 VCU's self-promotional feelgood bio record. In short: All of the sources fail to be independent neutral WP:RS with significant in-depth coverage. Still far WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is no venue for promotion of new artists. Salt the title if it get's deleted (a new version can be prepared in draft namespace in a year or two). GermanJoe (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to indicate passing GNG, let alone WP:ENTERTAINER. Agree with GermanJoe that at the very best it's a case of TOOSOON, though salting might be a bit extreme. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, for the 2nd nomination I may have been a bit too quick with the spices :). Struck request above. GermanJoe (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes grounds for inclusion with WP:GNG, Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 12:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify, which sources in particular are independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage in your opinion? Please read WP:GNG - it has clear requirements, and none of the current sources seems to meet them (see my above comments). GermanJoe (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4, notability was certainly not acquired during the last month Kraxler (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Kraxler, in that case, you should've tagged the article with {{Db-g4}}. Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually CSD tag articles that are already at AfD. But, I express my opinion citing the CSD to make sure that the closer understands my !vote. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 8 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARO, the scientific journal of Koya University[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Everymorning talk 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even sure this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources offered, or to be found. Less than two years old and not focused on any particular field, so seems unlikely to meet WP:NJournals for a very long time, if ever. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:41, 8 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Muslim Dynasty[edit]

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

This isn't an actual term that anyone uses in this context. Brustopher (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a term which would be used for these people? I see there is an article concerning Muhammed's antecedents. Would renaming be an option?Pincrete (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but I'm by no means an expert on Islamic family trees. It looks to me like the people in question have been chosen completely arbitrarily. I can't see why these three specific family trees have been chosen. For this reason I don't think renaming would solve anything. Brustopher (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- Perhaps Family of Mohammed. If kept I would like to see a little more explanatory text. I found it difficult to see where Mohammed fitted into it. Not being a Muslim, I am not familiar with his patronymic or tribal name. Nevertheless, the number of people listed with blue-links, clearly points to keeping it in some form. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: That article already exists at Family tree of Muhammad, this seems to just be an odd page, arbitrarily filled with random groups of Muhammad's relatives. Brustopher (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE array of random entries, and does not actually say something about "First Muslim Dynasty" Kraxler (talk) 19:55, 7 August 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 Free Pascal. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PasCocoa[edit]

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

open source compiler, tagged for notability since July 2011. Standard searches did not reveal any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 16:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to or merge with Free Pascal, of which this is a part. Not notable in and of itself, but a potential search term. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free Pascal - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs, and a search turned up no significant RS coverage. Larger project is notable and a reasonable redirect target. Dialectric (talk) 13:46, 6 August 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Kliass[edit]

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

Unremarkable person - minor voice over credits are not enough to make him notable Gbawden (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete - I'm not Brazilian or speak the language but I found what may be her IMDb and links at News but nothing that seems to have outstanding independent notability. @Victor Lopes: can probably translate some of the links but I'm sure he will also think it's non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first source is her CV in a website of an association of people who work with their voices. The second one is a story about her in one of Brazil's largest newspapers, so it's a fine source. The third one is a project by students of an university in São Paulo, nothing too relevant encyclopedically speaking. The article would be better if it had one or two more major sources. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is good coverage here, and here too, some coverage here, and more here, overall looks like she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable; very minor vocal roles; voice of the airport, really? Kierzek (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel as though Kliass is notable. The coverage with jcnet is substantial. Remember, we cannot be biased because of the lack of knowledge in Portuguese language and trends. As the English Wikipedia, we must remember this fact. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 12:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after a career of more than 20 years in commercials, and as a TV VJ and reporter, she may be now a minor celebrity in São Paulo, see here for a more comprehensive overview (it's a primary source, I know, but it's in English) Coverage has increased very much since she became the voice of São Paulo–Guarulhos International Airport. Just squeezes by WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 03:21, 8 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audiation[edit]

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

No evidence of notability: the only references are to the work of the person who coined the word, & the article clearly expresses that person's opinion. More like an essay expounding Gordon's views than an encyclopaedia article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I see, there's no article for Edwin Gordon and no other good move target with my searches finding particularly good here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a dictionary here and opinion piece. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even less a private dictionary. No sources to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The word does seem to have received some usage beyond Edwin Gordon: [7], [8], [9], [10]. This is likely not enough to assert notability, though. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:20, 2 August 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedlow Skate Park[edit]

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

I can't find any significant, independent coverage. I notice that the notability tag has been there since early 2009. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say that a significantly sized public park or public leisure facility is normally notable and that this just about qualifies. I have fixed the dead link reference and I see that the new reference says that park is larger than previously stated so I have reflected that in the article. RS references are hard to come by but it did host the 2013 Southern California Summer Skateboarding Expo and I have added a reference for that. I don't think there is much scope to further expand the article but I think it is legitimate to have a short article about a subject that is just about notable enough to include. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's some signficant coverage: an engineering journal [11] and an LA Times article [12]. There isn't much but, added to the article's current references, I think this just meets WP:GNG. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:37, 2 August 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. While similar discussions have indeed resulted in delete, I just can't see any way either side of this discussion makes an argument that should supersede the other side's viewpoint. The discussion offers no further discernible clarification on the community's previous lack of position. Swarm ♠ 20:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres[edit]

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

Can easily be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games, with all information unique to this article failing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Similar discussions such as Pencak silat and Wushu have closed as delete. If this discussion results in delete, I'll likely nominate the rest of the similar Athletics articles jointly.

The previous nomination closed as no consensus due to my overly ambitious attempt to combine all similar articles from this multi-sport competition together. ~ Rob^Talk 21:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to increase participation in this deletion discussion, I am placing a neutral notification on the talk pages of all editors who commented on the mass nomination's discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 08:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "can easily be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games", so why are you asking for a deletion when the proper way is to merge and redirect? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All relevant information (medal winners) is already at that article. The exact times of those who did not place in a relatively minor multi-sport event below the level of the Asian Games, European Games, et al, a schedule of the times each event took place, and the wind speed on the day of the event are not worth inclusion in this Wikipedia, although contributors may wish to try another wiki. I believe a redirect is not appropriate given the extremely unlikely use of this as a search term, although I wouldn't be strictly opposed to one. ~ Rob^Talk 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all individual athletics articles of this competition, and keep only the general listing at the Athletics article, as proposed. The individual articles are excessive per WP:INDISCRIMINATE # 3. Kraxler (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As part of a slow systematic way of deleting the whole thing, bit-by-bit. WP is not paper, so there's no real reason why we can't include this info. To say it "can be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games" defeats the object of having seperate article for all events at similar sporting events. What really needs to happen is an WP:RFC at WP:MSE (in conjuction with other projects, such as WP:OLYMPICS, WP:ATHLETICS, etc) to define notablity of results pages for multi-sporting events that are not the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rational for deletion is identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 65 kg, mainly that the subpages for this level of event is just too much detail. All that is necessary is Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games which as all the medal winners. WikiPedia is not a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK with few or any of the athletes being notable. Similar AfDs include for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Results. As per my previous comments, the best approach would be to merge sport-level result articles. This is a solution that already has form in other areas and also arranges material in a better fashion than a direct merge to the main articles (e.g.). The principal reason given for deletion (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) explicitly promotes such a two-article approach – one for specific results and one for overall discussion – through it's comparison of Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 and United States presidential election, 2012. The specific applicable point of "NOTSTATSBOOK" appears to be #3 ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.") Arrangement of the content in a sport-level results article resolves both these issues and is within the spirit of that guideline. The content of the nominated article is not confusing by any means, though there should be greater explanatory text (which is more a content issue rather than an inclusion issue). SFB 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I come at this from the perspective of preserving information. We have certainly deemed international sports festivals and their results to be notable. Downwardly merging into specific sports, particularly in the sport of Athletics which we are discussing here as a header, will create a huge article. How do you make it more palatable? By removing information. That has already been done here to create the list of medalists. That follows the standard protocol. But we have much more information to present, and the event specific article is the place to retain it, to keep the main article from being too cumbersome or worse yet, (poof) making the information disappear. As I probe wikipedia, the older the article, the less information we have. Sources dry up, organizing committee web sites shut down after the shine of the event wears off. Former details that were on paper go behind paywalls or are stored on microfiche. Wikipedia, and the efforts of the hard working editors who post this information is one of the best places to retain this information. I don't want to bring out a WP:CRYSTAL ball and predict these athletes will someday be notable. You never know. They all have achieved a level of notability by representing their country in an international competition. Are we going to discriminate and say South East Asia is less important than say, the the Pan American states, now and forever? Essentially that is a precedent you are establishing, that none of this information is ever going to be useful. These athletes were the best their countries had to send to this international competition. Next year, who will be the best athlete these countries have to offer to send to the Olympics? Odds are, these same individuals, which will guarantee their notability. And when wikipedia creates an article, all will have is a stub reporting that they showed up at the Olympics. Where did these people come from, what did they do to merit their selection to the Olympics? We HAD the information, we chose to delete it, the website goes down and it is lost forever. Do I need to show you hundreds, perhaps thousands of wikipedia stub articles of Olympic athletes, that we know absolutely nothing about except they showed up at the Olympics? Look at María Caridad Colón, an Olympic gold medalist in the last 35 years. Without mention of the equatable Ibero-American Championships international championships, her article would be one sentence. Until I created it 26 years after the event, World Champion Yekaterina Fesenko was a red link because I assume nobody could find information about her. Wikipedia is not paper, the cost of retaining information is so small as to be incalculable. We are here to provide information. There is no damage being created by us having and retaining the information, currently sourced, already entered on this page and any other page like it. Trackinfo (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". This appears to do that and can be further annotated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That text in WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is preceded by "In addition", which means it is not to be taken as an exception to the requirement to avoid "long and sprawling lists of statistics". ~ Rob^Talk 19:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly shorter and less sprawling than List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, one of the standard almanac entries at Wikipedia. You have to define "long and sprawling list" so that a computer can identify what it means, and remove the subjectivity. Almanacs are nothing but statistics, just not "sprawling". A core principal of Wikipedia is to be an almanac. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nearly all policies on Wikipedia contain some subjectivity, notability being a major one. WP:IAR specifically makes subjectivity a policy, even. When you include information such as the wind speed on the day of the event, it's hard to justify the statistics as concise. Typing in some of the competitors' names into Google, which should return information about the event if these stats tables were noteworthy enough to warrant their own article with little to no prose, I find nothing whatsoever about this event in news articles. Try a search on "Sengpheth Phomphady", for instance. With keep rationales such as "part of a series" and statements that confer notability based on the notability of the event's sport have left me somewhat disappointed with the discussion here. It's an interesting exercise in AfD, though, and shows that consensus changes drastically depending on who shows up. None of the editors who voted delete at previous similar discussions decided to comment here, and consequentially, we likely will have an inconsistent outcome. ~ Rob^Talk 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in the first discussion, I'd rather have this issue discussed in an RFC as per Lugnuts, and defer (sorry guys) a decision on this until the RFC has been completed. –H T D 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck and Lugnuts:: Why do you advocate for yet another discussion? AfD, RfC (much less CfD, TfD et al) whatever it is, are discussions between a very limited and not necessarily representative group. Its just the few who happen to stumble onto the discussion and that regular bad faith crowd that roam these backrooms with a seeming single purpose to delete everything. Moving it to a further discussion, are you hoping even fewer people can participate? You have to admit these are a totally negative, totally destructive process. The only purpose of these discussions is to destroy what exists. Nothing positive ever comes from such a discussion. At best, when a keep is decided upon, all we achieve is the status quo. We keep the content, until the next attack from someone who didn't like the decision and we do the dance again. Aside from this particular AfD, I have long advocated for opening up these discussions. Automating a system to actively seek out and notify potentially interested parties. That has gotten no traction. Apparently those who know how to have the opportunity to express themselves prefer these decisions be made by the smallest sample of the millions of wikipedia readers and the thousands of editors possible. I'm sorry, but the concept of moving these battles for deletion around just seems like WP:FORUMSHOPing, to make it a difficult to follow, moving target, to get a decision from a smaller sample. How many articles, how much deserving content is obliterated by the "votes" of two or three high volume editors (self-appointed wikipedia WP:OWNers) every day? Trackinfo (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC would reach a larger audience and notability of these events can then be decided without the need of dragging each one through AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have to defend this group of articles here, really a third time (I only knew about one of the first two). Then we have to go further to defend it again at RfC. Pound hard enough and eventually that will get this content that already exists, deleted, which seems to be the goal. Will every commenter in these like articles get notified? I doubt it. We will suddenly see the content deleted by an RfC we never heard of. That is a result by plan. It happens all the time. Trackinfo (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about deletion? The RfC would establish what is notable. These articles would almost certainly make the inclusion criteria. Futher AfDs would be set as keep (or even speedy keep). I don't see a downside. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this and several articles are going to be deleted, they'll be deleted. It doesn't matter when. Same thing for the reverse (if they'll be kept). At least with an RFC, there'd be more people, and more pegs to stand on rather than an AFD. It's also easier to overturn an AFD than an RFC so we could have more consistency in dealing with similar articles. Once we have an RFC to delete, it'll become so much easier to delete articles such as this, rather than going at it one by one per sport. –H T D 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is part of a series. If you want that this page would be deleted, you should nominate all the pages like:

{{AthleticsAt2013SoutheastAsianGames}} {{AthleticsAt2015SoutheastAsianGames}} {{SwimmingAt2015SoutheastAsianGames}} {{Gymnastics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games}}

etc. etc. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 23:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Modified the templates which hinders the layout in AfD listing--JAaron95 ^Talk 11:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sander.v.Ginkel: The last discussion close as no consensus largely in response to that type of mass nomination, so I am test running a single article first. If this one is deleted, the rest of Athletics will be nominated together. There was consensus at the last discussion that it would be inappropriate to nominate too many of these articles together. ~ Rob^Talk 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Yes there were too many in the first AfD to comfortably delete en masse but one article of a series is a little low. I would have nominated all the running articles from 2015 but that said - this article should survive or not on its own merits.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that were this to be closed as delete, the others in Athletics would be nominated jointly, as noted in my original post. I'm using the procedure described at WP:MULTIAFD. List one, see how it goes, and then nominate the rest in the "group". ~ Rob^Talk 00:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Results. Some of the non-olympic sports in SEA Games (ex: Pencak Silat, Netball, Wushu, Floorball, etc) is more likely to be over-detailed and may violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I personally agree with the mentioned articles' deletion because it is too detailed and full of red-linked links which are not going to become an article in the next 5-10 years. But, this article is about Athletics, the sport which is widely practiced and has been in the Games since 1959. These results can be just a random list of names and numbers for someone outside Southeast Asia, but not for those sports fan living in the region. Griff88 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Thanks to @BU Rob13: I will agree deleted individual articles to "Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games - Men's 100 metres" close as delete and keep only the general listing at the Athletics article, as proposed. Boyconga278 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Konwea[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. He is a founder of a non-notable website. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn between weak keep and weak delete. The latter would be based on WP:TOOSOON as this is a budding, but not fully blossomed, entrepreneur. The references show him being feted in "10 to watch" and "50 to watch" lists, but they are by the same author and I do not know the status of the publication. The web site is only partially functional, which is the source of my "too soon" feeling. I'll got for weak keep to give the fellow a chance. The article can always be deleted later. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People included on "to watch" lists do not gain notability for it. That is a prime example of a person clearly not being notable yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo advert, motivational speaker? trying to drum up an audience? sources in the article are written by his cousin, dead links and 4 times the same press release, Kraxler (talk) 03:34, 8 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Blatchford[edit]

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

Article fails to meet the general notability criteria for BLP's. Also created by a suspected sock-puppet account. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Too much about promotion, too little about pre-existing notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- his first appearance in the media is far too recent for him to be notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, and appears to only derive any notability from being selected as a judge on a show, but per WP:1E, doesn't seem to meet those requirements either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Fine Art[edit]

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

Let's sort this out once and for all, this article has repeatedly had attempts to speedy delete it and repeatedly added (and re-added) notability template. From what I can see it is certainly bordering on advertising with no claims to notability that I can see (it tries to suggest notability by claiming association with Salvador Dali and an award-nominated film). I can only see commercial and public relations links online about this product. Fails WP:GNG, time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established by the sources given, Collectors Editions may be barely notable but doens't seem to have warranted an article itself. Artw (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No prejudice. The article is a mess. I can't tell if it's about fine art by disney artists or about the company called Disney Fine Art. Fine art by artists employed by Disney could probably carry an article but the company the article is about (apparently) is not notable enough by itself in terms of secondary coverage to warrant it's own separate article. In the case of the former (fine art by Disney artists) might be better as a category of individual pieces. --Savonneux (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A bit hard to guess what this is about. It seems to be about an art collection or a company owning one, which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and the sources that aren't dead are primary. Could be perhaps merged into some Disney-related article, but I can't think of any that would be relevant enough. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Alliance for Self Management Support[edit]

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

Promotion -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SOAP promotional stuff, fails google news test - 786 on Google web search, most of these self published. If no independent English news sources, then not going to have any RS and not going to meet GNG. -- Callinus (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. 786 ghits mentioned by Callinus is only Google's first estimate, the real number is 39 hits for the phrase. Not a single hit on Google news. No indication in the article that it has done anything remarkable or received any attention that makes it notable. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert of run-of-the-mill organization, refs are youtube videos and their own website, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 03:47, 8 August 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. Swarm ♠ 19:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iar Elterrus[edit]

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

Let's try this again. This was created back in 2008, and then nominated for deletion twice under the belief that the author could find reliable sources about the author. However, both the Lithuanian and Russian copies have now been deleted and I still can't find evidence that this individual is notable. I don't know what more we can add than the number of novels. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't this the Russian version? Zero^talk 03:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is. The version listed here seems to have been deleted so I was mistaken on that front. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR I have previously used google translate on the references at the Russian article of author, see Talk:Iar Elterrus concluding that the references cannot be used for notability.(Of course if anyone can provide independent reliable reviews of his books then....)Coolabahapple (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iar Elterrus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iar Elterrus (2nd nomination) participants: Boleyn (talk · contribs), Aerospeed (talk · contribs), Wgolf (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and Vald (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the fact that this is the third nomination, it is clear that this writer is not notable enough to qualify per WP:GNG. There's no sources given, save for a few external links, but one of them is an official site, two of them are catalouges for his books, and the fourth external link is a 404. Had this article been made after March 2010 this article would have been quickly deleted long ago under WP:BLPPROD. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:50, 3 August 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 is that the subject qualifies for inclusion under general notability guideline, and is not specifically excluded by WP:NOT in meeting the conditions of WP:BLP1E. Swarm ♠ 19:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Quinn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous afd closed as no consensus but this is a clear case of someone who fails PORNBIO being notable only for doing underaged porn. Given that the sources only discuss her in that context it's a clear BLP1e and quite harmful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near notable for roles in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She might not meet PORNBIO, but she definitely meets the GNG. Beyond that, the nom's suggestion that sources stating she did underage porn are harmful to the subject is a serious misunderstanding of BLP, which doesn't at all require that we say nothing that might disparage a living subject. It just requires that disparaging statements be linked to high-quality sources. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meet of PORNBIO and GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this performer pass PORNBIO? Only award win is scene-related and does not count. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A porn star known mainly for one event, getting caught working under age. Fails PORNBIO per my comments above. RS coverage since the 1991 incident appears to be passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes the general notability guidelines and not as BLP1E. In addition to the underage controversy, she was featured in the book about the murder of Christopher Walsh, Nobody Walks, as the girlfriend of one of the murderers. A chapter is also devoted to her devirginising a fan as part of a publicity stunt in in Embedded. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E for the underage controversy; mentions in a book are trivial. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is in not trivial [13] and Quinn is not a "low-profile individual" to satisfy WP:BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My tack on BLP1E is a bit more conservative; if the subject would be otherwise unknown save for the event, then deletion is warranted. As for the book, non-notable title, non-notable author put put out by a middling true crime publisher is not what I call a stellar source. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macmillan is not a middling publisher by any standard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dunne, a small subsidiary thereof, is. Tarc (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I hesitated between keep and delete but Morbidthoughts arguments swayed me to a weak keep. -- fdewaele, 19 July 2015, 13:13.
Keep per MorbidThoughts - She's been mentioned in a few books and the underage controversy looks adequately sourced so seems better to Keep imho. –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted as per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 22. Sandstein 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and is not a WP:BLP1E. Aside from the coverage on the discovery of her underage performances in adult films, there is also coverage of her stripping career during her hiatus from porn. The article is titled "Topless dancer says she was fired for not letting patrons touch her" and was published by The Commercial Appeal on October 30, 1993. By the way, this and most of the other sources used in the article that aren't online can be found at newslibrary.com. The "Porn industry torching tapes that starred underage actress" article published by The Hollywood Reporter on November 1, 1991 can be found here. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per comments by Rebecca1990 and Morbidthoughts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one argues that the subject satisfies PORNBIO or any other SNG. One of the two book sources cited by MT is clearly not a reliable source; it carries a disclaimer from its author saying that " "This book is a memoir. It reflects the author’s present recollections of his experiences over a period of years. Some names and characteristics have been changed. Some characters have been combined, events have been compressed, and certain episodes are re-created and not meant to portray actual events". It also contains virtually no factual content regarding Quinn. "Rebecca's" citation of a single, brief local news story constitutes, per a newsbank search, constitutes the entirety of the news coverage of her "stripping career". What we are left with is the claim that an otherwise non-notable porn performer is made notable because she is mentioned as a witness in a "true crime" book about a non-notable murder. We have never, to my knowledge, determined that conjoining non-substantial coverage in two entirely discrete areas satisfies the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from comment) For those who want to judge for themselves, here is a copy of Nobody Walks (she is mentioned about 25 times throughout the book, 5 times as Alexandra Quinn, and about twenty times as Diane Stewart). Then there is a mention in Exposure: A Sociologist Explores Sex, Society, and Adult Entertainment by Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals. And a mention in American Gangbang: A Love Story by Sam Benjamin (pp. 39 and 103). And in The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia edited by Wilbur R. Miller (p. 1399). And in True Crime: Timeless Classics by Ryan White [with portrait]. Kraxler (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading again one of the sources, I discover now that the underage-porn case had actually lasting impact. I quote from the abovementioned encyclopedia: [After the Lords and Quinn cases] "Popular media reported on the threat and spread of child pornography, largely on the Internet. ...the federal government responded. This led to the passage of 1995 laws that required producers of any pornographic images to keep evidence of the age of all participants. The 1996 Communications Decency Act was passed...". That alone takes it clearly beyond the restrictions of WP:BLP1E. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 13:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Balle School[edit]

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

Cannot establish notability per WP:N. Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 09:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 12:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the consensus is that secondary schools are notable. With some English schools being newly rebranded as academies, some will have little contnet as yet, but that is not a reason for deleting them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron's accurate rationale. With only 77 mainspace edits it's possible that Liam is not entirely familiar with notability and deletion guidelines and their exceptions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! I was not aware of the exemption for schools. Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 12:28, 2 August 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) Kraxler (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naij[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. The sources in the article are unreliable as they are nothing but a self-promotional website that anyone can add content to promote themselves. The only reliable sources I can't find is on ref 8 "Thisdaylive". Ref 1 is "Alexa Internet" (database for website just like Internet Movie Database, IMDB) and doesn't establish notability, ref 2 "wakapost" is a blog, ref 3 is also "Alexa Internet", ref 4 "Naijaonpoint" is a local blog, ref 5 is still "Alexa Internet", ref 6 "facebook website", ref 7 "Opera website" (self romotional: does not establish notability since is not independent of NaiJ.com) ref 9 "Wakapost" and nothing more. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Naij is the most popular Nigerian news website online and you can verify from the Alexa rankings. TechCabal and TechLoy are the foremost Nigerian tech news websites and the links have been added. I think you do not understand the local Nigerian context which is why you say Naijaonpoint is a local website. However, I will find other reliable sources too. Thanks. Wikimayor (talk)

Wikimayor is high time you familiarize with WP:Indentation and learn to sign your comment. That aside, the sources you provided lack editorial control. News reporting from less-established outlets such as "Naijaonponint", is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Majority of the sources you provided are personal web pages, Internet forum posting and any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Alexa Internet and Internet Movie Database are largely not acceptable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: Alexa.com is not a social web site like IMDB. Alexa gathers statistics from internet traffic and is considered one of the main "site analytics" engines. So Alexa ranking is to web sites what h-index is to academic papers. Although I suspect that it is more scientific than the h-index. LaMona (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LaMona, of course Alexa.com is not a social website and incomparable to IMDB but the content of both web seems to be a user-generated contents. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a bit of reference cruft here, but the Alexa ranking (which is high, and probably quite notably high for Nigeria) and the partnership with Opera (as related in many references) convince me. LaMona (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content of Alexa Internet seemed to be a user-generated contents and may not establish notability. Meanwhile you don't even imagine why your presumed notable "Naij.com" has not been significantly discussed in multiple independent reliable sources like The Punch, Vanguard, The Guardian, Thisday and The Nation among other reputable sources in Nigeria. LaMona, if you ask me why "NaiJ.com" has not been the subject of these reputable Nigerian reliable sources, I will simply say "Naij.com is not notable". Don't forget that webpages were only ranked amongst users who had the Alexa Toolbar installed, and could be biased if a specific audience subgroup was reluctant to take part in the rankings and this had earlier caused some controversy over how representative Alexa's user base was of typical Internet behavior, especially for less-visited sites. In 2007, it was established and reported that "Alexa rankings" contradicted data from the comScore web analytics service, including ranking YouTube ahead of Google, an obvious aberration. This aberration does not only annul the reliability of "Alexa Ranking" but give an insight to why I may reluctantly compare it with h-index (in the case of academic). We simply cannot base our primary inclusion criteria on "Alexa Ranking". Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarizing with the WP:Indentation and should get the hang of it soon. Opera and MTN are two major players in Africa and do not partner with just anyone. That aside, giving internet connectivity to a million people is a big deal and in my opinion, notable enough. I still don't agree with your submissions about Alexa - I can't think of any other website ranking service that is as popular or reliable, but you can check any if you do and compare the results. You also keep insisting that there are no multiple independent sources but there are links to mentions of this partnership involving Naij in The Guardian and Thisday, two of the examples that you yourself mention as well as IT Web, an independent and notable South African tech website. Wikimayor (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimayor, I cancelled your second "Keep" vote as editors are disallow to vote twice. Having reminded you of that, I can't see an evidence that Naij.com has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists or it partner with notable organizations. Having partner with "MTN" and "Opera" is not an evidence of notability, its just an evidence that the website is functioning. The evidence of notability must show that Naij.com has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. In the case of a website such as Naij.com, an independent source would be multiple newspaper coverage of the site. "IT Web" is blog. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, I also mentioned that the coverage in The Guardian and Thisday, but I see you have ignored that. LaMona has done that and recognised the notability, but it would be great to have another unbiased editor do so too. Wikimayor (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This, this, this, this, and this point to the news forum as being important enough for other organizations to quote and use as a source. This is a nice "substantial coverage" piece, and while negative, this also shows the forum's notability. And this was a relatively quick search. If I had highbeam, I might find more. Add Alexa and I think it clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't think Alexa by itself is a good barometer, but when put in perspective of these other items, I feel it is relevant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:44, 7 August 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. It's unlikely this discussion can or will yield an accurate consensus as the subject of the article has been fundamentally changed from a BLP to an event, rendering both the nominating statement and many of the "delete" rationales moot. Applicable arguments in favor of deletion have still been presented and in theory could be explored further, but I don't think that's achievable by relisting this discussion, a significant portion of which is misleading and outdated. This can be considered a procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination. I will note however that it has also been argued that the event itself meets the general notability guideline and renomination is not necessarily warranted, only that it may be renominated with a different rationale if someone so desires. Swarm ♠ 20:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waqas Ahmed[edit]

Note: The article has been moved to 2012 Paros (Greece) rape.

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

Fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-significant WP:CRIMINAL.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename 2012 Paros rape. Article demonstrates clear ongoing impact in Greece where illegal immigration is a highly contentious issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of enduring coverage. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I had only to do a quick google to see that the coverage has "endured" now for 3 years, with regular updates, references, rehearsals of the crime, and profiles of the victim and family - even though the Greek press has lots of stuff to cover lately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of all notorious rapists.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — SummerSchool55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Malik Shabazz. Seriously; if this had´t come in the "a Muslim did something very bad"-category; who would ever have thought of making an article about it? Huldra (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because this incident was a "thing", a lightening rod incident intensely covered by national press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BabbaQ, it almost feels as though other editors commenting have not even taken the time to look at the dates of the few articles already on the page before asserting that coverage was not "enduring", As for the assertion that a fuss was made about this rape because of the national origin of the rapist - of course it was, that's why Greece's Fascist party is a major part of the story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWHOSWHO. sami ^talk 00:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He certainly committed a horrible crime but prisons worldwide are packed with such people. Fails WP:PERP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not about our opinion of what is routine; if the entire national press corps decides to cover a particular rape this intensely, it becomes notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horrible event, fails relevant notability guidelines (WP:CRIM, WP:NOTWHOSWHO, etc.) North of Eden (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Very weak keep, for the time being, due to E.M.Gregory's revisions and rationale here.[reply]

Comment the fact that this individual fails WP:PERP,WP:CRIM is irrelevant. This Notable Criminal Act passes WP:N/CA and WP:N(E) because it was a major national news story for years, had ongoing political impact, and received international news coverage. Note, for example, the lynch mob made up of Greek Fascists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Today I made an effort to improve, source what has been, after all, a major incident in Greece and a major news story across Europe where the rape of a local 15-year old by an illegal immigrant became a highly charged signifier at a time of burgeoning political tensions about the enormous wave of illegal immigrants arriving in Greece and other Mediterranean countries. Searches on America-based engines can underestimate the impact of events in Europe, especially when transliteration of spellings in other alphabets is an issue, as here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move the article while under AfD?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, Because editors at this AFD appeared to mistake it for an article about a criminal, when it is an article about a crime that became a national issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be convinced to reconsider, as this does bear some resemblance to the more recent Shooting of Kathryn Steinle at least in terms of the xenophobia connections. That said, I'm still not seeing enough sources that indicate the lasting significance of the incident, beyond the typical stories that follow the progress of any sensational criminal case. North of Eden (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if someone fluent in Greek worked on this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It likely would; nevertheless, you've done a good job redoing it. I've switched to a keep, more or the less, given the current sourcing. I would be happier with more, but it likely reaches WP:N/CA right now. North of Eden (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the sourcing after North of Eden changed to Keep. The intensity of national coverage, at least, should now be apparent, even though the websites of Greek media are not as easy to search as those of some counties.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brennen Burleson[edit]

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

Can't see how he meets the music notability criteria. Performed at art camp, contestant on very local TV isn't anywhere close Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSBIO. We have one, maybe two sources that sort of pass muster, but only one rises to the level of significant coverage. That's not enough to pass the MUSBIO policy, criterion #1. This is just a case where the guy isn't notable; if you look at any of the other MUSBIO criteria, he's nowhere close. North of Eden (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and North of Eden. A [google search resulted in zero hits (except the subject's twitter account). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by DGG per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Siegel[edit]

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

Article created by block evading sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Should be deleted per G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 August 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. @Winkelvi: If an article qualifies for speedy deletion, and is nominated for speedy deletion, there is no point in also creating an "Articles for deletion" nomination which just gives the speedy deletion as the reason: all that does is waste editors' and administrators' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Macnee[edit]

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

Article created by block evading sock of indeffed user. Should be speedy deleted per G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 August 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 Ketchapp. - Anarchyte please infuture be WP:BOLD & redirect yourself - I could understand if it was a huge article and you had problematic editors but it was a small article with barely any editors....It didn't need to come here. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZigZag (2015 video game)[edit]

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

Does not prove notability. There are no references. Ana r chyte 06:10, 1 August 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) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ketchapp and speedy close. @Anarchyte, why didn't you just redirect to the developer's page before coming to AfD? – czar 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ketchapp; software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Developer appears notable and is a reasonable redirect target.Dialectric (talk) 17:37, 5 August 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. If an article qualifies for speedy deletion, and is nominated for speedy deletion, there is no point in also creating an "Articles for deletion" nomination which just gives the speedy deletion as the reason: all that does is waste editors' and administrators' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sophie Napoléon[edit]

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

Article created by block evading sock of indeffed user. Should be deleted per G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I completely understand G5, but this article and the one below here both seem to meet WP:GNG. We do have WP:IAR for a reason, and I think it would be sort of silly to delete decent articles on notable people because of their creator. Sins of the father much? North of Eden (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do object to deleting articles that meet WP:GNG for this reason, I don't want to be WP:POINTY. Please see WT:CSD#G5 for more discussion on this matter. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by JamesBWatson per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Napoléon[edit]

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

Created by indeffed user while using a sock. Should be speedy deleted per G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; deserves only a brief mention in the House of Bonaparte article. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 1 August 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) 08:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs[edit]

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

Article de-PRODded by article creator and possible COI editor without reason stated. Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usual caveats WP:USUAL. No prejudice. It will probably be notable in the future but right now it just has one issue out. I would suggest that the creator possibly add information about it to University_of_Arkansas_at_Little_Rock if they want to preserve it.--Savonneux (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. This definitely could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:54, 7 August 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 WP:NGRIDIRON (non-admin closure). MrWooHoo (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Thomas[edit]

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

Article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. A quick check on Google Books and Google News yields no results. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my nomination per WP:NGRIDIRON. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (by nom) According to Sloan Thomas's NFL Profile, Slone has only appeared in 1 game on the Tennessee Titans. Would this qualify as "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues:...the National Football League..." per WP:NGRIDIRON? Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Even if it's only one measly game.--Yankees10 04:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrawed, and I non-admin closed and speedy keeped. Sorry, I'm trying to get myself familiar with the deletion policy. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:41, 1 August 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max Perlman[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify under WP:NBASE. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASE....William 10:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor league player who does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and definitely does not meet any of the five criteria for WP:NBASE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:05, 7 August 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Marder[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBASE. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unexceptional minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and meets none of the criteria of WP:NBASE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gould[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NBASE. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never played in the MLB and I can't find non-routine coverage of the rest of his career. Fails NBASE Chuy1530 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable minor league baseball player. Never played in Major League Baseball or other top-tier national league; thus, fails WP:NBASEBALL. Insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASE....William 09:51, 4 August 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.

Rodent of unusual size[edit]

The result was redirect, early close per WP:SNOW and comes off as a humor page as noted by Borock (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can find no evidence that any of the comparatively large rodents on this page are actually ever referred to by the phrase "rodent of unusual size", or that anything in the world is, other than the fictional creature from The Princess Bride. I would delete this page and redirect to The Princess Bride. bd2412 T 04:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Princess Bride, with a tip of the hat to the Giant Rat of Sumatra. This phrase is indelibly linked to the movie. Even the Smithsonian magazine thinks so. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Princess Bride. This article seems to be a borderline joke when it says the expression "can also be used" to describe various species, with the protest rat being the punchline. I guess that would fall under WP:OR. Borock (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Princess Bride (film) as the phrase appears to be connected to the film. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. North of Eden (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Roy[edit]

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

A borderline promotional article with a very limited number of citations and questionable notability - by which I mean I'm not seeing a lot of awards or history-related achievements to speak of. I invite community input on the matter to find consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete as my searches found nothing particularly outstanding (here and here). SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG. A google search reveals quite a few hits, but they are all by Roy, not about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:10, 7 August 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 (non-administrator close). MrWooHoo (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Green (running back)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:V and a search on Google Books and Google News doesn't find him, but other people in the NCAA. MrWooHoo (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination per Rob. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MrWooHoo (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in games with the Tennessee Titans, making him automatically notable.--Yankees10 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep: This player's historical NFL profile shows that he played in multiple games on an NFL team, so he's presumed notable as per WP:NGRIDIRON. Additional online sources include [14] [15] [16]. Given his time with the Barcelona Dragons, there are also likely Spanish language sources out there, although I can't search for them myself. ~ Rob^Talk 04:16, 1 August 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 procedural close as wrong forum. This is a redirect and not an article thus the deletion discussion should take place at WP:RFD not WP:AFD. Just Chilling (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Palmer (hunter)[edit]

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

Walter Palmer, the US businessman in the news for shooting a lion in Africa, does not meet the criteria for notability.
Wikipedia guidelines state :"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." (My emphasis).

This is a news item, that will be forgotten shortly. Are we going to decree notability on every person who does something that others on social media doesn't like, or who falls foul of the celebrity activists such as Ricky Gervais. The “Not News” rules should also apply here.

This person is only known for this one event, which according to policy is not enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO1E

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TOOSOON could also apply, as he is unlikely to gain notably in the future.

Walter Palmer is already listed on the disambiguation page for that name, with a mention of the event and a link to the lion. This should be sufficient coverage of the person.
It is silly to have an article in his name, with a redirect to the lion he shot.

Nor should he be listed as a “big-game hunter”, on any article. He's not a BGH, he's a dentist who when hunting. (I go fishing but that doesn't make me a fisherman.) Dmol (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a redirect, not an article, so it should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. St Anselm (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islands of Mersing National Park[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence that there would be a national park under this name. ELEKHH^T 02:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 02:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appears to be some confusion regarding this name. However, the official website of Malaysian national parks, shown here, only lists 4 national parks, and this is not one of them. If this is deleted, it should also be removed from List of national parks of Malaysia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V, this blog has a section "Islands of Mersing National Park / Mount Ophir" which doesn't mention any such park. The official site has no mention of it. There is also Protected areas of Johor#Mersing Marine Park which may or may not be the same thing with a different name. Kraxler (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trinoga[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, not even in Bulgarian. Ibadibam (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references on the article. A google search turns up nothing, and neither does a highbeam search. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability in the article, utterly non-notable little village organization, Wikipedia is not a free webhost for irrelevancies Kraxler (talk) 02:18, 8 August 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 Emotion in animals. The general consensus is that this topic is not suitable as a standalone article and would be better off in the context of the existing Emotion in animals article. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy in chickens[edit]

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

There's no cohesive article here. The vast majority of it isn't about the topic purported by the article's title, "Empathy in chickens". Breaking it down:

"The ability of chickens to experience and share empathy is recognized; empathy is not a uniquely human trait. This ability is a form of emotional intelligence and is demonstrated in a hen’s apparent signs of anxiety when they observed their chicks in distressful situations; they have been said to “feel their chicks’ pain” and to “be affected by, and share, the emotional state of another.” OK, though it's kind of trivial that in many species mothers protect their young, hardly worth an encyclopedia article for just one species where that's true.

"Hens have been observed to play; they are considered smart and emotional." This isn't about empathy.

"Chickens have the capacity to form “close friendships.”" This is about friendship, not empathy.

"A hen is keenly aware of the courting behavior of a rooster, and responds to his vocalizing." This is about mating rituals, not empathy.

Then there's an entire quotation that's about chickens being intelligent, having fun, being capable of facial recognition, and having the faculty of object permanence, not about them being empathetic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into emotion in animals as a broad treatment seems the best place to start. Splitting to particular species and types of emotion can then happen in due course when appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the author of this article I was surprised to see some of the content that has been added since my last edit. I'm not really understanding some of what is written at this point and will need to go back and try to evaluate the sources.

Bfpage |leave a message 20:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comment - I have added a few more sources. I thought newspaper articles were considered reliable secondary sources showing that the topic of the article was notable.

Bfpage |leave a message 11:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into emotion in animals or chicken. I don't see the need for this, and I'm normally the one defending small obscure articles. Really, 'chickens understand mating behavior and can make friends' doesn't need its own article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • edits) 01:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with emotion in animals. Per WP:MILL it makes no encyclopaedic sense to have an article for every species and every emotion combination. It is just a flawed approach. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the salvageable material with Emotion in animals. There's nothing that's fundamentally non-complaint about the article but it's just not convincingly established that the subject is comprehensive or autonomous enough to warrant separate treatment. GraniteSand (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wyllie[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. agtx 15:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league.~~ Just passes NFOOTY as the ref noted below indicates he played 11 minutes in an fully professional league game one season then about twenty in one game two seasons later. However, the player is now absent from FPL competition, so GNG has to take priority here. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes the football-specific notability guideline because he has played in a league listed as fully professional, i.e. the Scottish second tier in 2011–12, as confirmed by the Soccerbase reference present in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Struway2: thanks for pointing that out. However, looking more closely at Soccerbase, he seems to have played twice in FPL matches for a grand total of about half an hour as far as I can see. Given the article comments that he left Ayr to concentrate on his studies I think it is fair to say that he is gone from FPL competition for the time being at least and so GNG is the overriding factor here. I have adjusted my comments accordingly but still feel this is a non-notable individual. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY has this: "Note: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute." Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the fact that he came on as a sub, it's the fat that in several years he has played less than an hour for in fully professional leagues. Normally players get a grace period when they make their debut's, but there is no consensus that scraping over the NFOOTY line and then fading away means you are notable, quite the opposite in fact. Given that this player has slipped down the divisions, I think he needs to show GNG explicitly, not just a technical NFOOTY pass. Fenix down (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho you opposed because he failed NFOOTY (which was conceded even by the supporters) and you did not recognize the vast coverage to pass WP:GNG, virtually claiming that no amount of coverage can override NFOOTY. You cant't eat your cake and have it too. (Disclaimer: I'm not !voting here either way, but I find it strange that some users seem to change their opinions faster than their shirts.) Kraxler (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how that's relevant. The reason I didn't change my vote is because I did not come back to the page once additional sources had been added to the article. In that instance, there is clear GNG from a number of sources and had I seen either the article or the comments at AfD before its close I would have changed my vote. In this instance, there is no indication of GNG, this is a player who has played less than an hour of football in a fully professional league and has drifted down to a lower tier to concentrate on non-footballing matters. Although NFOOTY is normally used as a benchmark, GNG is always the preeminent notability guideline. In this case, like many others where there is only a technical NFOOTY pass, it becomes the primary requirement and I just don't see GNG here. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Kraxler (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 01:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG Huesofcolor (talk) 08:55, 1 August 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campo della Salute[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced and doesn't make any claim of any significance. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "a city square in Dorsoduro, Venice, Italy" is a claim of significance. The Italian Wikipedia article has several references. --Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously, the stub article needs expansion, but lacking references or not (yet) indicating significance in itself are not valid criteria for deletion. Notability is, and I see our notability criteria fulfilled because the site is known to anyone who ever visited Venice, it is discussed in many tourist guides, Google turns up with uncountable hits, at least some other WPs have articles about it as well, and if we'd dig a little deeper, I'm sure, more substantial (even scientific) literature (of the genres of history, architecture, or arts) can be turned up as well, in particular in the Italian language. So, as much as the article lacks at present, it has potential to become a full-blown article over time. A start needs to be made somewhen, and there is no valid reason to delete it (and thereby destroy another editor's constructive contribution). I consider this nomination as counter-productive to the goals of the project.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice. Most of the material I can find seems to be about the Santa Maria della Salute which is on the square and that the architect may have designed some of the pavement. It might be more appropriate in a larger article about all the campos in Venice. It seems someone has recently added a bunch of these as stubs with no particular information regardless of their notability. --Savonneux (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important square of Venice.User:Lucifero4

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