Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 August	14 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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digidestined[edit]

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

I don't think Wikipedia accepts fancruft. There is no real world information to satisfy WP:GNG. Just plot summary. Fangusu (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete unless this can be moved elsewhere as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Im fine with character lists, but this one is a mess of WP:OR it also overlaps with other character lists. Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is an explanation really needed? Its like something you'd find on a fan-based Wikia. Which is why those exist in the first place. —Kirt^Message 06:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:07, 19 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 User:DGG under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madwood Studios[edit]

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

Company fails WP:ORG. No inherited notability from producing television shows. Conifer (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have speedied this as non-notable spam, but I didn't want to tread on your toes again ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) I prefer to send an article to AfD if it's a borderline case. No real harm in letting it sit for a week. Conifer (talk) 06:29, 14 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of superfoods[edit]

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

topic is subject to commercial spam and low or absent WP:RS; topic is a past fad with content lacking WP:V Zefr (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that "superfoods" is just a marketing term that's pretty well meaningless, I'm not sure how it could ever be encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marketing term with no real definition; this is destined to be an indiscriminate list. Neutrality^talk 22:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have an article at superfood that covers the topic well. A list of "super foods" encompassing just about anything that someone has called a superfood, as noted above, will indeed be indiscriminate. Deli nk (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not have lists of products which have been marketed at one time or another using meaningless hype mumbo-jumbo language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no 'superfoods'. The topic is not merely non-notable, it describes something that doesn't exist. And a 'List of products that have been described as superfoods' is about as encyclopaedic as a 'list of people that have been described as ugly'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and cant be written to meet them because per User:AndyTheGrump wrote above. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:06, 17 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 and redirect to Sonamoo. T. Canens (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumin (singer)[edit]

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

NONE of the members of Sonamoo have any notable, individual, solo activities outside of the group. As their activities primarily are within the group, it's best to either delete all the articles or redirect the page names back to Sonamoo. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because, like I said, these are members of Sonamoo who are NOT notable outside of the group, and such, I'm bundling the nominations together:

In other words, it is too soon for them to have their own articles at this time. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-(weird it won't let me bold the text and I don't feel like looking it up) Anyways delete all. None of the pages showed any form of establishing independent notability and a quick search for them backs that up. They haven't done anything individually that would make a solo page necessary for any of the members. Peachywink (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment- I do want to add that I said delete and not redirect for a reason. These pages have that odd wording of being built by someone that doesn't understand Wikipedia's purpose. Example line from Sumin's biography section "Sumin has a faint resemblance to Hara of KARA when she smiles" -there was of course no source given and all the pages have similar things like this on them. So I feel that if redirected there would be a good chance the pages would just come right back up. Peachywink (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peachywink: I'll bold your comment in this reply. The way to bold text is to use the single quotation marks three times, before AND after the word. But thanks for your input! Tibbydibby (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all these individuals to Sonamoo as they are plausible search terms and redirects are cheap. I am aware of no evidence that existence of a redirect encourages re-creation of a stand alone article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect all. None of them are independently notable. Random86 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all/don't delete As was done with Apink's non-notable members, I feel that it would be more productive to redirect over delete for two reasons:

1.) People interested in Sonamoo's members will go to the main page where they can learn more there instead of being lead down a dead end. 2.) Redirecting these pages will make it easier to recreate them in the possible future occurrence if any of these singers achieve individual notability in the future. Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unreferenced BLPs. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Stuff Absorbent[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable product. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing good and convincing to suggest keeping and chances of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable product. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:11, 19 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 trainwreck. Between the !vote changes and !changes caused by the mid-discussion rewrite, and the rambling discussion afterwards, I see no way to reliably determine whether there's a consensus to do, well, anything. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music community[edit]

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

See talk page discussion (".music applicant caught using bogus Wikipedia page") and this article . Article has "POV" tag and multiple editors doubt the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever its other problems, this is what novel synthesis actually looks like. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Struck following WP:HEY attempt; see below. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it does seem a bit essay-like for wikipedia as it is, but seems to have some relevance to the sociology of music. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an article examining music socially, but it's not easy to define. There is community organization in music, and how musicians interact and relate to each other is notable. I'm sure you could find further scholarly studies examining how the music business functions in that way. The problem with this though is that I think there's a lack of sources which refer to "music community" as an actual term. Rather than delete I would suggest moving it to a more suitable title which would open more scope for use of reliable sources and reword what is written to become more encyclopedic and coherent. Perhaps Sociomusicology would be the best place to centre such an article or perhaps Commercialism of music and this should be redirected to that and that article considerably improved? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See article talk page - the topic as defined is not notable per se. And none of it would seem salvageable AFAICT at this point. Collect (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see also my comments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Music community: WP:OR while entirely based on primary sources (thesises and the like), and putting the content of these primary sources together in an "original" fashion. The only two secondary sources in the article don't use the expression "music community", not even once. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do you not think Commercialism of music would be a very valid encyclopedic subject and this would be best written in a broader article there without it seeming OR? Sociomusicology is a very poorly documented subject on here and does need development. In fact I'd argue there should be a subtopic focus on it at Template:Sociomusicology with a series of articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Commercialism of music is a valid encyclopedia topic is of no relevance to this AfD discussion (it certainly isn't a synonym of "Music community"). While for neither Wikipedia:Notability (music) yields criteria for admission, WP:GNG seems the way to go: establish sufficient secondary reliable sources devoted to the topic, and start from there. For the current music community article that was a failure. Since the available sources used in the music community article (primary & secondary) rather seem to indicate that "music community" can be used in the context of (music) fan community and/or (subgroups related to) what is defined as the music scene, there's apparently no fix link between uses of the expression "music community" and "commercial" endeavours (as our questionable article on "music community" seems to contend), which apparently can only be established based on what (in Wikipedia context) is WP:OR. Unless you can show secondary sources... but apparently no, otherwise you'd have used them in the article that is up for deletion now.

Re. improving and/or expanding Sociomusicology: of course (but not based on WP:OR). Re. Template:Sociomusicology: way too early to start about that, I can't see that happening before the Sociomusicology article has developed in something more substantial, e.g. in WP:Summary style, with appropriate spin-offs. And again, please stay away from WP:OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And "commercialism of" music doesn't logically parse. We already have that article anyway, at Music industry, though in theory an article could be written about the commercialization/-isation of music as a WP:SUMMARY split-off from it. Which still has little to do with some nebulous concept of a "music community". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The present article could use improvement, but what counts is potential. A quick search in Google Books shows many sources, preview available, that discuss the concept directly and in detail. Three variants are described:
- Educational: A group of students, teachers and parents involved in music, typically teacher led, e.g. [1], [2]
- Sociological: A group of musicians and their followers in a community, usually informal, e.g. [3], [4], [5] I assume that Sociomusicology is the study of such groups.
- Commercial: An online space where musicians and fans communicate, e.g. [6], [7]

Fragments from a JSTOR search include: "This annual infusion of prospective music makers into our schools and our society ensures increasing potential for the music community", "cultivation of a sustainable music community in his southern Maine locality", "sexist attitudes from the eastern music community", "Home on the page: a virtual place of music community", "server mediated peer-to-peer file sharing system like the Napster Music Community...", "Definitions of a music community differ, but one of the most all-encompassing has been suggested by Micheal O Suilleabhain: a music community is a group of interested participants who agree on the form and content of the music and its social contexts.28"

The concepts are somewhat abstract, but it is a valid topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an argument for a definition in Wiktionary - but can you find a cohesive definition or ambit for an article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the sources noted above, which are just a small sample. A great deal has been written about music communities, enough to support an extensive article. A search before creating this AfD would have showed that. Possibly there could also be an entry in Wiktionary – I suppose that is true of many topics. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, the problem with your analysis is that it comprises hundreds if not thousands of different "music communities", which (A) would be impossible to cover in one article and (B) already have their own dedicated articles or article sections (usually devoid of the redundant word "community"). This article, which purports to be about "Music community" per se, is unnecessary even as a Wiktionary term, because it goes without saying that any "X community" is a/the community of people interested in or involved in "X". This is a pointless exercise in a random accumulation of opinions and facts. If you want to create or expand an article on the Sociology of Music, or Music Education, or some such, feel free, but that is not what this article is or could conceivably be within Wikipedia's parameters. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources demonstrated by Aymatth. At worst case scenario a merge into Commercialism of music and revamp there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But the sources Aymatth found show that the term is consistently used to mean a particular music community in a particular context, and that there is no single music community; further, they show that the very conceptualization of what is meant by a music community differs from usage to use, so even "music communities" isn't a plausible WP topic. There's no clear definition. We wouldn't even be able to create a sensible "List of music communities" for lack of clear inclusion criteria. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment on version at the time of nomination: The article starts off coy about whether it's talking about "music community" as a common noun, or the music community, but by paragraph 3 we arrive at the definite article and read "The music community shares a cohesive and interconnected structure of artistic expression" -- uh? western classical tradition, western popular, Indian music, Chinese music, various tribal music traditions, ..., cohesive? Well sorry, but bollocks. Better write about garage bands, which at least can usually be shown to exist. (I'm not seriously suggesting doing that.) This is self-evident WP:SYN. The special pleading to the effect of ooh but surely with a change of title it could form the basis of something are just a smoke screen for the fact that this text could hardly form the basis for anything. --Stfg (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC) (Refactored --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete My first impression on reading this "article" was that of an undergraduate essay. I agree with Stfg as to why it should be deleted. Syek88 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Not even an WP:ESSAY, just a compilation of randomness. Not one single viewable reference even mentions the term. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC); edited 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "delete" arguments above are all based on the status of the article at present. It is essay-like, but that is irrelevant: articles can be improved. The correct question is whether the subject is notable. A quick search shows plenty of sources that discuss in depth the different types of music community. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see multiple issues in that approach:
  1. "status of the article at present", if that status is "nothing salvageable" (as contended in the discussion above, and to which I agree), the preferable approach is to delete the article and start from scratch, so as to have no edit history with "contributors" who didn't contribute anything to a viable version of the article – also in this particular case, with the article being used to back up a commercial claim on content that has been called "bogus" in external sources: if not deleted, the edit history would still make possible to visualise the entirely rejected content via the Wikipedia website, which I'd deplore: this is not the standard of quality we're aiming at;
  2. "whether the subject is notable", seems like many trivial mentionings in all sources I've seen thus far (those currently in the article & the additional ones mentioned above), like it wouldn't be too difficult to find a lot of sources on many "qualifier + substantive" combinations, take e.g. brown horse, but nothing convincing this would definitely pass WP:GNG.
  3. "plenty of sources that discuss in depth the different types of music community" – if there are sufficient WP:GNG-compliant sources it wouldn't be too difficult to have an article on that. Whoever has the time can write it then (what are you waiting for?). In the mean while however, we shouldn't have an article with not a single salvageable sentence, and that over-all is rather a disgrace & liability than an asset for the encyclopedia: rather nothing on the topic than this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable and may be large enough that there could be several sub-articles. A school-based music community is a subject of interest to educationalists. The first source cited above is all about fostering such a community. Several other sources discuss these educational music communities in detail. The fourth source is a rather heavy sociological discussion of music communities within broader societies. Again, there are various discussions that cover this aspect of Sociomusicology. The online variety is a distinct type of music community. This site, the first search result I get for the term, indicates that "music community" is a specialized class of web site, with its own supporting software products. Again, there are plenty of sources.

When a topic is clearly notable but the article is poor, it is not usually deleted but may be reduced to a stub. We are not concerned about page history unless it includes attacks or copyright violations. A stub is more likely to expanded than a deleted article to be recreated. A stub may contain no more than a basic definition: A music community has been broadly defined as "a group of interested participants who agree on the form and content of the music and its social contexts", citing This source, p 122. It could then be expanded by interested editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not about the article being "poor", it is about the nothing being salvageable from the whole article. If you have viable content for a stub on the topic (...more than a dictionary definition of course), fine, propose it, what's keeping you? That being said, better to delete the edit history regarding the "non-salvageable" content, nobody needs to be reminded of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a hodge-podge of unrelated source material that's been WP:ORed into a semi-plausible topic that is basically an exercise in really vague fandom. It's like having an article on "the writing community" or "the car-driving community". There is no community, even in the loosest sense. There are various music scenes, and genres with subcultures enmeshed with them, and a music industry, but this does not magically coalesce into a monolithic "music community". Virtually none of the (all-primary) sources that use this term do so in sense anywhere near this loose, but all say or clearly mean something more specific, e.g. the Eastern US music scene, or the scene related to a particular genre, or the music industry, or sociomusicology, or music education, or whatever. Lumping them all together is an exercise in the combined fallacies of equivocation and false equivalence. Another way of looking at it is that this is a multi-pronged WP:COATRACK. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Searching "music community" in Google turns up the phrase with many different qualifying adjectives - "country music community", "new music community", "Instagram music community", etc. Claiming that there is one "music community" seems to be original research. John Nagle (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive WP:OR. Specific and well-defined communities of musicians, when notable, should be covered in Wikipedia, but this is not appropriate. It's too broad and vague. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reset In response to the above discussion, which is almost entirely about the text, I have rewritten the article from scratch. Perhaps we can quit commenting about the text, which I am sure will be improved as more knowledgeable editors contribute, and focus this discussion on the question of notability. The notability of the subject should be the primary concern in any deletion debate. I obviously consider that this is a broad and deep subject, with the present effort just scratching the surface. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "reset" basically says that a music community is a community of people who are interested in music. Tautology aside, what would be needed is some cite or group of cites using the term with reference to specific music communities,, and doing so in a reasonably consistent manner. This hurdle has not yet been overcome. Would the author also support "baseball community", "cheesecake community" etc. as there are definitely groups of people with "shared interest" in a near infinity of topics? We do have Barbershop music with information about the groups involved in that specific sphere of music, etc. - but I remain unsure that making an article about all of music is of unquestioned separate notability. Collect (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers of the previous version of the article said there were many specific music communities, but nothing had been written about the concept of music communities in general. The rewrite gives just a few examples of specific communities and focuses almost entirely on what scholarly sources have written about music communities in general, a more abstract concept but more appropriate to the title. Perhaps another article could list specific ones. It could turn into a huge list. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I count a total of two believers in the topic being notable for Wikipedia purposes. I fear that is not enough for a closer to treat this as a "keep" at this point in time. Perhaps you might wait for a few months and try an entirely different approach to an article about a cohesive definition of this area? Collect (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This topic is not going to pass muster no matter how it is worded. Any way one words it, it is just going to be a simplistic non-notable tautology and a random accumulation of randomly selected opinions and/or non-noteworthy "observations", and thus a random WP:OR WP:ESSAY. See my reasoning already posted three days ago. Not an encyclopedic topic, any way one cuts it. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Resetting" an AfD is not usually an option. (It's not even clear that the new version is an improvement. It promotes "Old Boy Records", inflating their importance. I will stand by my "Delete" vote.) John Nagle (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I continue to stand by my "Delete" vote too. We don't need to hang on to the edit history for the former failed version for one, secondly I agree with my colleagues that Aymatth2's new version is still unconvincing, too much of a "brown horse" kind of article (or any of the other comparisons made above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reaffirming my earlier delete !vote: I'm with the above comments on this. The new version is as much a potential coatrack as it was before. The concept hasn't been demonstrated notable. Because of the "how now brown cow" elocution exeercise, it would be easy to find many sources using the phrase "brown cow". That wouldn't justify the idea of an article about brown cows. (The present brown cow is a disambiguation page.) Likewise, here we're dealing with nothing more than an ordinary prefixing of a noun with a qualifier, not with a standard term. The present version hasn't been demonstrated "music community" to be a distinguished concept any more than the previous version did. And I strongly object to the attempt to kick previous comments into touch by unilaterally declaring a "reset". We aren't allowed to !vote twice, so what do we say down here? This is pulling the rug out from under our feet. My delete stands. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a " distinguished concept". The argument against this (aside from moral panic that it might be a "bogus" article), seems to be that because it's a broad term or subject to different interpretations it can't possibly be notable. Aymatth has demonstrated significant discussion of it in credible sources. It is not our job to try to invent terms with OR. The article doesn't do that as it is currently, it reports what has loosely been written about it in reliable sources, and might I say, does so in a fashion much better than many general articles on music we have. It's like saying we can't have a general article on musical instrument because they can differ wildly around the world and what a musical instrument is may mean something different depending on the person. The online music community discussion in particular demonstrates why it's notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on the earlier version were all addressed at the quality of the writing, and said nothing about notability. The complete rewrite tries to solve the "essay-like" concern. The sources cited by the new version discuss the subject of music communities directly and in depth, clearly demonstrating notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on saying that, and it's false. Comments about WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:COATRACK and about the article (in its original version) failing to be clear about what the subject of the article is, are all about notability, NOT about quality of writing. --Stfg (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if an article does not demonstrate notability, what counts is whether the subject itself is notable, which can be determined by a search for sources. That apparently was not done before the previous version of the article was nominated, and was not done by any of the reviewers. I saw no discussion on whether there were sources that discussed the subject in depth, only discussion about the text of the prior version. The new version cites various sources that do indeed discuss the subject in depth, which would have showed up on the most cursory check for notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the issue in the following way, similar to the "brown cow" example given above. If I were to write an article about a Mozart symphony, I would draw the material in the article from publications, written by musicologists, that are about the symphony. The Wikipedia article then gives the reader the complete picture of the symphony. That is not what has been done here. The writer of the amended article has drawn from an eclectic pot pourri of obscure literature, the only common feature of which seems to be that each mentions, somewhere, the concept of a "music community". The result is that the article is no less of an undergraduate essay than the first version. It is a collection of disparate information about music communities, the emphasis on different aspects of which depends entirely on what the individual Wikipedia author was able to find, and where. It is not an holistic examination of a well-developed concept that the article on the Mozart symphony would be. I am therefore also minded to continue to say "delete". Syek88 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The concept of music communities is well-developed in ethnomusicology. A large part of this discipline consists of studies of groups of people who frequently exchange and communicate musical material." -sourced to a reliable author. How is that not notable?? " an eclectic pot pourri of obscure literature," -welcome to wikipedia, most articles to really be comprehensive are an eclectic range of sources. You're basically arguing that we can't have an article on a broad topic subject to different interpretations because not everybody agrees on the exact meaning of it. It is our job as a encyclopedia to collect what has been written about topics, and this has been demonstrated to be a well-developed concept in ethnomusicology anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are ethnographers or ethnomusicologists. The subject is a common one in these disciplines, if somewhat controversial, particularly with the cyber ethnographists. The article presents an outline, including conflicting opinions. Sadly, much of the literature the academics produce would be considered "obscure" by the general public. But Wikipedia has room for articles on any topic that has been discussed in depth by several reliable independent sources, as is the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference to me if the article is deleted or not, but the material used here is encyclopedic in some way, shape or form. I suppose people think Aymatth was paid $5000 to write an article about musical community too LOL. Of course this is less encyclopedic than the content written by the nominator "The paper's Wm. Steven Humphrey wrote, "These nudie cuties were born to entertain, and prove it by leaping from stage to tabletop, hanging naked upside down (by the tops of their FEET!!), and if you're extremely lucky, gingerly lifting a dollar bill off your forehead with their ass cheeks. Now that's talent!" (which is a GA article!!) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that is relevant to the current question just how? It's other stuff, and you're merely trying to poison the well. You didn't bother to link it, but it must be this. Take it to AFD if you want. Good luck with that. --Stfg (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very relevant, because it demonstrates the double standards which exist on here. The Three Sisters Tavern is notable but never in any way, shape or form is that quote encyclopedic or of encyclopedic value here. If anything the gender gap lot and Jimbo would accuse the writer of misogyny and offense to transsexuals by treating men as women and calling them "nudie cuties" and making them seem like sexual objects. It just amuses me that somebody could think that really encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion but not scholarly commentary on musical community.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the citation at the start of this AfD page, I believe this article was created by and solely for the benefit of commercial entities which is not an accurate depiction of "music communities. I'm not against having an article about "music communities" but I think it's doomed to fail unless it narrowed down to very specific communities.- kosboot (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I'm a commercial entity then? Do you have any idea how many hours of my free time I've devoted to this project without pay in ten years Kosboot?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or ... something. I do appreciate the effort to WP:HEY this, and for what it's worth, I think the current version is closer on the path to being an article that satisfies inclusion guidelines. But I think the WP:SYN problem is still significant. Although there are points in the article where the contrasts between definitions are highlighted, on the whole, this article treats the title term as though there was some commonality in uses of the term. To make the point more clear, this article dances around the topic of who constitutes the membership of a music community. Does it include the fans? Not according to the NCME source. Does it include the original artists? Not according to Froehlich. Likewise, the article doesn't (and can't) really address what a music community does. For Waldron, it's a community of practice, something akin to a collaborative trade guild (J. Burns uses the term in a roughly analogous sense despite a vastly different culture). Froehlich imagines it as purely pedagogical. Denzin's subculture/scene/community structure is all about the fans themselves, but McCarthy considers that insufficient. I know that Nettl calls the idea "well-defined" in ethnomusicology. And he's an expert in that field, so I'm in no place to argue with him. And maybe that's the way forward for this article: discussing the term's application in different fields and contexts, while being staunchly careful not to syncretize unlike meanings. I don't know. But I'm not comfortable supporting what's here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Nicholsen and Wolf are both doctoral dissertations and should be cited as such; I'll leave to future debates whether such material should be deemed a reliable source. On the other hands, I can happily note that Rikandi is a reliable source, and is not self-published, despite the incorrect citation entry provided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the first sensible input from anybody here aside from Aymatth since this has been started! If we don't like the term "Musical community" this content clearly has some value somewhere on here. But basically this is like saying "McDonalds is adamant that the Big Mac exists because wikipedia has an article on it" and then deleting the Big Mac article, ignoring the content written about it because a company happened to cite it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite attracted to Squeamish Ossifrage's suggestion, but I think this article should be deleted. Not salted, just deleted, and this for reasons given by many editors above. I would have no objection to Aymatth2 copy-pasting their version into their user space, with the intention of recreating it after deletion of the current version. Even with the same title, which doesn't seem to me to be the main bone of contention. But I think the retention of the earlier version visible to anyone who knows to look at the article history would be an invitation to drama that we don't need. --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit slow sometimes... So this whole debate is nothing to do with whether the topic is notable, as it clearly is, but is all about whether the previous version was discussed in some conspiracy theory blog. That is why nobody is addressing the reliable independent sources question, and that is why there is such concern about deleting prior versions of the article. To the comments by User:Squeamish Ossifrage, yes, there are different views about scope, purpose etc, of the various types of music community, and the article tries to draw that out. Of course it could use improvement. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that articles steadily improve as knowledgeable editors contribute. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, lack of notability is NOT the only criterion for deletion. See WP:DEL-REASON, which is part of the deletion policy. Arguments presented here for deletion are well within that policy. It would be better to respect them than to try to pronounce them out of court. --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not buy that. The topic is discussed in depth by reliable independent sources. The article reports what those sources say without any original research. There is no copyright violation, vandalism or spam. None of the reasons for deletion apply. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novel synthesis is considered a form of original research and is (and has been) my primary objection to this article's content. When substantial, it is most assuredly a valid grounds for deletion. As an example: The second paragraph in the general section is dedicated to the idea that "music community" is a well-defined concept in ethnomusicology. Nettl introduces that assertion, and that's fine (he's an expert, he gets to). The material that follows is presented as though it supports that claim; it does not. Brinner is also an ethnomusicology source, but his writing about the way that music elements change probably requires explicit attribution in the text because it doesn't appear to be a universally held stance (it certainly isn't directly addressed by Nettl). Meanwhile, between the two, Colwell and Richardson is not about ethnomusicology at all; this source is a discussion of the pedagogical formulation of a "music community". But that's not what readers would assume. That goes to the essence of novel synthesis; combining different uses of the term to create a syncretized whole unsupported by the individual sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I would never have spotted any problem there. Please feel free to rearrange the sentences if their present sequence gives a misleading impression. Deletion seems a very drastic approach if the problems are all so subtle and easily fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk to avoid teal deer-ing this page more than it already is. Short version: fixing novel synthesis isn't that easy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you for your thoughtful comments at User talk:Aymatth2#Synthesis and the music community article. I think each statement accurately reflects what the cited source says. Obviously, they do not all agree. Our audience is the general reader, so I arranged the material in the way that seemed natural: General concepts – different types of community – internet stuff. I am not sure it would be better organized around the ways that different academic disciplines treat the subject, although perhaps the article could do a better job of clarifying the different viewpoints. This is the sort of discussion that belongs on the article talk page though, as we work it up to GA status... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over: I've refactored my delete vote on the previous version to be just a comment. The version by Aymatth2 is an improvement, not successfully avoiding synthesis yet, but a step forward. If Aymatth2 were to develop a version along the lines suggested by Squeamish Ossifrage in the talk page post mentioned in his comment just above here, it could become an excellent article. The current article and especially it's history need to go, imho, but Squeamish's suggestion is a good way forward. --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first reasonable thing you've said all day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus that the article would be o.k. with the content rearranged under the titles "Introduction", "Ethnomusicology", "Pedagogy", "Sociomusicology" and "Cyber ethnography", maybe a bit more stuff added, I can do that tomorrow. I do not particularly like it, because most readers would not know what those big words mean, but if that is what it takes to resolve this dispute, no problem. The separate idea that removing page history would somehow defuse the ridicule of the article at the Domain Incite blog, seems plain silly to me. You can't change history. It is highlighted on Wikipedia Signpost. I have asked user:DGG if he would care to comment on that. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: I didn't mean to insist that the article should be just like that. I only meant that if you and Squeamish Ossifrage can agree on some way to address his concerns about novel synthesis, then my misgivings will evaporate. --Stfg (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not consider it synthesis; it is properly sourced by an expert editor whom I do not propose to second-guess in such matters, and whose good faith I would not conceivably challenge. That an outside organization may have made use of it for its own purposes is one of the inevitable consequence of our CC license. We cannot prevent such use, and we should hold fast to our role in creating an encycopedia, not in trying to construct an encyclopedia that is no neutered as to be incapable of misuse. Personally, I think online music community is also an acceptable topic, and need not be integrated here. If it's going to be rewritten, I urge Dr.B to take the lead in rewriting it.

As for the issue Aymath raises, we could do this if the earlier material was really considered improper--we often do it for e situations like copyvio. But I think it absurd here--there is nothing wrong with the article as it stands. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff: Online music community

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Online music community – Don't appreciate (especially as this is the talk page content). Has the same problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called attribution as a starting point. It's a notable enough topic in its own right too. Sociomusicology is poorly covered on here, and there is a lot of scholarly material which can be gleaned from the subject.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork. Trout as Gaming the system --Stfg (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to Assume good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. --Stfg (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considered to post a {{Db-a10}} on top, but then it can still be a redirect to the Music community page for the time being. Removed the unnecessary "origin" history from its talk page, by making that a redirect (to the other page's talk page)

Note that if the redirect is undone {{Db-web}} would probably work for the spin-off. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Db-a10 doesn't apply because I have begun adding content to it which isn't in the Music community article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have indented the above discussion, which I think is closed now Online music community redirects to this article. Further comments on this article can be added below. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a separate topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is. Fine to keep it as a section, but I think Aymatth2 is right that it doesn't need further discussion as long as it's a redirect. I've hatted the gory details. --Stfg (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will need a separate discussion, because if the article is kept I intend to revert the redirect. If the article is not kept, that part should be re-started. The suggestion above about Dr.B's lack of good faith is one of the more absurd things I've heard here recently . DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, this version of the article has serious problems: it is an amalgam of case study reports and examples, with some extrapolations not borne out by the sources, without any attempt to present a general approach to what should be the article's subject, and with similar WP:OR issues as its predecessor – on the whole far from what acceptably can be a stub on the topic. So, I oppose resurrecting it, and suggest a similar incubation (and search for more general sources) as has been proposed for the general article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles will always suffer the same problems -- both will inevitably be nothing more than randomly cherry-picked WP:OR WP:SYNTH, and will resemble nothing more than random uncurated essays, no matter what one tries to do with them. Let these things be homework assignments, but please keep them off the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Was inclined to take the same approach after three failed attempts, but think the recommendations posted by Squeamish Ossifrage on Aymatth2's talk page provide a viable path forward. After all, we've had topics with similar difficulties, I'm thinking for instance about the epic struggles to get something reasonable on the topic of classical music, for *exactly* the same reasons (vague concept, difficult to find sources that give a general description of the topic). It's not because it is a topic for which it is more difficult to give a clean description supported by sources, than say for a random asteroid, that Wikipedia should avoid to have an article on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Obviously (Western) classical music is a discrete topic, and one that must, like any major (and most-important) genre of music, be covered by an encyclopedia. Where as these tautological and non-notable subjects subject only to random WP:OR are an anathema to an encyclopedia, in my view. These sorts of articles are exactly the reason that homework assignments are so awful on Wikipedia, and in this case, they weren't even homework assignments. Anyway, these conversations are getting a bit distracting and repetitive, so I've said my peace. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it past WP:GNG is an added concern, true. Would avoid prejudice in either direction about that though, while, true, none of the proposed versions have proven to pass it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rather try to get a grip on the issues that have been raised than replying with "snotty" remarks, eh? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would help if my work wasn't referred to as a "homework assignment". The classical music project in general does display a snotty attitude on wikipedia, a reason why myself or Ser Amantio di Nicalao etc don't want to be a part in it despite an interest.. You put off people by your superciliousness and arrogance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More on Irish music community in the United States here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AfD format - This page is getting messy and the discussion is rambling. AfD discussions are subject to WP:AFDFORMAT. Please stay on topic and follow the format of stating your position, and then stopping. Adding off-topic comments is often considered an attempt to disrupt an AfD. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Its section "General" reasonably proves that the concept is valid and discussed in reliable sources. I disagree with the COATRACK label. There are diverse types of music communities, and trying to write about all of them is clearly not a COATRACK, because these are clearly relevant and not collection of trivia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has changed so much that comments made when the initial AfD was posted may want to be reconsidered. - kosboot (talk) 18:09, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtiar Shabani Varaki[edit]

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

Despite the article's good format, he is not a really notable person. This article has been deleted twice in Persian Wikipedia long ago. (EDIT) And absolutely no results in google news and newspaper, but there are good results in google books. Leyth (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable academics often have little or no coverage in Google news or newspapers. I tidied this article up a bit a couple of months ago and found the subject quite interesting. Varaki's sphere of interest is quite niche but his contribution is considered important as his international approach straddles Western, European and Arabic traditions. The article is reasonably sourced, but I accept that notability is marginal. I cannot comment on the articles that have been deleted from the Persian Wikipedia as the rationales for those deletions are not in English. Poltair (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any WP:NACADEMICS criteria met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep he has many publications on Google Scholar as a famous researcher. In addition to, his activities listed on ORCID number and academic notworks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu. He is a famous academics and researcher in Iran. I did a google search for his Persian name (بختیار شعبانی ورکی) and many pages found about it. Finally, i suggest that his page remain on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.143.248.48 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — 46.143.248.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as lacking google scholar references: most cited paper has 15 cites, which is not even close to what is expected under WP:NACADEMICS. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Publishing a lot of papers merely makes you prolific, not notable. Stuartyeates nailed it, his published material is rarely cited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel X[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is correct. She fails our notability guideline for pornographic actors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total fails the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Renee[edit]

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

Since the SIGNY has no article this fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. The SIGNY Award she won is not well-known. It was argued in the previous AfD that she meets criterion #2 ("has made unique contributions"), but passing semi-RS mentions of her as a bondage favorite are not enough to support this. The only significant independent coverage appears to be the Adult Video News article cited. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Almost all other coverage appears to republished press releases in the porn trade press. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to have reliable sources to support her "unique" contributions to a niche category of pornography. One extensive article in AVN is not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there consensus somewhere that avn.com and Xbiz don't qualify as independent reliable sources for questions of notability? -- Irn (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVN and XBIZ articles should be treated with caution since many of them are republished press releases. That is especially true with releases and event announcements. AVN appears to have one in-depth and independent profile, but that can't establish notability by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k is quite correct. Further, AVN's factchecking, outside of a fairly narrow range of articles focusing on industry operations, can be rather dire. Note, for example, this profile of Tera Patrick[8] (a quite prominent figure), which asserts that "In March 2002 she became the only woman ever to appear on the covers of Penthouse and Playboy simultaneously", which is quite wide of the mark in that 1)February and March are not "simultaneous"; 2)even if they were, it happened, quite famously, with Madonna years earlier. Xbiz is a component of a PR business (Adnet Media), and its editorial independence is dubious (for example, its clients determine the nominations for its awards). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claimed awards fail SNG standards. A single article in a trade magazine falls short or GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:44, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Costello[edit]

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO - scene awards no longer count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:14, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amia Miley[edit]

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

The mainstream appearance is described as a fan film. Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passing mention in a number of news sources (Vanity Fair etc) for roles in a TV show [9] as a major talent in the adult industry [10] and passing mentions for small role in a popular short film [11] Last time I checked fan films dont have their own wikipedia pages Power/Rangers aren't directed by notable directors Joseph Kahn and produced by the backers of major motion pictures Adi Shankar. Also per WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 ('has been nominated for one several times'); awards that are well known and notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages should be well known and significant enough to meet the criteria of 'well known.' Combination of multiple non-in depth mentions and noms meets WP:BIO basic criteria/additional criteria.--Savonneux (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You cannot simply add up a bunch of passing/trivial mentions in sources and declare WP:N to be met, and quite frankly it is embarrassing to see someone put that forth as a genuine argument. A porn industry award is not in any way, shape, or form a "well-known and significant award or honor", so WP:ANYBIO is a failure. Multiple nominations are explicitly ruled out by WP:PORNBIO as well, so as the subject meets none of the project's thresholds of notability, delete. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- PORNBIO doesn't mention nominations. Without mentioning them, it can't explicitly rule them out. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - After extensive discussions and a formal RFC, an "overwhelming consensus"[12] determined that such nominations do not contribute significantly to notability and should be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll admit that I don't have the time to read the whole RFC, but if this edit adequately represents that consensus, then all it's saying is that the nominations themselves are not sufficient to confer notability. That is a far cry from saying that they cannot contribute to notability. If the consensus is that nominations are worthless and should not be considered at all, PORNBIO does not reflect that. -- Irn (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had thought there was wording in Pornbio to reflect the RfC findings, but apparently not. Either way, the end result is the same however we arrive at it; nominations do not count in the slightest towards notability. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Practice in prior PORNBIO revisions has indicated that when a criterion is struck, the factor is simply discounted absent a specific showing that it has led to independent reliable-source coverage. Since the number-of-releases criterion was removed, for example, that factor has consistently been discounted entirely in deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't mean to be singling you out by responding to your comment, and this comment should probably go elsewhere (but where?), but that is a terrible practice. That a small group of people who regularly participate in AFD discussions have a different consensus that goes beyond what is written in the guidelines is anti-transparent and needlessly complicates matters while making it more difficult for other editors to participate in these discussions. -- Irn (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Savonneux.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are plenty of "well-known and significant industry awards" out there, and many of them have Wikipedia articles written about them. The issue though is that apparently the subject here hasn't won any of those awards, and the PORNBIO inclusion standard is intentionally set higher than the ANYBIO standard for a variety of reasons.

FYI, being a FAME Award "Finalist" just means that a performer passed the intial, two-tiered award nomination process that the FAME Awards used to have. It doesn't mean that the performer actually won that award. Quite frankly, I don't know what the "AWMBD" is that's referenced in the article in question here either. Guy1890 (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that any bio can qualify under WP:ANYBIO right? Just because someone is X doesn't mean they are only evaluated on criteria of WP:BIOX. If the inclusion standard for WP:PORNBIO is higher than for WP:ANYBIO there is no call to only use the criteria of PORNBIO, ANYBIO still applies. Hence: any bio.--Savonneux (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of argument that you're apparently trying to advocate for (basically ignoring PORNBIO & trying to use to ANYBIO to evaluate whether or not to keep or delete a pornography-related BLP) has been tried here at AfD in the past and failed many times before. Whether one likes it or not, the PORNBIO inclusion standard has been raised well above the ANYBIO standard over time specifically in order to limit the number of pornography-related BLPs. I'm not saying that I agree with that trend here on Wikipedia, but it exists none-the-less. Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the guidelines for pornographic performers. This person has not won any well known and significant award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No case for meeting PORNBIO. The first True Detective source just recaps the second, and therefore is not cumulative. The principal source reports that she was cast as an extra, providing no substantive biographical information; while slightly better than a passing mention, it's clearly insufficient to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:15, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Love[edit]

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

Insufficient mainstream activity to pass PORNBIO#3 and otherwise fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I could not find a single independent and reliabel source; clearly fails gng as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 15 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joker broadband[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Started little more than one month ago, with no indications that they have yet received any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standard searches did not reveal any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - As you think it is not available in searches but the company founded in rural (outer area of Tier II city) where lot of people lacks internet connection. This company starts it work providing internet everywhere. So this content not to be deleted.User:barnatony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.190.150 (talk)— barnatony (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete - The companies Article found on local newspaper, which is unable to found on the internet. In particular this Company article found on local pages of newspaper, so it can found on those papers only..Naannee (talk) — Naannee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Naannee: If the company is only covered in the pages of the local newspaper, then it hasn't achieved the required level of significant coverage to be considered notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WikiDan61: If it's not notableso we will wait till verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naannee (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eclipsed, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ORG notability criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails the notability criteria for WP:ORG and even it does not meets the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify pending more sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:22, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four corners of the world (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to Four continents: Four continents is the primary topic of this name. All incoming links mean the four continents. There is no article that would discuss the biblical four rivers as a group. See related discussion at User talk:Kwamikagami#Four corners of the world. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Finnusertop's summary is incorrect. At least one incoming link, that from Earth, is ambiguous, and it would be OR to link it to four continents. Even if Finnusertop can find a source that the symbol ⊕ represents Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, there are other references to the four corners of the world predate the discovery of America, where it would be incorrect to rd to 'four continents'. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link at Earth says "Four quadrants of the world" (which is a redirect to Four continents anyway) but is piped to point to Four corners of the world. Not is this only unintuitive use of piped links (WP:EGG) but it's also not an acceptable way to intentionally link to a disambiguation page (WP:INTDAB#When to link to a disambiguation page): You don't link to disambiguation pages if you are unsure — in that case it's probably better to leave the link out altogether. Notwithstanding the link from Earth, all others mean four continents which makes me conclude that this is the primary topic. I reiterate that there isn't even an article for the four rivers, so this disambiguation doesn't disambiguate between two topics.

According to Kwamikagami: "there are other references to the four corners of the world predate the discovery of America, where it would be incorrect to rd to 'four continents'". However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and disambiguation pages in particular are not supposed to differentiate between uses (WP:DABDIC) but different target articles. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Dabs are indexes of existing WP articles, not looking at what a phrase or word might possibly also refer to. There is only one WP article which mentions this phrase listed on this page, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The link to Garden of Eden is invalid as the term is not mentioned on that page (see MOS:D). Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created four corners of the world, since I found a several mythological cosmologies that use this phrase and don't mean the four continents. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tajul muluk also does not mean the four continents. It seems likely that St. Maria Angelica also intends the biblical concept. That is, out of the three actual articles linking here, none of them mean the 'four continents'. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kwamikagami. If we manage to make an article of Four corners of the world, it's a welcome addition and answers the concerns you've presented. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per speedy criterion WP:G6 and per WP:TWODABS, however it appears that nobody notified Niceguyedc, the dab page's creator, about this discussion, and I'm interested in why it was created in the first place. Without knowing the background, when I Google the phrase (with different combinations of words in quotes) I get almost exclusively results for the religious concept (mostly Judeo-Christian but there are others) of the four points of the earth, along with much scholarly commentary on just what the hell that means, but very few results for the Renaissance European view of the four-continent world. This strongly suggests that the primary topic for "four corners of the world" is Kwamikagami's article, not four continents. I agree that the four rivers and Garden of Eden are inappropriate partial-title matches for this dab, which leaves only two entries (TWODABS), and my effort shows that one is clearly the primary topic, so the disambiguation page doesn't need to exist. For users who type one while looking for the other, we have hatnotes. As for why our internal links primarily come from "four continents" topics, that's most likely due to nothing more than the page's historical use as a redirect, and shouldn't be an argument for supporting one primary topic over another. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivanvector: I didn't create it as a disambiguation page. At the time, Four corners of the world was a disambiguation page (permalink), so I created this page as a redirect to the disambiguation page for any intentional links (per WP:INTDABLINK). I have not edited the page since I created it as a redirect. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Other uses are The Four Corners of the World, a Newsletter for Fair Trade Milwaukee, an organisation based in Washington Heights, Milwaukee.Four Corners of the World, an album by jazz / lounge musician Esquivel and "Four Corners Of The World", a song by Big Joe Williams. There's probably a few more. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have found 2 more. One is a record label, 4 Corners Of The World, that released recordings by Françoise Hardy, Gunter-chorus Kallmann and Raymond Le Fevre. And then there is a song "Four Corners Of The World" by Original Crew, a Jamaican group. Released on the Ranking Joe Music label. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these new additions fail WP:DABMENTION. There is no mention of the term in the linked articles and making any assertions regarding these on the disambiguation page amounts to WP:OR. older ≠ wiser 13:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, at least the Esquivel album and the Big Joe Williams song follow common dab conventions of listing not-separately-notable recordings and pointing to the artist. However the others are a stretch. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given Mr Bill Truth's findings above the relist that there are other topics that could be added to this dab, I revise my !vote to keep and add the entries that fit on the page. I still disagree that four continents is the primary topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching the topic definitely doesn't seem to bring up much about "Four Continents." Most of the classical uses seem to refer to the four points of the compass, or the extremities of the world.--Savonneux (talk) 01:39, 14 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future boat developments[edit]

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

The future is subject to speculation and anticipation and can not possibly be described as an encyclopedical fact. Everything substantial in this article is from the present or rather the past, and by the article's title it is suggested that these past events and trends will be carried on into the future. Thus, 100% of this article is speculative and must be removed. Reasons for Deletion: (6) "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"; (14) "content not suitable for an encyclopedia". -- Theoprakt (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a difference between wild speculation and informed predictive analysis. Looking for similar articles, I found List of proposed future transport; there is no shortage of material on future transport and it can be backed up by reliable sources, just as Wikipedia has a huge variety of other articles on future events from science fiction concepts to upcoming elections to cosmological and astronomical happenings to technology that isn't quite ready for the big time, everything from Room-temperature superconductor to 2020 Summer Olympics. There are discussions on the future of boat transport in reliable sources as well as those cited e.g.[13][14][15][16] and it's legitimate to have an article about these. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has enough attribution to reliable sources for me to say keep. The very first one is a BBC article that quotes a maritime professor with a PhD in "engineering and public policy" [17]. I'd consider that person pretty darn reliable for where the maritime industry is trending in the future. For the nominator's second reason, WP:NOTPAPER is enough for me to say keep. There is room in an electronic encyclopedia to keep this article. It would have been suitable for a paper "maritime" encyclopedia, so why not here. People tend to think in terms of Funk & Wagnalls or other home encyclopedias and forgetting the Not Paper guideline. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not question the relevance of innovative technology in this article, as far as it is sourced. What I do question is stringing it together in a random fashion and labeling it as "the future". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future"; "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are inappropriate". Such musings of what may be one day are certainly entertaining and inspiring, but they do have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia, paper or digital. -- Theoprakt (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE array of things that are already covered in other articles, it looks like some student's paper, and contains OR and speculations, with questionable (primary) sources. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 5 August 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) 00:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kraxler. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I can't see how this can become anything more then hodgepodge of various unrelated predictions and speculations.--Staberinde (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as something like Future challenges in nautical design. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP is not a free host for little essays. I doubt that Future challenges in nautical design has any significant coverage in secondary sources. Kraxler (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a hard call as to whether keep the whole thing or split it up into the various extant and sourced technologies. A wholesale delete would be a poor decision. Propose moving to something with less emphasis on predictive/future, since the gist of the article seems to be on fuel consumption and "green" technology how about Green Propulsion Technology (Nautical) or the like. Im not overly familiar with how WikiProject Ships categorizes their articles.--Savonneux (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "delete" !voters don't find fault with the title, they object to the content, citing the pertaining guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTALBALL. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (Rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. All sources cited in article are primary sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found no considerably good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches reveal nothing to support notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BaseThings.com[edit]

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

Standard searches did not reveal any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found no considerably good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this reads like self-promotion and the article offers no reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significance coverage in reliable sources; it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in League[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability outside of the one ranking: can't turn up any sources on it, thus fails WP:WEB. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant coverage does not appear to exist in reliable sources. A high ranking on a poll on a fansite is the closest they have come to establishing notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 07:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to meet the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz al Millat Mufti Abdul Aziz Ashrafi Muhaddith Mubarakpuri[edit]

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

Simple textbook failure of WP:GNG. Like a huge proportion of articles on South Asian Muslim religious figures, this is just a long, poorly written personal reflection essay on a non-notable local cleric the article's author - always a non-native speaker of English who can't write well - admires. Various other peacock terms, honorifics (even in the title) and wondrous anecdotes fit the description of one of these typically disastrous articles on non-notable subjects. As can be seen at the talk page of the article creator, the same individual has already had two other such articles on religious figures from the region deleted, so even the pattern is there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per WP:TNT as a minimum as the current article looks like "hopelessly irreparable". An unsourced, orphan, poorly written and poorly formatted, sometimes obscure essay-like text full of peacockery about this obscure, unverifiable figure who could even be a hoax (no GoogleHits outside a dozen WP mirrors). Cavarrone 09:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article provides no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Searches revealed nothing which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Ferney[edit]

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

Non-notable. Ample opportunity has been given to provide further references. Does not meet any criteria listed at WP:CREATIVE. Shiftchange (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am no poet, nor yet an Aussie; I search for Ferney, here's what I don't see: persuasive sources, article lacks them. My search did find the sources already on page, such as the non-profit, non-bluelinked http://cordite.org.au/tags/liam-ferney/ which interviewed Ferney in 2012 [18]. He once worked for them as an editor, so it may not be quite independent, but the more significant point is how big a deal is this and the other sources? It looks to me as though he had gained some recognition within the apparently very small world of literary poetry in Australia. And I don't think that is quite enough. If you have a way to show that he passes WP:CREATIVE, Flag me to take another look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are either dead links, non-authoritative or written by journal of which subject used to be editor and hence is not neutral. No independent coverage to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete Changing my !vote because, as Rpclod pointed out, this poet did not actually win the award. Without that, the one independent review I found does not seem to be enough to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) -This poet did win a significant national poetry award in 2014, which qualifies him at least for notability in his country as per Wikipedia Any Bio guidelines. He is also reviewed here. I don't think we can expect the same amount of coverage for a poet as for other kinds of 'notables.' ) unsigned comment added by ABF99 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- According to the Wikipedia site for the prize, the subject was on the shortlist for, but did not win, the prize.--Rpclod (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rpclod You are right. I stand corrected. ABF99 (talk) 14:00, 15 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 Follow the money. T. Canens (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money trail[edit]

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

Incoherent personal essay. TiC ^(talk) 04:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fairly widely used term which is used by everyone from Advocacy Organizations, to Journalists, and News Organizations. A quick Google news search shows wide spread use of the term in a large variety of sources. This article needs clean up, not deletion. Winner 42 Talk to me! 06:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Many phrases are widely used. So? Do we need an article explaining what the blame game (far more widespread uses on Google) means? Or propounding on corporate greed? These aren't actual independent subjects. This is an article about money laundering; that's where the concept should be covered.
- 2) Even if you think it's relevant, this article contains nothing salvageable. "Cleanup" means writing a new one. TiC ^(talk) 04:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like an essay, and appears to be original research (and much is unsourced). We already have Follow the money to cover this topic. That article is a bit scant, but more could be added to it. LaMona (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to follow the money to keep all the information in a single article. shoy (reactions) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.--Rpclod (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Follow the money.This could be considered a fork. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Follow the money per shots and Bearian.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Follow the money. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Follow the money per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 19 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 The Pink Panther. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romance of the Pink Panther[edit]

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

The film never entered production. Fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:NFF, an unmade film could still meet WP:GNG, and even with Peter Sellers death causing this one to be abandoned, we do have enough coverage to consider a partial merge and a redirect to some other article. Suggestions? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Peter Sellers~~The Pink Panther; fails WP:NFF, which says that films which have not begun principal photography should not have standalone articles. The mention in the Sellers article is sufficient. Miniapolis 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If merged and redirected, the most appropriate target would be The Pink Panther, which discusses the entire series and could be improved by adding some content about this proposed production. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pink Panther and merge content, film series gives some context.Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Pink Panther, as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:19, 17 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe McConnell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another Page 3 girl with ephemeral coverage at best. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:17, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Gifts Catalogue[edit]

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

An excellent cause for sure but my searches found no considerably good coverage with the best being here (fades by page 3), here (one page, the BBC News is probably the most outstanding from that) and here with browser, highbeam and Newspapers Archive finding nothing. Overall, it simply seems there's nothing to suggest even minimal improvement or moving elsewhere. Not to mention it must not be that commonly known (or at least as obviously known) as this hasn't been heavily edited since inception in October 2007 with maintenance edits here and there. Inviting past editors @Robofish and Mike Rosoft: to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom basically. Don't even remember editing this one. SwisterTwister has made a reasonable effort to find sources, and makes a good case for non-notability. Robofish (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain possibly merge somehow, possibly to an article on the parent organization, Charities Advisory Trust. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking indepedent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Pennsylvania Municipal Management[edit]

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

I was actually going to PROD this but I wanted to let users comment. My searches found nothing convincing and good at all with the best here, here, here (11th from top, "Women Leaders in Bucks County, Pennsylvania: 27 Percent and Counting"), here and here (this last one probably has the most results but nothing significant). This organization is probably somewhat well known locally specifically for people from that field and such. It's worth noting User:Kinggeoian listed this as a possible article of improvement but they haven't been here for the past few years (so I doubt they'll be here to improve it) and there's no good move target so thus nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a directory. Prodding also lets people have a chance to see it--I am however not sure how many people check there--I do, but selectively. I doubt I would have deprodded this, but I do deprod 2 or 3 a day, often BLPprods for which the person is obviously notable and it is easy to find a ref. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 19 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 History of the Philippines (1521–1571). Any useful content may be merged at editorial discretion from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Europeans in the Philippines[edit]

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

This fringe-theory article is based on a single source, and even that one source is more than shaky: "[...] it is quite likely that some other Portuguese ship on the China voyage had called before at the Luções [...]". So that's supposed to be enough for Wikipedia to rewrite history books? To me this looks no less fringy than Menzies' 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, which, of course we also do not consider a source credible enough to overrule all other history books. bender235 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Regardless of fringiness, it is plainly original research which really would be no more than a paragraph in history of the Philippines in any case. Seyasirt (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do not regard this as fringe, not is the book on 1421 fringe. The two sources cites are chronicles from the period, which are primary sources, and as such WP:RS. This is thus NOR original research in WP terms. I do not like the present title. Europeans in the Philippines before Magellan might be better. Nevertheless, I have grave doubts as to whether the subject is significant enough to merit an article. We are probably never going to get more than the two quotes, because that is the whole of the evidence. Possibly merge somewhere. This issue is that the Pope divided the world down the Atlantic into Spanish and Portuguese zones, without realising that the world was round and they would meet on the other side of the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menzies' 1421 clearly is fringe, and is universally regarded as such in academia see Finlay (2004). And as for the Philippines article, the quote from Tomé Pires says no more about the “Luções” than Marco Polo reports about “Zipangu.” Just as Polo hasn't actually been to Japan, Pires' quote doesn't imply any European sailor has been to the Philippines. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Of course Menzies is fringe (well, more like fiction), but this article does not cite Menzies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of the Philippines (1521–1571). I find that some of the information on the article may be useful in a section on early European expeditions to/or sightings of the Philippines prior to the Spanish discovery under Magellan. However, as there is no solid proof presented that the Pires expedition actually did land on one of the islands (not merely sighting them as the Portuguese also did during the Colonial history of the United States#Early colonial failures, the entire article's lead is therefore WP:OR and should be scrapped .--RioHondo (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did an edit of the lede to remove the simplistic claims, but it is an interesting question, one asked about all of the "new" lands of the Age of Discovery. I think we can have an article that provides what is known about the first contact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Since when does a vague unsourced speculation merit its own Wikipedia article? What's next? Do we create articles like this for every part of the world? First Europeans in Argentina, First Europeans in Australia, ... it's absurd. At the very, very, very top this deserves one sentence in History of the Philippines and that's it. --bender235 (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not objecting to a merge, I just want to point out that WP is filled with just such articles as User:Bender235 mockingly imagines; many of them are rather well sourced: List of Westerners who visited Japan before 1868, Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia, Papar, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories. There are probably others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by RioHondo. This has a lot of OR in it, but could be useful as a section at History of the Philippines (1521–1571). WP:FRINGE does not require deletion, but only that WP:UNDUE not be accorded. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 14 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrashekar swamiji[edit]

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

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

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

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

Promotional article of a lesser known person, a couple of primary links and a lot of fluff and praise. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the gold issue and police raid that is reported a couple of places, I still don't think he is notable even if the article would be rewritten neutrally. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Chandrashekar swamiji is a International Vastu Consultant and Scientific Astrologer. Visit his website to know more about his achievement and social activities [Articles http://chandrashekarswamiji.com/#!/media]. He is official Vastu consultant to World Trade Centre (WTC) which is been rebuilt after terrorist attack September 11,2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.106.36 (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet general notability criteria, seems like the sources have mentioned him as pass by and does not stress any notability Shrikanthv (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:G11 else WP:BLOWITUP if he somehow meets GNG. - The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've gutted the article to remove most of the promotional terminology, and having searched for sources, I reckon there's just about enough out there to warrant an article. It seems pretty borderline, though, and could do with some attention from editors who know more about Inidan topics than I do. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sri Chandrashekar swamiji spreading true essence of Indian heritage through Vasthu and Jyothishya consultancy to the world. Common People like me were aware of his achievements at international level and his social service activities across Karnataka state only through regional news papers. Surprisingly found all those Karnataka regional articles at one place on search [Articles http://chandrashekarswamiji.com/#!/media] as proof. In my opinion he deserves to take position in Wikipedia for his notable achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PradeepKamath025 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FRINGEBLP, any biography of a living person who advocates fringe theories must be written in a scrupulously neutral fashion, and must summarize what high quality reliable, independent sources say about the person. We have no such coverage available about this astrologer, so the topic is not notable and the article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coming back to this, two of the keep comments are single focus users regarding this article Contributions/PradeepKamath025 and 14.141.106.36 both with glaring WP:COI issues if you review their contributions. That only leaves the single weak keep comment from User:Yunshui all else that has no COI is leaning delete. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cullen328.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZhenFund[edit]

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

Not notable. Just like the article on one of the founders, Victor Wang (Angel Investor) (afd), created by the same SPA, there is a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. A look at the current sourcing: TechNode, tech blog with rehash of a routine press release; crunchbase, database listings; zh.wikipedia.org, openly collaborative wiki encyclopedia, not a reliable source; Baidu Baike, openly collaborative wiki encyclopedia, not a reliable source; Bloomberg, about another company, doesn't mention ZhenFund; Forbes Magazine, about another company, doesn't mention ZhenFund; PRNewswire, enough said; ZhenFund, not independent. See also Bob Xu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Xu and Qiang (Victor) Wang. This is just poorly sourced promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article. Junk sources like Crunchbase, PR Newswire, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well as my searches found nothing better than what I mentioned at Bob's AfD. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Xu[edit]

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

Not notable. Just like the articles on his company, ZhenFund (afd, and it's other founder, Victor Wang (Angel Investor) (afd, both created by the same SPA, there is a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. A look at the current sourcing. zh.wikipedia.org and Baidu Baike are openly collaborative wiki encyclopedias, not a reliable sources. Forbes is just a listing. crunchbase is just a database listing. celeb.uname.cn is listing on a celebrity website, not a reliable source. newss.qq.com is a short 3 sentence mention, lacks any depth of coverage. This is just poorly sourced promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better, here, here, here and here. CorporateM Maybe you missed it but this AfD was mentioned at ZhenFund's AfD, maybe you'd like to comment (simply for consistency)? SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly promotional No opinion on notability, which is hard to assess when the sources are in another language. But there is not a sufficient amount of well-sourced, encyclopedic content in the current article for there to be anything worth keeping here. CorporateM (Talk) 06:06, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkala Stott[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantive independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:13, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Karson[edit]

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

Scene award only and the usual non-meaningful sourcing means this BLP fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine failure to satisfy SNG/GNG standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:17, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Phillip Almanza[edit]

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

Subject of article seems fairly unremarkable with poorly sourced material. Additionally, the article seems to have been created by the subject himself, judging by his post to Instagram: http://instagram.com/p/5xTPGmqHoq/?taken-by=andrewalmanzaaa Aus0107 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's all basically self-generated with not even an IMDb and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:01, 13 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 Rewilding. Any useful content can be merged from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness engineering[edit]

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

Appears to be a made up term verging on WP:NEO and self promotion. Can't find much about this on the web appears to beyond what the author has created - most of the 221 Google hits are for a company with the same name. Maybe redirecting to Rewilding would be appropriate. reddogsix (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rewilding. That is the more established term and they seem to be the same thing. Borock (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilderness engineering should be kept as a separate entity from Rewilding as they are two two distinct forms of conservation! Rewilding seeks to leave nature to its own in order for nature to "restore itself", while Wilderness engineering seeks to restore a lost ecosystem by means of manual recreation (be that replanting an entire forest of introducing seemingly exotic ecological equivalents of lost fauna)! User:Jason-Luiz_Mendez (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2015 (CET) — Jason-Luiz_Mendez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - What you fail to address is the article lacks support and notability. Additionally, the article is self promotion for the author. reddogsix (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 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 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete The term "wilderness engineering" more or less belongs to the Boy Scouts: do a GBook search and you will get a lot of hits on Boys Life articles mixed in with a bunch of accidental juxtapositions. This article's use is a neologism which is manifestly promotional. Seyasirt (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any substantial content with Rewilding. This is even the term used in the article.Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 15 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Patterson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. These references do not establish notability. Probable WP:COI. ubiquity (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no objection to draft/userfy if needed but my searches found nothing good to suggest improvement or better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above. Searches did not turn up anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 20 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 Spywatch. Been up 3 weeks and don't see much point dragging it on so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Pickard[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 18:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spywatch as that seems to be his best known work with my searches finding nothing particularly good aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:56, 13 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) Esquivalience ^t 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Giesbrecht[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an academic, written very much like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article (see, in particular, the section which attempts to list every individual media appearance he ever made as a commentator) and resting almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage. He might certainly qualify to keep a properly written and properly sourced article, but no Wikipedia inclusion criterion ever confers an exemption from our content policies — as written, in fact, this technically qualifies as a G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) speedy, with the fact that the article is about two years old already being the only reason I'm taking it to AFD instead of pulling the speedy trigger. Delete unless the article can be rewritten in a properly sourced manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs cleanup (e.g. the section filled with non-notable awards should just be deleted) but with a clear area of expertise (medical effects of coldness), multiple academic publications with over 100 citations each (in Google scholar), a book with multiple published reviews ([19] [20]) and in-depth popular-press coverage in multiple sources (the Outside Magazine reference and this syndicated LA Times article) I think he has a good claim to WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC. He is widely cited in his field. Article needs cleanup, but this isn't a reason for deletion. Due diligence not performed. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:14, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1943 Skwentna earthquake[edit]

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

This one cannot be expanded into a meaningful, comprehensive, and encyclopedic article. The event's effects were minimal (intensity V) and don't align with articles that we keep and expand. This event was not studied (probably due to World War II and lack of damage/injuries). Dawnseeker2000 13:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – We don't keep articles about earthquakes where the only effects are "moved doors" and "rattled windows" (regardless of magnitude). The intensity on this one speaks volumes. It was a maximum of V (Moderate) on the Mercalli intensity scale. Unimpressive. There are also no scientific articles dedicated to it. World War II was taking place so I think that may have had some impact with the lack of write-ups on this event. If there were aspects of the event that seismologists wrote about, then yes, we would consider using their reports as sources for adding detail, but keeping this kind of article around in its current condition is a disservice to our readers. They don't want to click a link only to find that there's nothing known about this M7.4 shock except the minimal effects. I don't recommend redirecting either. This event does not qualify to be on our list articles because it's just not notable. I can tell you that there has been great effort (by non-WikiProject Earthquakes editors) put into our list articles, with entries for every ~M6 and above event that's known about (just like this one) but in the long run those list articles are going to be pared down (heavily) to include only notable events. Dawnseeker2000 21:01, 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 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comment. Just doesn't pass notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 20 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. The GNG argument was unrebutted. T. Canens (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Perera[edit]

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

Clearly doesn't comply with WP:NMOTORSPORT, in that he has never competed in any notable national or international races Dan arndt (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, subject is a motor car champion from a 20 plus million populated country. True he hasn't participated for Indy Car racing. Article will be further improved in future.DilJco (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC) User:DilJco is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]
Comment - DilJco the criteria for WP:NMOTORSPORT are as follows:

Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship isn't.
Predate the sharp distinction between professional and amateur (prior to World War II).
Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans).
Have owned or been team principal for a team in a major racing series (NASCAR Sprint Cup, Formula One, IndyCar, A1GP, CART, IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Sprint Cup crew chiefs.
Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame.
Founded, owned, or managed any notable professional racing series.
Designers or engineers who have been covered extensively by the media or motorsports historians.
Hold or have held a significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record.

There is no sources provided that indicate Perara satsfies any one of those criteria. Dan arndt (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- Chamith (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG, see Revving for supremacy (a mention, in The Sunday Island, 2001); Yoga Perera - Mini car champion driver and Go-kart champion (in the Daily News, 2005); Yoga Perera Champion Driver in Mini (in The Island, 2010); Yoga Perera - Sri Lanka’s car racing legend (in the Daily News, 2011); winning races at the KATUKURUNDA ROTHERHAM CIRCUIT MEET 2008, the ROTHERHAM KATUKURUNDA CIRCUIT MEET - 2012 and the Rotherham Katukurunda Circuit Meet 2014 (that's fairly low level for NMOTORSPORT, but adds to GNG), and there's probably more. Kraxler (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G. D. L. Perera[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to comply with WP:FILMMAKER, or at least none of the references provided appear to support the claim of notability Dan arndt (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More likely Delete for now as my searches found this and this but this would need attention from someone familiar and access to possibly unavailable sources. Some of the sources I found suggest he may be somewhat well known locally and such but I'm not sure if there's any of the needed improvement at this time. I'd be open to draft/userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rukshan Widyalankara[edit]

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

The article appears to be a resume written by someone in close connection to the subject (WP:PROMO). It also doesn't appear to satisify WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE. Dan arndt (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the provided references are reliable, but they do no more than briefly mention the subject as the president/architect/etc. Good for verification, not good for meeting WP:GNG. The Awards are relatively minor, and being the first Sri Lankan president of the CAA isn't a serious achievement in my mind given his previous success on the committee. As for the text itself, I concur that it's quite promotional and would need a rewrite to remove weasel words and vague language (e.g. "several buildings of note"). Primefac (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis being both president of the SLIA and the CAA gives him a certain profile beyond the average architect. Though (as Primefac says) many news articles only mention him briefly, there are several that profile him, his life and achievements. The article needs clean-up but not deletion. Sionk (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sionk: - even the inaugural president of the SLIA or the CAA don't have articles, if Widyalankara had won the The Robert Matthew Award or something similar there may be a case to argue. As indicated all the references cited are just brief mentions in passing - none of which establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are notable for one major event or achievement, others for lesser achievements which, nonetheless, add up. I don't really put any weight on his student achievemtns, but if he won the Young Architect of the Year Award and awards for buildings he designed, it certainly suggests he meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sionk: - none of the references cited provide any evidence that he actually won 'Young Architect of the Year', apart from a statement by Widyalankara saying he did. There really should be reliable sources provided if the subject of the article is deemed to be notable. Almost all the references cited just mention him in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject need not necessarily be the recipient of the World Architect award to be recognised.DilJco (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC) User:DilJco is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT[reply]

Comment - there should be some indication as to what Widyalankara has done that is notable. Certainly winning or even been nominated for a notable architecture prize would go a long way to establishing notability. Widyalankara clearly wasn't the first architect to be the president of the SLIA or CAA. I can't even find any evidence that when he was the president he achieved anything notable on behalf of the association. Dan arndt (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just because one is dumb it is unwise to assume that others are dumberDilJco (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 13 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 23:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Wilson[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and thus unsuitable. The subject is an associate professor but does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR necessary to establish notability in lieu of sources. Googling turned up nothing suitable. Article has been tagged for over a year. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ACADEMIC #5 - distinguished professor at a major university. Morever, there are more sources in journals I don't currently have access to but intend to add eventually. But still, holding a distinguished professor appointment at a major university is enough to keep, since academic primary sources can be assumed to be reliable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. From the cited WP:ACADEMIC, Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. The subject is not a full professor, she is only an associate professor (c.f., her CV and her department listing), which is a very different place in the academic food chain. In addition, her work has not been highly cited. Her Google scholar page shows only 511 citations; her most-cited paper has only 86 citations. In academia, a widely-cited paper is generally understood to be one that received over 1000 citations. And to reach full-professor, an associate professor usually needs 1000 overall (c.f., "The Single Number that Best Predicts Professor Tenure".) There's simply no evidence this individual passes the "Average Professor Test". Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that a "widely-cited paper is ... over 1000 citations" may hold in some disciplines, but there are disciplines in which 100-200 cites is a lot -- it depends on the size of the discipline and the publication frequency within it. For example, disciplines like theology or classical studies have small numbers of scholars period, so citation numbers are often not terribly large. I don't know what the pattern is for philosophy, but I wouldn't want others perpetuating the idea that 1K is some kind of minimum. As with most WP guidelines, there is a huge amount of "it depends" that makes a numeric evaluation quite difficult. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Lebowitz Prize is a pretty big deal in the philosophical world, with $30K check and sources here and here to establish that; it is for "celebrated philosophers for their excellence in thought". While Wilson doesn't get much news coverage, and it is hard to get secondary sources describing what her impact is, in the philosophical world (why my vote is a "weak keep") and while much of this work in metaphysics is highly technical and abstruse and almost might be, shall we say, doomed intellectually to be dull and unproductive, still, it is an important subject (in my view). But there aren't many references to support a WP:GNG. Still, she's clearly a smart cookie, although I'd bet a cold beer that her understanding of how to square 'free will' with determinism is not as good as my understanding -- not her fault, shall I say, since she was not schooled in the best university in the world as I have been and continue to study. Her Google scholar citations number 511, her h-index is strong at 11, the i10 index respectable at 12. That said, the article should be trimmed way back; if it stays, I'll try, so closing admin write something on my talk page if the article stays.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- She has a significant body of work. The frequency of appearances in citation calculations will vary considerably from subject to subject. She is clearly rather more than a run-of-the-mill lecturer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, no doubt a very she's very clever philosopher, but I bet my understanding of a cold beer is much deeper than hers. Le petit fromage (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. In any case, she's accomplished more than have of academics. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 14 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palki (2016 film)[edit]

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

Likely WP:TOOSOON and fails GNG, if someone can find better sourcing then go for it, but I couldn't in my cursory search. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment: Apparently in post production, if we find suitable coverage, we'd have a meeting of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From what I understand, passing WP:NFF is not a pass for notability, post-production films still need to pass GNG or do they only need to pass WP:NFILM? Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, for a film not-yet-released, if it's production has coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3) then we'd have a meeting of WP:NF... and we do allow articles for such if inclusion criteria are met. So if this filmed project has the requisite coverage, it can have an article. If not, then no. I might take a look myself when I get back from work today. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt is correct; a film that is still in production or post-production for a future release can pass our notability rules for films if adequate RS coverage is there to support the article. It certainly doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie if the article is completely unsourced as this is, but a film that's already been released doesn't get that either — but our notability rules for films hinge on the sourcing, not the release date. That said, this is a completely unsourced article as things currently stand. So while I'm willing to reconsider this if adequate sourcing shows up before closure, for the moment it's a delete without prejudice against recreation if and when the available sourcing gets better. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Palki

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Palkhi

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with Delete until filming is confirmed AND it gains coverage to meet WP:NFF. Being "too soon" does not mean forever, only that the article is premature. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:29, 16 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 Circumcision. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncircumcised[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In August 2005, this article was nominated for deletion, with the result being keep/merge to circumcision (whatever that means). It was redirected, but apparently having it split satisfied no one, because there have been spontaneous edit wars happening on and off ever since.

Most recently, today, JohnPRsrcher converted into a poorly referenced stub that makes some controversial claims that need better referencing. We got into dispute over this, and I've taken it here.

As it stands, I support redirecting to/merging with Circumcision, as I believe that anything of significance that could be covered here would just as relevant there. You can also make the argument that the title conflicts with WP:NAD. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the development of the uncircumcised page. The circumcision page represents the benefits of circumcision but does not represent the benefits of being uncircumcised.

JohnP (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true — which it isn't, as there's a whole section in that article on the adverse effects of circumcision — then the solution would be to add the relevant information to that article, not to create a separate article on "uncircumcised" as if it were a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Circumcision Unless this article could be expanded with cited, verifiable, and useful information to justify its own page, having the "lack" of something as its own page is ridiculous and above all unencyclopedic. We don't have a page for "Not-Tattooed" or "Not-Pierced" so why would we have a page solely dedicated to this "lack of" body modification? Jcmcc (Talk) 00:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a dictionary. All the possibly relevant information is/can be added to Circumcision.--Savonneux (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and leave it at that, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a dictionary definition, which has no need of standing alone as a separate article from the one on circumcision — any valuable information that's missing about the state of being uncircumcised can be easily added to that article. Redirect per everybody who isn't this article's creator. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing here is that it may be impossible to add information about the uncircumcised state to the circumcised page due to the controversial nature of the page. I have tried multiple times to add info about being uncircumcised but have had my edits deleted due to preconceived bias from the editors. They told me that the circumcision page should be all about circumcision.JohnP (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not a criteria in deletion discussions. Try WP:DRN.--Savonneux (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page does look insufficient as currently written, but there may exist sufficient material for someone who wants to integrate it into the page. For example, there is an enormous industry and interest in uncircumsized penis porn, which would be strange to include on the circumcision page, but would be logical here. !!!!

Redirect to Circumcision - As it stands the article isn't brilliant and seeing as Circumcised redirects there it kinda makes sense to redirect this one too. –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiny Landkroon[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, my sweeps of Dutch news came up blank, as well as US and international news.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing at all to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Swan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No claim of notability. No reliable sourcing. Virtually all content is unsourced and lacks encyclopedic value. Previously deleted uncontroversially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Defi, but recreated by an SPA under an alternate namewith an atrocious text. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:07, 17 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliever hub[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication or evidence of notability. Article is basically a definition of a term about aviation, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and if found to be of any note can just be added to Airline hub. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be deleted immediately, it should be merged with the Airline Hub article Nrwairport (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to show notability on searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 20 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 The Polyfuze Method. This article's more or less the same as "Prodigal Son" so redirecting per this discussion (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U Don't Know Me (Kid Rock song)[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONGS - lacks coverage in independent sources, didn't chart or receive any awards or notable reviews Flat Out (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:15, 13 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 The Polyfuze Method. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigal Son (Kid Rock song)[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONGS - lacks coverage in independent sources, didn't chart or receive any awards or notable reviews Flat Out (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Agree with the nominator here. As always, non-notable songs on notable albums should be redirected to the album article; here, that's The Polyfuze Method. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. All info is included in Polyfuze Method article already. Fuzchia (talk) 19:22, 18 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 per WP:SNOW. No sense dragging this out for a few more days. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine Nation[edit]

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

This is an anti-vaccine propaganda film which has not been covered in any depth in reliable independent sources, the sources originally in the article included things like the National Vaccine Information Center, a totally unreliable source. The film itself is a load of nonsense, but there is so little coverage of it in the reality-based media that there is basically nothing we can say about it other than that it exists. The remaining sources are essentially a directory entry and a non-notable award listing. A search for better sources finds none. It's promoted by whale.to,. Mercola and a dozen other whacknut anti-science, anti-vaccine sites, but there is no evidence of any substantive discussion in anything approaching a dependable source. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Lack of coverave in reputable nonopartisan sources makes in impossible to write a reliable article. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For not remotely meeting WP:NFILM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and redirect' - Like the majority of Null's films, this fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM and WP:NFRINGE. Suggest a redirect to Gary Null. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. as with other Null films, independent evidence of notability is lacking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. Could not find any reliable sources covering this film. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy any of the criteria at WP:Notability (films). Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect after deletion to Gary Null. The topic of perceived issues with vacciations has received coverage, but Null's 2008 dcumentary really has not. As it is sourcable as his, we can at least send readers to the filmmaker's article even if the film itself does not merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:07, 14 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeyondLisbon[edit]

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

Promotional article about a trademark. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:25, 13 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 (withdrawn). See [21]. Reyk _YO! 10:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Jerusalem tractor attack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated twice (the last time by a sock), and both times it was "no consensus". The early noms were both close to the date of the attack. Now that a year has passed, we can judge the matter more easily. The arguments based on WP:NOTNEWS are validated. I can't find a mention, even a trivial or in passing one, for this in 2015. There is no "lasting impact" for this, geographically, or as catalyst for something else, so WP:EVENT applies. The WP:DIVERSE argument is very weak because all the diverse sources are simply about a news story, and do not discuss this after the initial period. Most of the sources cited are Israeli and/or Jerusalem-based. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, per comments below. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and several other found in Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic into a common article (or articles by year). There is nothing specific that warrants in individual article, and, besides the detail of incident, they are rather repetitive: "Netaniahu said this", there were 360 more attacks, etc. etc. For example 2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack already describes 4 various ramming attacks, the first one in detail, thee more as "Aftermath". - üser:Altenmann >t 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this has already been the topic of two previous discussions, I'll limit my comments to the new arguments brought forth by the current nominator.
- 'I can't find a mention, even a trivial or in passing one, for this in 2015' - this is probably the result of a half hearted search attempt. My own simple searches conducted today for a few minutes resulted in this example from 2015: The lone wolf finally comes to India. This not only shows lasting coverage (2105) but is important in two other respects: it reinforces the WP:DIVERSE argument (Indian sources, coverage far beyond the local region), as well as WP:PERSISTENCE - the event is cited as a case study for a phenomena of 'lone-wolf terrorist', alongside other high-profile and clearly notable events like the Boston Marathon bombing, which meets "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." This aspect of the attack ("Lone wolf") was also mentioned, months after the attack, in another 2015 article about lone wolf terrorism, in a major British newspaper What is behind Israel's spate of 'lone wolf' terror attacks?. It was also highlighted in an Haaretz article, months later, dedicated to the 'lone-wolf' phenomena: The Dangerous, Unpredictable Anomaly of East Jerusalem. Again, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE
- 'There is no "lasting impact" for this, geographically, or as catalyst for something else' - this, again, is false. The above example shows geographical dispersion, and as an example being a catalyst for something else, I'll present the following two source, from months after the event:
  - IDF demolishes home of terrorist behind light rail attack in J'lem - this article , dated more than 3 months after the initial coverage died down, cites the event as one in a series of attacks that caused the Israeli government to reverse a long-standing policy of refraining from executing house demolitions, and renew them in Jerusalem ("This is the first demolition carried out by the IDF on the home of a terrorist in East Jerusalem...Netanyahu gave the order to demolish the homes of the terrorists involved in the attack. Similar orders were given following other attacks that took place recently, but were not executed,")
  - Army to Demolish East Jerusalem Home of 'digger Attack' Terrorist's Family - similar to the above.
  - Court suspends home demolition of would-be assassin - (This, incidentally is the THIRD 2015 mention of the event.)
  - Court suspends razing of home of Palestinian shooter (and this is the FOURTH 2015 mention, Kingsindian. This is the difference between a half hearted attempt at finding (or rather NOT finding) sources, vs., a serious one seeking to find coverage)
  - Israel to raze homes of Palestinian attackers in J'lem - Palestinian press coverage
  - US condemns terrorist home demolition directive - ties this event to previous terrorist activities by members of same family
- Another example of WP:PERSISTENCE are the following three articles
  - Terrorism with an Israeli ID card
  - FEAR THY NEIGHBOR
  - both of these are months after the initial coverage has died down, and both cite this event as a case study, in two different articles devoted to the phenomena of terrorism by Arab residents of Israel who have greater freedom of movement and easier access to both 'weapons' and targets as a result of having an Israeli ID card. The second article shows geographical diversity and impact (US/Los Angeles based news magazine). The first article was picked up by multiple foreign sources s well ([22],[23], [24]). Again this is text-book WP:PERSISTENCE - "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance."
- The event is also mentioned in subsequent reports about different attacks, of a similar nature - see e.g [25]
- Finally, there is another notable aspect of this event that resulted in subsequent coverage- in an amazing display of chutzpa, the family members of the the murdering terrorist are actually suing the Israeli police for damages, with a bizarre theory that he was killed for no reason, and that subsequently his dead body managed to work the controls of the tractor and to flip the bus over, and this case wound its way to the Israeli supreme court, resulting in multiple stories in the Israeli press and international Jewish press, for example:
In short, there is clearly demonstrated WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Dyer's comments unfortunately do not add up to his conclusion. Congratulations to him in finding a single trivial and brief mention in report in a random Indian e-magazine, but that does not translate to WP:DIVERSE (do you know how many e-magazines exist in India?). I have no idea what that magazine is and what its editorial policies are. The telegraph source is fine, but it is again a very brief and passing mention, together with 11 other attacks. I notice that he has not mentioned any other source in 2015, probably because he couldn't find any. I would be happy to be proved wrong. The brief and trivial mention is the opposite of a case study which he states.

Secondly, many of his sources are trash. IsraelHayom.com and IsraelNationalNews.com (Arutz Sheva) have been repeatedly rejected as non-RS in this area. I have no idea what WinstonIsraelNews.com, or Brabosh.com are, but they are certainly not WP:RS. He even linked to a post on a random message forum. "Wtf?" is my only reply to that.

The non-trash sources are simply some Israeli and/or Jerusalem-based newspaper sources from 2014 which tangentially mention the attack during some other terrorist attack. This does not in any way meet the requirements for WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DIVERSE, and fails WP:NOTNEWS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would carry more weight if you used a little less hyperbole and a lot more accuracy in making them. Governance Now is not just an e-Magazine, but a bi-weekly print magazine. The article I found on-line was also published in the January 1-15, 2015, print issue, as is clearly stated at the bottom of the story. Saying ' finding a single trivial and brief mention', when you know very well that I found two 2015 mentions is disingenuous, at best.

Israel Hayom is the largest circulation Israeli daily. It employs some of Israel's best known and respected journalists, including Dan Margalit (politics) , Yoav Kutner (music), Boaz Bismuth (international news), Shlomo Scharf (sports). Saying that it is "trash" reveals that you are clueless abut Israel Hayaom, and probably not fully aware of the requirements for reliable sources. It is false that it was found as non-RS. There is certainly a large contingent of editors going around claiming that Arutz 7 is not reliable, because it presents the viewpoint of a certain segment of Israeli society whose politics they don't like, but there has never been a policy-based determination at WP:RSN , by disinterested editors, that it is not a reliable source. The above is a great example of a Red herring, since the sources I found include The Telegraph, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post and Ynet - all unquestionably reliable sources. They covered the event months after initial coverage died down and used it as a case study for showing trends (terrorism by Israeli ID-carrying Arabs) or phenomena (lone wolf terrorism), exactly as WP:PERSISTENCE requires. They subsequently covered other aspects of this case - such as the court action undertaken by the terrorist's family, or the destruction of their home, something you somehow overlooked. This article clearly and unambiguously meets and exceeds WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reject many of your arguments, however, the angle about resumption of house demolition as a result of this (and other) attacks is persuasive. I did not know about this, nor is it present in the article, but your sources about this, together with an Amnesty International report here also mentioning this (not by name, but the date August 4 matches). That certainly qualifies as "lasting impact", so I will withdraw this nomination. Thanks. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, as testified to by no less than 32 sources, and also because it is part of the "Prominent terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s" template. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sourcing, notability through WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 13 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 A10 by RHaworth. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ஆத்திசூடி[edit]

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

Unsourced (presumably) chapter list, no evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete not an article. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect to Aathichoodi. That article is in rough shape, too, but there is some discussion of this in Tamil literature studies, so I think it can be salvaged with a little work by someone with access to the appropriate sources. This version, which can qualify as an A10 speedy, not so much. I'm uncertain whether it is correct to redirect because the Tamil title is given differently in the two articles (ஆத்திசூடி vs. ஆத்திச்சூடி) and I am not qualified to discern if one is incorrect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 13 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 Deleted (A10) by RHaworth.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Territory of the Republic of China[edit]

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

Ryk72 requested speedy deletion (CSD A10). But I think this is important article. Korean and Chinese wikipedia have this article. Skirtland (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Move (without leaving a redirect) to Territorial claims of the Republic of China, expand. there is more to write here. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Move (without redirect) per Altenmann. This is an excellent suggestion, which resolves the concerns of duplication & WP:POVFORK with the article at the current location. I extend a personal thanks to Altenmann for their wisdom. As the initial WP:CSD proposer, I would be happy to speedy close this discussion if the move suggested is performed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion should be closed immediately because user Skirtland is not the nominator for the deletion. STSC (talk) 11:32, 16 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 00:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Institute of Medical Sciences[edit]

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

This article is about an institute but it's written like an advertisement. Ayub407 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- Recognised degree-awarding institution. On Wikipedia we invariably keep these. Promotional is not valid reason, when it can be cleaned up. Thanks — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update- Promotional contents has been removed. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply because the sources seem to suggest GNG and overall acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eiuolz Urbano[edit]

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

It looks like Louieurbano is promoting himself through this article. Therefore, this is a violation of WP:COI. the enjay 36 10:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PR promotion; not notable as stand alone; could briefly mention in The Voice of the Philippines article. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the fans club leader/singer admirer. Since when is being part of a studio audience for a TV show a profession or occupation? Hehe--RioHondo (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. This article has been created by someone closely associated with the subject, and made it look like a fanpage. -WayKurat (talk) 10:45, 16 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lewis (musician, entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable. Fails GNG and NMUSIC. Quis separabit? 21:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as my searches found nothing to suggest better sources and improvement with the best results being this. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to be notable based on the sources provided. Propreantepenultimate (talk) 08:15, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Reason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer fails same criteria as previously in 2009. Has not played at a fully-professional level of football, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also a lack of any significant media interest beyond routine match reports/transfer articles etc, means he fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 09:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly below the level of accepted WP-notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:NFOOTY as well as WP:GNG. I don't see anything to indicate notability. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of other Eastleigh F.C. players have articles and Jai Reason is a key player. National media has covered him and matches in this division now often appear on national television on BT Sport. This would be a deletion for the sake of deletion.Subtlemammoth (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this would more be deletion because he doesn't meet any notability guideline if that is the way this discussion goes. The other players at Eastleigh who have WP articles have them because they have previously played at a higher level and at least meet WP:NFOOTY because of this. The fact that conference football is shown on television is not a rationale for keeping a specific player article from a conference team. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rakshit Tandon[edit]

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

Similar to the previous “expert” we visited, this one too fails WP:GNG. Most newspaper article are just passing mentions of him. There were fake claims that he delivered speech/conducted conference in UN. But it happened to be some other international group which is connected with UN or something such. Also, the article has been stuffed back with trivial places he has spoken at and these are all cited with primary sources. Note: Before you throw a Google search or Google news search link here at AfD, please trying opening those links and reading through them before and point to us what notable aspect can be added in the article. As already accepted, he has trivial passing mentions in news and being related to web world, getting things published shouldn’t be a big deal for the subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been looking at this article for a while now trying to find some reasonable sources. The author doesn't make it easy by repeatedly spamming it with quotes, conference attendances, and other associated puffery. While there are quotes from him in many places and he's attended conferences, there's no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. The quoting on the internet and ghits is what you'd expect for someone in this field, after all it's all cyber space stuff. Given the lack of reliable source coverage about the subject, the article should be deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 09:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person Facebook page is verified by Facebook which is done by Facebook manually and is done only for highly notable persons. Also [26] From Maharashtra Government Website and [27] From United Nations Website. A speaker from Defcon [28], The Brand Ambassador of IAMAI Safe Surfing Initiative [29] and Speaker for European Commission [30] and [31] Representing India For Safer Internet which focuses clearly on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All primary sources as always and no secondary or tertiary coverage of Tandon. These only prove that he spoke at these places and who knows what he spoke. Had he been speaking something worth noting, newspapers like The Hindu, Hindustan Times or even TOI would have bothered to write about him. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and SpacemanSpiff. Searches do not show any notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FirstStep[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a project started in 2015 in University of Sydney's startup program University of Sydney Union - INCUBATE. Seems like an attempt to promote a non-notable product. Sjö (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. DGG I feel this would interest you and you would provide assistance. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete article is overly promotional and coverage is narrow. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and promotional. Most of the references ar eabout financial literacy, not the specific subject. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Patrick Davis[edit]

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

Bio for non-notable actor, written by his promoters. damiens.rf 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 08:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (and draft & userfy) - I saw this when first nominated but wanted to wait for others to comment but as nobody has, I'd say delete for now as although he's had quite a few acting roles, there's nothing to suggest blossoming notability and the best I found overall was this (for the plays). SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Programme (NERIT)[edit]

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

Short-lived and were replaced. Deletion of Greek edition of this article is also in progress. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 08:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 08:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Programme (NERIT)[edit]

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

Short-lived and were replaced. Deletion of Greek edition of this article is also in progress. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 08:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 18 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 Redirected to New Hellenic Radio, Internet and Television#NERITplus. Any useful material remains in the history, and can be merged over as necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NERITplus[edit]

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

Short-lived, was replaced by ERT2. Can consider merge to New Hellenic Radio, Internet and Television. Deletion of Greek edition of this article is also in progress. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 08:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 08:07, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Applications Users Group[edit]

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

In efforts to improve the article, I searched (here, here, here, here and here) but found nothing to suggest good improvement. At best, if appropriate, this can be merged to Oracle and it's interesting to note that Oracle offered to deepen its relationship with OAUG but the latter refused so there's not exactly a strong connection but it may still be relevant. I should also note that my searches found hints and especially this which found several other groups with a similiar name so this one may not be solidly and independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 08:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 14:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press release for the organization. No outside sources seem to be availavble, and I wouldn;'t expect any that are not mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013-14 Guernsey F.C. season[edit]

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

Long-standing consensus for English club season articles is that they are only appropriate for clubs that competed in one of the five highest levels of the league pyramid during the season in question. This has not been the case for Guernsey F.C., who were at the eighth level at the time. There are many precedents for AfD discussions of such lower-league club season articles; including another Guernsey F.C. season article which had been nominated for the very same reasons.

The article has been PRODded before this nomination, but the tag was removed with rationale "Many more references have been added and as the article is expanded more will be added. References from the BBC, ITV, Sky Sports". Indeed the reference list of this article contains many of such items, however, most of them are routine match reports, which is not sufficient for establishing WP:GNG. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page with the same rationale as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NSEASONS, nowhere near a high enough level to be considered a "top professional league". Fails GNG with only coverage of the season being individual routine match reports. I am not seeing any significant coverage on the season as a subject in itself. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per longstanding consensus that season articles for clubs at this level are inappropriate. Number 5 7 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – As said above these are not notable. Qed237 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing rather an very unusual amount of media coverage - and not local - for a team playing at such a low level. I haven't gone through in detail, though I've seen some for the 2012-13 season that would seem to meet WP:GNG. Are we on the right track here? Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we are on the right track. Does this really have to be explained to you yet again? Number 57 08:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it have to be explained to you once again that if an article meets WP:GNG that it shouldn't be deleted? Sure, we shouldn't have such articles for teams playing at this level (8th tier) normally ... but I was very surprised to quickly see articles for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons that would appear to meet WP:GNG if such articles exists - while the team was playing at the 9th and 10th tiers - ironically there's no season articles that applies to.

I'm simply and politely asking if people have dug far enough into this particular circumstance. I see no need to once again violate WP:AGF and be so utterly and unnecessarily rude! Such complete lack of attention to a main pillar of Wikipedia by a user is disappointing! Disagree with me sure - but stop being so rude about it! Good grief, it's not like I've suggested the article be kept ... I'm simply applying the same due diligence any user should make before suggesting it be deleted! Nfitz (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The issue is that you seem to have a very strange understanding of GNG that almost no-one else agrees with (there are dozens of AfDs where everyone else has !voted delete and you have claimed GNG). As such, it's hard to take you seriously when you make such claims (rather like the Boy Who Cried Wolf). And as you have been told time and again, you are not entitled to any GF when you have been behaving like this (ignoring consensus on a range of topics) for over half a decade. Number 57 14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if my mis-understanding of GNG is faulty, on WikiFailure scale of 1 to 10, that's a 2 - maybe 3. But your failure to assume good faith is a 10. Surely editors who consistently are extremely rude and assert a right to ignore a central pillar of Wikipedia, are of a greater concern than those who simply ask a polite question about notability. In my views, User:Number 57 should be censored for such a blatant, deliberate, and horrific violation of WP:AGF. Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication that either of these articles meet either of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG by receiving significant non-routine coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Examples are [32], [33], [34]. For future reference, here's an excellent one for 2012-2013 [35]. I'm also troubled by the nomination, that notes that many of the references on the page are routine - so? It's a season's article, even for a top team, many are routine; surely if the nominator thinks that some of the references aren't routine, then the article shouldn't be nominated. Nfitz (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some comments on the sources presented above:

BBC - I'm not sure how this source could be used in the article. It is a speculative set of comments from the chairman at the beginning of the season. this article is meant to document what actually happened not what someone closely connected to the club thinks might happen. This is not an appropriate source for GNG as it does not in any way discuss any events that happened during the 13-14 season.
BBC - Again a speculative article on whether the club would or would not enter the FA Cup. This is not an appropriate source for GNG as it does not in any way discuss any events that happened during the 13-14 season.
Guernsey Press - This is an article more suited to the main club article as it discusses the finances of the club in general rather than their season performance. I would also question the significance of the news report as it is from a local newspaper which according to this has a circulation of less than 40000. Fenix down (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Guernsey FC is the main soccer/football club of the Bailiwick of Guernsey.... we are not a large country, but we do exist. [36]. It is the first time that a non Welsh or English club has been allowed to play in the English leagues and as such the club is notable.[37]. The same applies for competing in the FA Cup - see Guernsey flag listed [38]. There are many thousands of expat Guernsey supporters all over the world who want to keep track of their team and Wikipedia is an excellent means to do so. The format for season activity was adopted from other clubs pages to keep it consistent, however if this is not thought appropriate, please allow at least one additional page so that the complete history of the club can be expanded from the limited space allowed on the main page as otherwise it would look very un-professional.

Comment Incidentally I found it personally annoying to complete one of the pages, submit it for approval, get it back approved and be complimented on how professional it was, so devoting a further 12 hours of work doing the other two, before having one of the pages just deleted and threats on the rest. I am new at this game, having created about a dozen pages so far, and was enjoying it, but am now very reluctant to do any further work if it can just be deleted by anyone because it does not comply to some rule I do not know exists. I always thought Wikipedia was there primarily to record accurate facts, (main pages) and provide links between data, (such as lists), without providing censorship over what facts are published, provided it is done in a professional way, with references. Mwiki3101 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2015 (ECT)

Comment - I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the fact that something exists is no reason to keep an article. Furthermore, I don't doubt that there are people who are interested in Guernsey football club, but that does not mean that WP has to have in depth articles on all facets of the club. WP:NSEASONS is the specific guideline for such articles, but WP:GNG is the overarching guideline and wP is not ap lace to write articles simply because its interesting. Fenix down (talk) 07:45, 20 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) 07:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2016[edit]

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

Crystal ball, no date or venue known, no sources about the pageant itself (the only source is about one miss) The Banner talk 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. shoy (reactions) 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON and WP:Notenoughcontent (doubt it's a real WP article). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No date, no venue, no reliable sources. Quite a few rumors on the usual pageant sites. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Crystal & TooSoon. Davey2010 00:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mirage (Fleetwood Mac album). T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Back[edit]

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

This article is not notable whatsoever. The user that wrote this has written other non notable articles. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This song was not released as a single; it was just an album track that happened to show on a minor chart. Yet another non-notable song article from this editor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Song! because it was a radio hit, charted, and features a non fleetwood mac member on the song. I was told by many people to only put a song if it charted. You are breaking you're own rules. Please don't remove the article until More People have input in this choice. - Visnvoisnvo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visnvoisnvo (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirage (Fleetwood Mac album). Album track with low placement on a minor chart and no other significant coverage. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 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) 07:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sirimal Abeyratne[edit]

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

Non-notable - most of the references are merely passing mentions - doesn't comply with criteria under WP:ACADEMIC and/or WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His Google scholar profile [39] only shows one moderately-well-cited publication among a lot of lesser ones, despite it being padded by publications from someone else with similar initials who works on cattle parasites. He's not listed at all by RePEc for Sri Lanka [40] nor even among the economists that they know about for his department [41]. The sources consist of his home page, a newspaper announcement of a discussion moderated by him, a deadlink, several stories about the economy of Sri Lanka that quote him but include no significant coverage about him nor his research, and an alumni listing in which I couldn't find his name. None of that is evidence that the article should be deleted, but it is a failure to find evidence that he passes WP:PROF and without evidence we can't keep the article. On the other hand, I'm wary of systematic bias here and would be willing to change my mind if stronger evidence for notability is turned up in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per substantial explanation by David Eppstein -- Chamith (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 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 05:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Best[edit]

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

Non notable country music singer because all my various searches including at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary. Basically this is unsourced as the news sources are simply links and not a link to something about her. Simply nothing to save this. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I would love to save this, I did an even more extensive search than @SwisterTwister: and came up flat broke. I isolated search terms based on the claims in the article and came up with zero. There is a single article about her being inducted into the HOF in Canada, but it is from a subscription newspaper and there is nothing else about it other than her website. If anything, I would say speedy delete this thing. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unreferenced biography of a living person, which according to policy, must be referenced. Unless significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is produced, the article has to be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried tailpiping this subject around but my pickup truck ain't picked up none of them thar sources. Another clue: measly pageview stats. I did an even more extensive search than TTTommy111 and SwisterTwister combined, in my beer-swillin' Lord-fearin' opinion, only found this beaut -- not enough suds in the bucket to meet the WP:GNG, but this country boy is fixin' to change his mind if new sources pop out of the ground, varmint like.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced, and written much more like a promotional advertisement for her than an encyclopedia article about her. It also doesn't make any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC (and even if it did, the claim would still have to be properly sourced, and wouldn't give her a "no sourcing needed because claim made" freebie.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 16 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 A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 12:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spankyvision Gaming[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. The only sources I could find are primary. Also a clear conflict of interest. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No, no, no. I don't care about COI, but I do care that a search shows 5 references and none of them come close to WP:RS. I would call for speedy deletion if not already here at AfD.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:26, 13 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 05:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ned's Fate: The Glory Days[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. And there's obviously a conflict of interest too. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. Neutrality^talk 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the company that developed the game, I would recommend speedy deletion if not already at AfD. There is nothing about this game online other than the Wikipedia article. Fails GNG terribly. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not tell us why the game is important and contains almost no information on it. Ana r chyte 11:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 and tagged as such. I had previously tagged this article, but the article creator deleted it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence at all of notability. (@Narutolovehinata5: Speedy deletion criterion A7 applies only to "a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event", and this does not fall under any of those categories.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is an option. --TTTommy111 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It is likely that the intention in creating the article was promotion, but nothing about the contents of the article is particularly promotional: it just tells us what the game is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 14 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) 01:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 01:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party sources, minimal content present to begin with. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 17 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy[edit]

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

An attempt at AfD was made by 110.20.234.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and I agree--plus I can do this more easily. Non-notable book, self-published, promotional, etc. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting this started. This book is not used as a reference in the literature about the Matrix and is unreviewed. Therefore, this article should be deleted. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing suggests that WP:BKCRIT is met.--Rpclod (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy as having no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. It is almost six years old yet has not been remarked on in secondary sources. Also neither of the EL's worked when I tried them. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Deadlinks just take initiative. I found them archived by the Wayback Machine: [42] [43] a great tool.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- If the final decision is to delete it will also need to be removed from Template:The Matrix. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note to anon IP 110.20.234.69: I found Goodreads review and Indiolink review and it sourcing other tomes.[44][45] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads reviews are user-generated, and the Indiolink review seems to be user-generated as well - the byline is a single name, and there is a prominent link asking for people to submit their reviews at the top of the page. My understanding is that user-generated reviews generally aren't helpful for getting articles to stick on Wikipedia. Thanks for the additional book in which this book is cited, however I can't see where this book is cited in the second book, Jacking in to the Matrix Franchise. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the key to WP:RS is editorial oversight, and while some Goodreads reviews may be "user-generated", the site appears to have editorial oversight of their published reviews... enough so that it sources many articles here on Wikipedia. This same reasoning seems to apply to California-based Indolink. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:16, 16 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. Nomination withdrawn by the nomiminator. Multiple independent reliable sources established the fact that Ranjith Premalal De Silva served as Vice Chancellor of Uva Wellassa University, therefore meets WP:ACADEMIC#6

Ranjith Premalal De Silva[edit]

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

Non-notable individual - No evidence to support that the subject satisfies the criteria under WP:ACADEMIC and/or WP:PROF. The references cited are merely indications that he exists as an individual. Dan arndt (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would withdraw the nomination on the grounds that there is evidence that the article does comply with criteria 6 of WP:ACADEMIC however in accordance with WP:WDAFD another editor (Cagepanes) has has supported deletion of the article. It should be noted that the reference supplied by Obi2canibe is not included in the article and that the article has numerous unverified statements, which need to be addressed. Dan arndt (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: The fact that another editor supported the deletion of this article simply means they ignored WP:BEFORE and follow WP:LEADER. In the same vein, the fact that sources are not included in an article is not a basis for deletion. There is a reason why WP:BEFORE exists. Nonetheless I fix the article per WP:SEP. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would withdraw my delete vote since he technically meets #6, but the article needs a lot of work. So much so that I don't think it should be an article at this point. While he technically meets number 6, there are no sources on this article, and every 'further reading' isn't about him per se but just something he is mentioned in. I think this should be sent back to the editor for another try. --Cagepanes (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the editor who created the article has been permanently blocked for multiple ongoing sockpuppetry so I don't think that there is much chance of any improvement been done. Dan arndt (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for deletion. I fixed the page. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then this article should be deleted per G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. --Cagepanes (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagepanes: the article is not eligible for WP:CSD#G5 because it was not created by the creator in violation of their ban or block. To qualify, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block does not qualify. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:ACADEMIC. This is basically a fluff piece written for aggrandizement. --Cagepanes (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article seemed suitable for inclusion now following my work on it. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a former vice-chancellor of Uva Wellassa University, he meets criteria no. 6 of WP:NACADEMICS.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meet WP:ACADEMIC#6 as former Vice-Chancellor of Uva Wellassa University as pointed out by Obi2canibe through diligent WP:BEFORE. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was created by a banned or blocked user and should therefore be speedily deleted per Wiki policy. --Cagepanes (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify for WP:CSD#G5, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked and that is not the case here. The page was created before banned or blocked. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment ---Subject of the article clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC#6 as former Vice Chancellor of a University and the claim was supported by multiple independent reliable sources, I hereby request a "Speedy close" of this debate since consensus appears clear. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: I concur with your comments that the article's creator was not blocked at the time of the articles creation nor was the creation of the article the reason for the user being blocked and as such I am prepared to withdraw my AfD nomination of this article. Dan arndt (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I closed the debate. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:41, 19 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 04:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pathmajeewa Ganepola[edit]

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

Not Notable - No evidence to support that the subject satisfies the criteria under WP:PROF of WP:GNG. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems I can't find any good sources apart from tihs. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck duplicate !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 20 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. There's clearly no consensus here to delete, which is really what AfD is about. There appears to be a consensus that this needs work (possibly involving dab pages or redirects), but that's out of scope for AfD, so people are free to pursue any fixup ideas via normal editorial process. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of peaks named Signal Mountain[edit]

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

This list-article is presented prominently in guidance about set-index-articles (SIA)s vs. disambiguation pages vs. list-articles as an example of good practice, but it seems like a bad example to me. The article itself is poor: there is no natural readership for its topic, which is trivial; it seems miss-named and does not serve a lookup purpose because it lists only U.S. examples; it simply looks poor visually and it provides scant information: merely location plus elevation, though it uses 6 data columns to present that. Note 21 out of 27 peaks listed are red-links, even after many years of prominence. More importantly, this list duplicates Signal Mountain, a better-looking disambiguation page, to which the 6 blue-linked items can be added. In effect merger of this article to Signal Mountain would be appropriate IMO. Other members of Category:Set indices on mountains deserve critical review, also. There is no encyclopedic value for "List of hills named Z" type compilations of locations and altitudes, IMO, and no loss from deleting their data (which all remains available from USGS anyhow). do ncr am 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Signal Mountain. Most of the entries in the latter are from the list anyway, but the redlinks should be included as well. If they're officially recognized mountains, they'll eventually get articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Removing the mountains from the dab page also works. Just so long as there isn't so much duplication. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mountains has been notified of this deletion discussion. —hike395 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm sorry, Doncram. I don't think you've presented a valid case for deleting an article. Let me dissect your statements, and compare them against the established reasons for deleting an article and arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.

"seems like a bad example" --- you're certainly free to change the example at WP:SIA
"no natural readership, trivial" --- this seems to be a version of the WP:ITSCRUFT argument, which isn't valid. When we discussed this style of SIA over at WikiProject Mountains (in 2006?), it was clear that there was a reader we had in mind: someone who wanted to know some information about a specific named peak, but was confused about whether Wikipedia contained that information and if so, which peak it was. The extra information about location and elevation directs our readers to the correct article, and encourages new articles about missing peaks.
"mis[s]-named" --- Having an incorrect title isn't a valid reason to delete an article, see WP:LOUSYTITLE. If you wish to propose a new name that is better and consistent with WP:TITLE, please go ahead.
"looks poor visually" --- This seems to be a variant of WP:UGLY, which is not a valid reason for deletion. If you think using the wikitable class is better, we can certainly change that. (Note that we should change it on similar mountain SIAs).
"provides scant information" --- It provides elevation and location information that a standard disambiguation page cannot (per WP:MOSDAB). I can't quite see how deleting it helps. I cannot support the merging back to a dab.
"U.S. only" --- A quite valid issue in terms of improving the article, but not a reason to delete.
"21 out of 27 peaks listed are red-linked" --- remember Wikipedia has no deadline. Having a list article with many red links is not a valid reason for deletion.

I believe that this list does not duplicate Signal Mountain. This article follows WP:SIA, where a disambiguation page can exist alongside a set index article. I think Signal Mountain should contain non-mountains and this list should contain mountains. I'm happy to remove the peaks from Signal Mountain.

In summary, I don't think that there is a valid proposed reason to delete this list. I can fix the style and overlap issues. The (old) consensus over at WP:WikiProject Mountains is that the elevation and altitude information is valuable to our readers and editors. —hike395 (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later --- would it help if we renamed the SIA to List of peaks named Signal ? That way, it could include Signal Hill, etc. Often readers don't know whether something is called Signal Hill, Signal Peak, Signal Mountain, Mount Signal, Mount Signalling, etc. —hike395 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "2006?" - you may be thinking of this discussion in 2007. DexDor^(talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...concur with Hike395's suggestions. Similar lists include List of peaks named Bear Mountain, List of peaks named Baldy...all of which have coordinates and related quick find data not found on dab pages. List of peaks named Kennedy Peak should be a dab page however unless it gets expanded.MONGO 17:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that List of peaks named Kennedy Peak (current version permalinked), to which Kennedy Peak redirects is a dab page. There is no value to readers added by it being marked as an SIA; there is no info given that can't be on a dab page. And, it has accumulated incorrect inbound links, because there's no systematic review of inbound links to SIAs. Currently five mainspace articles link to it:

This should be taken out of Category:Set indices on mountains by means of replacing {{Mountainindex|Kennedy Peak}} by {{disambiguation}} instead, IMO.

Pinneshiri and Mount Tsurugi are similar, and have 0 and 11 incorrect inbound links, respectively.

By the way, I see also that List of peaks named Signal Mountain currently has one incorrect inbound link, from Big Spring, Texas.

Before Kennedy Peak, Pinneshiri, Mount Tsurugi and any others like them are converted to dabs that way, does WikiProject Mountains want for them to be marked in some way to remember them? Actually just ensuring that they are included in the WikiProject would do that; then they would show up in the WikiProject's tally of articles by class and importance (as disambiguation-class), or could be found using wp:CatScan. Currently only the first one has WikiProject Mountains on its Talk page, though. --do ncr am 00:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move this part of the discussion to WT:WikiProject Mountains? If we're going to make changes to the Mountain SIAs, I would like more people to know about it.

The (old) consensus over at that WikiProject is that if you have a list of mountains with similar names, then they should be an SIA, and that they should be formatted like List of peaks named Signal Mountain. Articles like Kennedy Peak, Pinneshiri, etc., that are formatted like dabs are incorrect -- they should be expanded into list articles, have altitudes and coordinates added to them, and not converted back to dabs. Now, it's been at least 7 years since we discussed this (consensus can change), so I'm happy to bring this back up. I thought the old consensus made sense. I'm happy to go through the Mountain SIAs and expand them up, if necessary. —hike395 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hike395's points have some validity, one by one, but there is some kind of problem here which needs to be addressed; this AFD is not merely a complaint that the "List of Peaks" should be cleaned up, though it should be.

List of peaks named Baldy is different, because it is the one page that provides the lookup function to readers. Baldy Mountain is a redirect to it.
What the !votes above do not address is the fact that a disambiguation page simply needs to list the articles it disambiguates. Signal Mountain being the disambiguation page, it needs to include all of the mountains that seem to be notable (have or are likely to have articles). Dab pages can include redlinks, as long as they are supported by an appropriate bluelink, per MOS:DABRL. However the disambiguation page at "Signal Mountain" does not serve the lookup function expected, as it omits all of the mountains named "Signal Mountain"! The problem is not duplication, there are much longer disambiguation pages.
Note the disambiguation page previously had all or most of the bluelink mountains, but those were removed during this AFD. If "Signal Mountain" is a disambiguation page it should hold all of the bluelinks and all of the redlink ones too.
It mainly bothers me that "Signal Mountain" is a disambiguation page where readers arrive, yet it does not include the notable mountains. If "Signal Mountain" was the set index article of the mountains, with a proper introductory sentence or two establishing that there is a thing called a "signal mountain", and these are examples, then it would be okay, by me. A hatnote at the top would say "For other uses, see Signal Mountain (disambiguation)", to handle any other miscellaneous usage including as town names. That would be treating the mountains as the main usage of the term, as in wp:PRIMARYUSAGE. (They look like the main usage, to me.)
Being a "thing": I am assuming that the mountains named Signal Mountain are ones whose peaks are pretty good places to send signals from, and to receive signals. Sent by native american smoke signals during daytime, by fires at night, by U.S. army signal stations using flashing mirrors (heliographs?). I bet these ones do stand out as being visible from far away or from a wide area, relatively speaking, and these conversely have unobstructed views. Some usage that way is mentioned in one or more of the articles, one mentioning smoke signals. Likewise "Lookout Mountain" at Chattanooga and other "lookout mountains", and "Sentinel Mountain" or "El centenaro" are of the same nature. A "baldy mountain" is a "thing", too, presumably a mountain that has a bare upper area. Maybe mountains named after George Washington is an okay "thing", and an SIA of some of the more notable examples would be okay. Note, a Ray's Pizza is recognized as a thing, properly. A set index article should strive to explain what the "thing" is, how the items are related.
Covering notable ones only: The Ray's Pizza article could include a list of notable examples, but it should not list the locations of every pizza shop having that name. Likewise not every Signal Hill, mound, etc., should be listed. It has been established repeatedly at AFD that not every USGS listed geographical feature is notable. Surely not all of the 27 mountains/hills are really notable (i.e. discussed in some depth in independent sources), and should not be redlinks. Notability for list-items is a lower standard, so some other ones can be kept, but should be unlinked. We don't want to direct readers and editors to create articles for them.

I have addressed some of Hike395's comments. Their main point is that numerous deficiencies (being trivial, having no readership, being miss-named, looking poor visually, having scant info, etc.), do not mean the list should be deleted. But these deficiencies cast doubt on whether there is a valid topic here. Is it just a synthesis? An indiscriminate list? There is no assertion of importance of the topic. USGS, the one source used for the separate pieces of info put together here, does not speak of this set as a collection. There are no sources for any text, because there is no text. Having fault on one or two of these can be dismissed. But a new user submitting an article having qualities like this, in a different area, would see their article deleted in no time. So there is a problem. Really, why do we have this as an article, at all?

One part of Hike395's comment gets at a possible answer: "When we discussed this style of SIA over at WikiProject Mountains (in 2006?), it was clear that there was a reader we had in mind: someone who wanted to know some information about a specific named peak, but was confused about whether Wikipedia contained that information and if so, which peak it was. The extra information about location and elevation directs our readers to the correct article, and encourages new articles about missing peaks." We don't want new articles about all of these, necessarily. But the thrust about the SIA serving like a disambiguation page, only perhaps better because it provides more identifying info, has some validity. However, I am stuck on the point that there exists a disambiguation page that can provide adequate identifying info about each one, enough for readers to distinguish between them, already: the other page. This is standing as if it is a valid topic on its own which it is not. --do ncr am 22:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disambiguation and WikiProject Lists now have been notified. do ncr am 22:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal. Since there's really only one dab item that isn't a mountain (at one point or another), why don't we just move everything in the list article over to Signal Mountain and reclassify it as a set index (so we can keep the extra info, e.g. height, that wouldn't be appropriate for a dab page), and make the one exception a hatnote? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Doncram and User:Clarityfiend want to make Signal Mountain a list article that is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, leaving the other two towns as hatnotes. I would be fine with this (it's intuitive that someone typing "signal mountain" wants a mountain). If that makes everyone happy and closes the issue, then we can end the discussion. If we want to move the list article to Signal Mountain without copy-paste, then we would need an admin. Otherwise, I'm happy to do the edit. If Doncram is still unhappy, we can discuss further. —hike395 (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram would be happy with that. (And an administrator should do a history merge, to implement the move while saving the history, per our general contract with editors.) --do ncr am 19:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Signal Mountain should be a dab page (or a redirect to a dab page) (not a SIA) - that way any inlinks are likely to get noticed/fixed. IMO, we should only have SIAs if they have a title like "List of foos named Bar". DexDor^(talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that incoming links to SIAs are not systematically checked is a different issue. I have raised that point in this discussion at wt:DPL, that it makes sense to expand the wp:DPL project (or start a new one) to address the separate-but-similar problem. And, some incoming links would be correct as a link to the SIA, e.g. referring in general to a "signal mountain", when that is properly explained as a "thing" at the top. If it is a Dab page, then [good links like that would not allowed, and will be removed, and there would be churning as good links are created and removed again and again.]--do ncr am 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC) [restated part, do ncr am 23:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]

You are failing to distinguish between SIAs that are titled "List of ... called ..." (or similar) and SIAs that are titled with the ambiguous term. The former don't need inlinks checking (apart possibly from checking for inappropriate redirects), the latter (e.g. ship SIAs) should be checked for inappropriate inlinks. DexDor^(talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if Signal Mountain becomes a set index, then under current set up, users creating incoming links to the page will not be notified by the disambiguation bot and these incorrect links will not appear in disambiguation pages with links reports (and will thus be less likely to be systematically fixed). Is that really what is wanted? older ≠ wiser 10:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly reclassifying set indexes to be disambiguation pages merely for the purpose of getting members of the Disambiguation pages with Links project to mind them is misguided. It sets up unnecessary conflict and churning as some editors want to add detail and references appropriate for the SIA, while DAB-focused editors will want to remove all that. If incoming links to SIA pages should be checked, then let's do that separately. --do ncr am 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly reclassifying disambiguation pages as set indexes is even more harmful to the project IMO. The ONLY real reason set indexes came about was because some projects wanted to be able to document completeness of a category (such as mountains or ships) with redlinks and non-article entries if needed. Disambiguation pages are necessary to facilitate identifying and correcting mistaken links. Unless there is a legitimate reason that editors might want to link directly to the index at the base name with a presumption that the link does not require further disambiguation, then in my opinion a disambiguation is necessary and a set index is nothing more than a way to obscure links to these pages. older ≠ wiser 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that editors deliberately create SIA pages for the purpose of having these SIA pages receive inbound links that should not go to them? I can't believe that.

Otherwise, I partly agree with your concern, about wanting not to have disambiguation pages masquerading as SIAs just to avoid Dab requirements of formatting and having no inbound links. I think the guideline on SIAs should make a requirement that if there is "thing" that is reasonable for editors to link to, as you say, e.g. a generic "signal mountain" for "Signal Mountain", then that should be explained in the intro of an SIA. But not all current SIA topics are a "thing" that way. For both kinds of SIA, the SIA should be required to explain what its items have in common rather than just listing them. And that an SIA should be required to serve the disambiguation function that a dab would do, including that it should list 100% of the notable examples of its type and it should be organized in a reader-friendly way, and its inbound links should be done in a way that facilitates review by a systematic process (i.e. intentional links are to be distinguishable, perhaps by their linking to "topic (SIA)", which redirects to the SIA, akin to how inbound links to dabs work). If a page no longer serves the disambiguation function then I would say it is no longer an SIA and a disambiguation page probably must be created. (I suggest that serving the disambiguation function or not might be the best way to set the dividing line between SIAs and standalone lists.) Note we could use a category to indicate which SIAs are documented to be a "thing" and can properly have inbound links, vs. which SIAs should never have inbound links (whose topic is not a "thing" that anyone could refer to).

About this AFD, I think the Signal Mountains SIA should be required to meet the disambiguation function (including that "Signal Mountain" and "signal mountain" redirect to it, including adding the Mexican and Canadian and Mount Wilkinson ones to complete it out, and including using hatnotes as necessary). If the mountains editors are agreeing to that, which I think they are, then we've made enough progress and should move on to updating the SIA guideline. --do ncr am 23:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be useful to readers and it allows editors who want to store information about peaks called "Signal Mountain" to do so without coming up against the rules for dab pages which are (IMO correctly) quite precise. DexDor^(talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain in some manner. I'm not sure if the best option is keeping this list as it is, or merging it (back?) into the Signal Mountain disambiguation page, but deleting it outright would be a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and request. It seems to me there's a rough consensus that the situation can be resolved keeping the SIA. The associated details that I see necessary would be:

our agreeing that we accept the wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for "Signal Mountain" to be usage as a mountain name (both as a common "signal mountain" usage for a generic mountain holding a signal station or suited for signalling from, and for specific mountains/hills known as "Signal Mountain")
our agreeing the SIA currently named "List of peaks named Signal Mountain" [would be moved to] "Signal Mountain", so that readers searching for a Signal Mountain will land at the SIA.

(or our agreeing alternatively agreeing [that the SIA can be at "List of peaks named Signal Mountain" or the like], with ("Signal Mountain" and variations like "signal mountain") being redirects to the SIA)

our agreeing that the SIA will be modified to fully serve the necessary disambiguating role, i.e. itself it must either

A) be complete and list all usages of "Signal Mountain" for any purpose including as a town-name and otherwise, and including peaks that are colloquially termed "Signal Mountain" but are not officially listed at that name by GNIS / USGS, or
B) itself cover the all mountain/hill type usages (i.e. all the formal and informal usages of "Signal Mountain" to refer to a peak or a ridge or a hill), and with hatnote links and otherwise cover the other usages adequately. (The SIA could have explicit hatnotes for major other usages and yet there might still be a need to keep a secondary "Signal Mountain (disambiguation)" page to cover minor usages of "Signal Mountain" and/or to meet administrative purpose of recording all the usages [and this would be one of the targets of hatnotes at the SIA])

If this is more-or-less agreed, this will require the SIA to be modified to be somewhat different than it was and different from any previous standard for mountain SIA articles. However it would be hard for a closure to specify in detail the changes needed, and people might come away believing differently about what this AFD determines. I am concerned that, in implementation, the changes I and others would see as necessary would seem too drastic and/or unnecessary and/or ugly or whatever, by the mountains editors. The devil is in the details.

The REQUEST is: while this AFD is still running, could the mountains editors and everyone else go ahead and transform the SIA (and any related pages) along the above lines? Note: both the dab and the SIA page have been edited already during this AFD. No administrative action is required to do this editing (besides deletion of existing dab or its name change to "Signal Mountain (disambiguation)" , and besides possible rename of the current SIA to "Signal Mountain" ). Going ahead without doing the name changes would be slightly confusing perhaps but would cause no significant inconvenience to readers during this transition IMO. If the modifications are done while this AFD is still open it will head off immediate disagreements at the SIA and its talk page, and head off the possibility that the main decisions here will be reversed and/or another AFD or RFC or other proceeding would be needed later. I'll pause for comments here, but if there are not objections and no one else takes the lead to modify the SIA along those lines, then I will begin trying myself in a few days. --do ncr am 16:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]

No. That you have failed to convince other editors to delete the SIA does not necessarily mean that the SIA and the dab should be merged. DexDor^(talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let my try to clarify what I believe DexDor meant by "No". I think he was saying "No" to your choice "A", which is a merge. I agree that "A" goes against the current guideline of keeping SIAs and dabs distinct. Back when SIAs were proposed, it was the clear and strong consensus that dabs are purely for navigation, and SIAs are list articles that are both informative and navigational. I believe that choice "B" is consistent with both the existing WP:SIA guideline, with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and with WP:TWODAB (think about it as a list article that is the primary topic, with two other secondary meanings).

As an example of a nicer SIA, I upgraded List of peaks named Kennedy. Please take a look at that. I can make List of peaks named Signal Mountain look like List of peaks named Kennedy, and add the hatnotes.

DexDor (and other editors), would you agree to a) reformatting the SIA, and b) adding the hatnotes?

As for discussing reformatting mountain SIAs, this is definitely not the place for proposing that. This should be done at WT:WikiProject Mountains. —hike395 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of peaks named Kennedy is fine (although the lead sentence could perhaps be tweaked to something like "This is a list of mountains named "Kennedy""). However, Kennedy Peak should not be a redirect to that list; it should be a dab page (like the dab page at Signal Mountain which includes a link to the list). The consequence of it not being a dab page is that there are (currently) l o a d s of inlinks which should be linking to articles about a specific mountain (or be a redlink). I'm not sure what hatnote(s) you are proposing. DexDor^(talk) 05:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: Re Signal Mountain: there would be a hatnote that reads {{about|mountain peaks|town in Tennessee|Signal Mountain, Tennessee|town in California|Mount Signal, California}}

Re Kennedy Peak: I'm unclear about what you're suggesting. You want a dab page with one entry that is List of peaks named Kennedy? Having a dab page with one entry seems to go against WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. Or do you want a dab page with only the blue links from List of peaks named Kennedy? That would be redundant to List of peaks named Kennedy, which can serve as a perfectly fine navigational page.

Isn't there a way to fix the tools (DPLBot?) to notify people when they link to an SIA? I would think that people shouldn't link to SIAs (unless they are linked from a different list article, like Lists of lists). It seems better to fix the tools, rather than make one-line or redundant dabs. —hike395 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed the inlinks to Kennedy Peak(e.g. [46]) and changed that into a dab page (so anybody who links to it now will be warned that they've linked to a dab page). It performs a different function to the SIA, and even if there is a bit of redundancy I don't see that as being a problem (after all, the text on dab page entries normally duplicates some of the info on the pages it links to). Modifying (I'm not sure the word "fix" is correct) DPLBot to also look at (some?) inlinks to SIAs might be useful, but would further blur the distinction between dabs and SIAs so should only be done after careful consideration. There's also things like the group of editors who industrially fix inlinks to dabs - they don't (afaik) generally work on SIAs. DexDor^(talk) 17:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wp:DPL is the project whose editors who industrially fix inlinks to dabs. SIAs do perform a disambiguating function, and their inbound links should be reviewed. As DexDor notes and as I noted at 00:09, 16 August 2015 above, there were a number of inbound links to List of peaks named Kennedy, and it is increasingly well known that other SIAs have inbound links that should be redirected to more specific targets. A systematic reviewing process could be done by wp:DPL, if they (including me) choose to expand their scope, or by creating a similar project. Either way, the distinctions between dabs vs. SIAs vs. list-articles need to be clarified. (Brief version: dabs provide only enough information to support disambiguation and inbound links should be eliminated; SIAs have introductory text and provide disambiguation and carry more information than dab pages are allowed. Items on a dab page must meet article-notability standards; the standard for inclusion of items on an SIA page can be lower, the same standard as for list-article items. SIAs can sometimes be the deliberate target of an inbound link (rarely for SIAs about mountains, but perhaps a link to "signal mountains" could come to the SIA page, if its text supports "signal mountain" being a valid thing). If an SIA no longer serves the disambiguation role (clearly the case if a disambiguation page has to be set up) then it is no longer an SIA, it is a regular article (which includes list-articles) and its topic must meet wp:GNG notability guidelines. IMO a non-SIA "list of mountains named X" would have to be supported by reliable sources providing substantial coverage of "mountains named X" as a topic on its own, which may be difficult to find.) And tools need to be set up: DPLBot and its associated reports would need to be modified or a separate SIABot and associated reports would have to be created. This AFD is a step on the way. --do ncr am 18:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version of "List of peaks named Signal Mountain" is close to what I am looking for, as an example of an SIA, the Signal Mountain one, edited to serve the disambiguating function. And it is complemented by and this version of "Signal Mountain" which should be moved to "Signal Mountain (disambiguation)"]. The changes add to what was in a simple WikiProject Mountains old-style SIA. They don't take anything away.

To serve its disambiguation purpose, i.e. to help arriving readers look up the specific "Signal Mountain" they seek, the SIA has been edited to be comprehensive in coverage (includes Mexico, Canada) and given a TOC. The U.S. section is a mix of a list and a table right now, perhaps with some duplication, and could be better. I understand Hike395 is working on a better prototype for tables of mountains so I did not try to edit this section very much. IMO any table should allow for a notes column so that text identifying the places, equivalent to the often-very-useful text in disambiguation pages, can be included. I added some text about individual mountains here and there, including in photo captions, that I might have preferred to put into a text column in the table. I did add some photos, although I am not sure they help readers here like they would help readers trying to look up a specific flower species, say. In this process I am realizing that there is a big gray area for any guideline on SIAs: how do you define what content is appropriate or not. Certainly information that arguably aids in the lookup process, such as elevations and prominence and location, is okay here. But are photos of mountains helpful in identifying which mountain you want? And are interesting factoids about places helpful or merely candy. But a reader could arguably be looking for whichever mountain it is that has that factoid. E.g. "yes, this is the one that i was looking for, the one that Sherman stood upon when surveying some big city he was aiming to capture. How can a guideline distinguish? I don't know exactly how to draw a line, but there has to be some general rule that a page cannot become bloated with so much that it is becoming hard for a reader to perform their lookup. I think wikilinks should be restricted to ones that seem to serve the disambiguation purpose, i.e. that go to articles the reader might want to check in their looking-up process. Wikilinks for other than the individual mountains can be allowed but should be used sparingly, more sparingly than is done in good editing elsewhere. --do ncr am 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moving the set index over the disambiguation page. Both serve different purposes and readers and editors are better served by having the disambiguation page at the base name. older ≠ wiser 01:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion matters a lot I think because you are very experienced in disambiguation. But could you please continue and clarify what you suggest for a complete solution? Because I think that your choice, which would have readers looking for a Signal Mountain arriving at a disambiguation that is not the SIA, is not part of a stable solution.

Just guessing, but if you would have readers arriving at the disambiguation page that is not the SIA, then you would want them to be given all the mountains named "Signal Mountain" on that page? Your edit "per MOSDAB" at the non-SIA page just added just two of the bluelink "Signal Mountains" (the Atlanta area one and the Canada one). Am I correct to assume you would also want to add the other two bluelink ones: Signal Mountain (Wyoming) and Signal Mountain (Vermont)? (Maybe you didn't see them below, in the table. Sorry, the U.S. section of the SIA currently is disorganized, with some items in a list segment and others below that in the table, and perhaps some duplication. Let's assume the ones above will be merged into the table.)

And then you would also create a separate disambiguation page for "Signal Peak" as well? (There was not one before. You would have it include the bluelinks Signal Peak (Orange County, California), Signal Peak (Utah), Signal Peak (Humboldt County, California), Guadalupe Peak, also known as Signal Peak.)

What about the redlinks in the SIA? A straight, traditional disambiguation perspective would say each of them should be added to the disambiguation pages, too, each using their state's list-article like List of mountains and hills of Arizona by height as a supporting bluelink.

And then what purpose does the SIA serve? It would then not be performing the disambiguation function. And it has no sources supporting its topic, "List of things named X". Then on what basis would you think it is valid? So do you !vote Keep or Delete on that question of this AFD? I really want to hear you take a position on all of these questions, especially the last. --do ncr am 03:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the disambiguation page should include all existing articles with relevant content. SIA aren't disambiguation pages. They have some similarities to disambiguation pages, but some wikiprojects wanted to be able to include various non-disambiguation content (e.g., multiple blue links per entry, references, extended prose explanations/descriptions). A disambiguation page for Signal Peak might be a good idea. While I can appreciate your attempt to make the original list article more like an actual article, I think the tabular format is in general easier to use. I would not include entries on the dab page for every one of the entries on the SIA. There is no assumption that every peak is individually notable (apart from inclusion in a list). older ≠ wiser 11:32, 21 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Pakistan helicopter crash[edit]

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

A non-notable military crash, NOTNEWS, GNG etc. etc.. Petebutt (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Author should add it to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present)--Savonneux (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Different standards apply to military and civilian crashes. The media report it and then move on, with no lasting effect. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS applies. Military accidents are more common....William 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Military aircraft accidents are rarely notable enough for a stand-alone article and I cant see anything about this that takes it over the bar. No reason why it cant be listed at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, can be mentioned in 2015 in aviation or 2015 in Afghanistan instead. Brandmeister^talk 08:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above. No notable persons involved and it didn't get any significant news coverage either. Michael5046 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not notable. Haven't even heard of this before. Versus001 (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, well obviously it isn't notable then. Presumably you have heard of the subject of every one of our other 4,945,294 articles? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others SOXROX (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Swimming against the tide, I know, but I still maintain that claiming any plane crash killing this many people is routine or not notable just because it's military and not civilian is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about the notion that, as there is no widespread significant in-depth coverage, it hasn't met the general notability guidelines, regardless of how many deaths there were. If nobody outside Wikipedia is covering it, then we shouldn't either. Delete YSSYguy (talk) 02:55, 21 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 04:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Whale[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable as mentioned, and the current text reads like marketing copy. Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for translation issues, non notable and being a fluffy piece. RbAxM33320 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 01:24, 16 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CDO (company)[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this company is notable or not. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also can use 'CDO Foodsphere' for searches: -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on those sources above, the company is notable. The article can use the Manila Standard Today as reference, and some more from Google news.--RioHondo (talk) 03:33, 29 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) 03:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments needed, pls. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I see only one reliable source, which is insufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BEFORE. The article having only one RS in the article now doesn't mean it can't or it won't have other sources. In fact, there's plenty in the google news links provided above.--RioHondo (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see nothing beyond what might be typically covered for a not particularly notable brand. Further, this is a brand and not a company and hence the article title itself is misleading. Finally, even the articles seem to be confused as to whether the brand CDO Foodsphere" or just "CDO" (without "Foodsphere".--Rpclod (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI, a company can also be a brand. E.g, Koegel Meat Company, Kunzler & Company, Zara (retailer), Abercrombie & Fitch, Louis Vuitton. Secondly, if you aren't satisfied with the google results for "CDO Foodsphere", try CDO + ham, CDO + hotdog or CDO + meat. It is a well known meat brand in the Philippines that has even produced a local children's TV show.--RioHondo (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - RioHondo, you have convinced me to strike my !vote. Might you apply your understanding of the subject to improve the article? It seems as though it could be much more useful than as currently written.--Rpclod (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - As writing company articles is not really my area of expertise, I would appreciate if the article starter Eric abiog can improve it using those reliable sources posted above. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 13:36, 17 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Oliver[edit]

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

Appears to be NN musician. References are a couple in depth, but are also single line mentions, quotes, or do not mention article subject. Perhaps being a member of Sound Team may provide notability. reddogsix (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article's subject is a notable musician and producer, having received significant coverage in reliable international sources that are independent of the subject. There does exist verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources that supports this claim. Here are a few external links to major media outlets that discuss the subject's work at length:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060617092459/http://www.austin360.com/music/content/music/stories/xl/2006/06/8cds.html
http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/music/2014-02-05/sound-teams-marathon/
http://www.austinchronicle.com/calendar/music/event-434178/
http://www.austinchronicle.com/music/2006-06-09/373254/
http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/daytrotter-matt-oliver-countdown/
http://pitchfork.com/tv/39-pitchfork-nightcap/1182-peter-matthew-bauer-fortune-tellers/
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/apr/12/bop-english-constant-bop-review-deliriously-easy-to-listen-to
http://diymag.com/2015/05/01/bop-english-my-bills-on-this-recording-started-to-get-unreasonable

Yogaball (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having founded the band Sound Team does provide notability. Additionally, the subject is affiliated with The Walkmen, White Denim, and numerous other large touring acts with national and international followings for whom he has engineered recordings or with whom he has collaborated. Yogaball (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several valid sources have been added to the article that seem to nullify the NPP's nomination for AfD. Subject's notability seems verifiable enough. Article doesn't seem to meet WP:DEL-REASON. Please let me know how the article can be improved.Yogaball (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article also meets criteria for WP:MUSICBIO Yogaball (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no evidence the subject has received extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. He hasn't received any significant awards nor chart placements. Regardless of who he's played with, if the subject is non-notable by himself, then a separate article is not merited. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN: Thanks for sharing your thoughts FoCuSandLeArN. It's true that the subject's major label work was a commercial failure and didn't chart (which, you could argue, also actually contributes to notability since it was the subject of a huge amount of hype and backlash [47], [48], but just wanted to point out that per WP:MUSICBIO, the "musician...may be notable if they meet "at least one of the following criteria". This subject meets (#5 and #12) in my estimation. Also, did you check out any of the links above? The Pitchfork link is a video in which the subject performs, there's plenty of coverage in the Austin Chronicle and the Austin American-Statesman, and there is a feature on his work as a producer in the Daily Dot. The Guardian and DIY mag mentions are non-trivial and even though he's not the primary subject and mentioned as a producer, it still seems to meet criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO there. Please let me know your thoughts.Yogaball (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not charting does not contribute towards notability in this case because he still didn't receive extensive coverage because of it. Your sources 1 & 2 above: 1) is extremely trivial; 2) is trivial as well, the article being about the band, not Matt. As for MUSICBIO criteria #5 and #12: no, the releases have been of the band, not Matt's; no reliable evidence for #12, again of Matt per se. The Pitchfork video doesn't substantiate anything, it's just a performance video. Austin Chronicle and Statesman have a combined circulation of 200k, they are local sources. The Guardian source does not mention him once. DIY mentions him once trivially. The Dot's citation may be the single good source you've provided, but again it doesn't constitute extensive coverage given it's the only good source. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN: Appreciate your following up to clarify. We may just never see exactly eye-to-eye on this one. But I'm glad we can agree that there is significant, non-trivial and reliable coverage of the article's subject (WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO) in the Daily Dot feature. I'd point out further that Matt's work as a producer certainly meets criteria 5 of WP:NALBUMS ("The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc."), since many of the albums he has performed on, produced, and/or mixed have been released on large independents and major labels. This article meets GNG and in my estimation improves Wikipedia. However, I'm not seeing anything in the Notability guidelines in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO that calls for a subject's coverage to be "extensive," which is a point I see you coming back to repeatedly to defend your position. Can you point me to a specific Wikipedia guideline that requires the coverage be "extensive"? Because I don't see that anywhere. Thanks Yogaball (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sound Team. His post-Sound Team activities can easily be covered in that article. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Thanks for the suggestion. But I think that his post-Sound Team activities don't fit easily or conveniently in the Sound Team article since those activities occurred after the band's dissolution; at the very least, it's awkward. It seems much more clear and comprehensible for the layperson to have a separate article, so I'm still pushing for a Keep here, based on the reasons listed above (conforms to WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, and probably shouldn't have been listed as an AfD in the first place per WP:NOT42), and based on the sheer breadth and scope of the work he's done after the Sound Team break-up. I'm trying to update the article to reflect that, but it's slow going because there's a lot. Yogaball (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You do realize adding a series of "references" that are only single mentions of the article subject do little to improve Notability of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddogsix: Thanks. I figured since the aim is creating an encyclopedia here, the discography should be...encyclopedic. The article's subject's recorded output is voluminous and the artists he has worked with are well-established. But I also added an additional link to an article in Paste about his work as a songwriter in his own band (not in Sound Team) to bolster what I've already shown above w/r/t GNG and WP:MUSICBIO here: [49], and will add more as time allows.Yogaball (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reddogsix: Also, this [50]. Yogaball (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I realize that it may be convoluted to sift through above, so for anyone just joining the discussion, my argument for Keep is based on the following:

-Meets WP:MUSICBIO Criteria 6 ("has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles").[51][52]

-Meets WP:MUSICBIO Criteria 1 via [53],[54], [55], and [56]

-Meets WP:MUSICBIO Criteria 10 ("performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album") via [57]. (NB: Matt is not the central focus of that video performance, but the criteria doesn't state that as a requirement and thus, seems to be satisfied here.)

-Thus, article's subject satisfies GNG requirement.

-Lastly, Merging into Sound Team seems awkward as almost all of the activity (especially his activity as a producer) under consideration has taken place after that band's dissolution. I base this line of reasoning on considerations around how to make the topic understandable to a layperson. I welcome any advice or tips on how to improve the article, so please let me know. Thanks. Yogaball (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The subject seems to have sufficient coverage to meet MUSICBIO criterion 1 and arguably also 5 and perhaps 4.--Rpclod (talk) 03:35, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Ginchev[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has not played in single professional match Dudek1337 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has played and made his debut in the Bulgarian A Football Group a Fully Professional League in 2011–12 A Group per this.While his appearances were in 2012 as a teenager the Subject is only 21 years and and consensus is for giving him a grace period as he has made his debut in a WP:FPL .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (changed from keep) his team indeed played in the top division in 2011-12, though with not much success, they were relegated twice in the meanwhile. Well, Ginchev was substituted in, and played 15 minutes, in one match there, according to the source (database). He also sat on the substitutes' bench during another game without coming in. Technically passes WP:NFOOTY. The nominator probably only saw that his team is now in the third division, and ran to AfD. Kraxler (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Although the nominator's rationale is incorrect, it is at this time doubtful whether the subject passes GNG, and I prefer not to opine after having been pointed out the uncertainty of what has been described by users more active in this area as the current consensus concerning the NFOOTY guideline. Kraxler (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one substitute appearances a number years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Fish (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I, personally, greatly appreciate and consider precedent, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. AfD guidelines say that any particular discussion should be decided on its own merits. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy: He played 13 games in one of the leagues listed at WP:FPL and was deleted. That's not a precedent but a reason to throw NFOOTY out the window, because the people who established it, do not abide by their own rules. Also, to say that WP:GNG "outweighs" NFOOTY is not COMMONSENSE. In case of a very slim pass or a fail, GNG can override NFOOTY because GNG is the more general rule, but in case somebody played several games, or full seasons in a league accepted at FPL, GNG becomes irrelevant, especially when the name is written in non-Roman script which makes it difficult to get sources. Anyway there is indeed the WP:ROUTINE coverage which can not establish notability but is enough after passing NFOOTY. Sorry for this somewhat fundamental post, but either the members of a certain project abide by their own rules, or they amend them. They should refrain from establishing rules and then openly disavow them. And now back to Ginchev, have you checked the web for coverage? If there's none, then you may !vote "delete" without citing other AfDs, and see what consensus will develop. Kraxler (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is never irrelevant, it is the fundamental notability principle, the language that sources are in is irrelevant. If someone meets GNG then they are deemed notable, if someone meets any of the WP:NSPORT criteria they are not necessarily. NSPORT is explicit on this point at its very beginning stating: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. This individual played 15 minutes of football over four years ago according to Soccerway.

The citation of historic consensus in AfDs around players playing only handful of minutes some time ago not being inherently notable is essential as demonstrating per NSPORT that the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. It is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it is a consensus that has been held for a number of years. Google brings back very little in bulgarian, with the most detailed news items apparently being about a lawyer (Адвокат?) with the same name. I'm seeing little more than a mention by name in pretty much all of the others which seem to be about a footballer. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of historic consensus may be used to explain or re-inforce a guideline. It may not be used for comparison of one article to another article, in the latter case it's an OTHERSTUFF argument. Please bear that in mind. Special notability guidelines for different areas are intended to serve a purpose: to save time and effort, avoiding to begin a fundamental discussion at every single AfD. If NFOOTY (which is very well defined, and has a corresponding list of leagues) can be thrown out of the window at the whim of any !voter, it does not serve any purpose. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Amend the guideline or abide by it. Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, how could you expect that anybody takes your !votes seriously if you don't follow your own rules? See what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayan Fenwick, !voters are laughin at NFOOTY and ROUTINE, and the article has a good chance to be kept (even as "no consensus"). May anybody (certainly not me) cite it then everytime they need a "historical (no) consensus" to show that NFOOTY is irrelevant and GNG is very relative? Kraxler (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the rules are not hard and fast. GNG is fluid by definition and trumps NSPORT. There is no GNG here that I can see, even in local language sources, and clear consensus that GNG trumps NFOOTY in instances where an individual only just passes the subject specific guideline, for the simple reason that, as I have already noted NSPORT states: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. You possibly have a point that NFOOTY should be amended to formalise the consensus I noted above, but that has not been necessary to this point and does not lessen the value of the consensus as it can still clearly be shown. I'll comment on Bayan Fenwick on your talk page to avoid derailing the discussion here. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Fenix down:, who has cheekily nicked my wording from a past similar AFD ;) Giant Snowman 18:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subjects like this one where WP:NFOOTY is technically met based on a very small number of appearances, but that comprehensively fail the general notability guideline clearly fall into the section in the lede of WP:NFOOTY that says: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find nothing online that suggests this player is notable and don't think that being subbed in for 15 minutes in a less competitive league should suffice.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While technically he did have 16 minutes appearing in final game of the season on a team playing in the league listed at WP:FPL, at the end of the match the team was relegated to the second tier, and he remains with the team, now in the third tier - and still doesn't seem to be able to make the squad. Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 15 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.