Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 August	27 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Freedom Coalition[edit]

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

Authoer requested AFD as opposed to CSD for deletion, and I see no reason why we can't honor that request. Originally tagged as alleged to be CSD-A7 eligible. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of importance. The Dissident Aggressor 15:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found no convincingly good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 1 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Than Dallas[edit]

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

Nothing at all to suggest third-party coverage much less improvement and notability with the only links I found this. With this existing since October 2005, I'm not seeing any signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything to establish notability. Fails WP:BAND. Me5000 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:40, 29 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 under CSD A10 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · logs) Savonneux (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Moses Conjuration(Other Text)[edit]

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

Un-notable book. Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Uhhhh... WP:BEFORE We already have an article on this. The Sword of Moses I cant redirect it with a AfD tag on it, but I assume that is what the editor was referring to and not the specific ebook reprint of a 19th century translation. Seriously though.--Savonneux (talk) 03:50, 27 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Storsenter[edit]

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

Contested PROD on a mall. One source was added(out of zero). I can't find any other sources. Fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourcing is easy. Geschichte (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean by "sourcing is easy"? I see you added one source which brings the grand total of sources to 2. Two sources is not enough to pass WP:GNG. I also can't evaluate the source since no link is provided, but the information you added was just that a different chief executive took over. How is this wp:sigcov? Me5000 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about 200+ Google News hits? Not that Google News is always very generous when it comes to the non-English sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily notable and meeting WP:GNG. A search in Atekst shows 1,521 hits in printed newspapers. A short combing through shows that there were (at least) four non-trivial articles exclusively about the mall just so fart this year. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does nom speak or understand Norwegian? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a handful of references and there's plenty more online. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:13, 2 September 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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdPushup[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. All material about the company is passing mentions in the context of other similar businesses, press releases and articles that appear to be written by its own employees. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the reference cited are not even known website, lot of wrongfull claim leading to indirect promo of the company. and as per WP:CORP is a pass by mention Shrikanthv (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see citations from TechCrunch, TechInAsia and Economic times which are known websites with their own Wikipedia pages. Sonakshi87 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, can you please list out the "not even know websites" as well as the "wrongfull claim" which you noticed? Sonakshi87 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am surprised to see that how come an entry be nominated for deletion that has primary coverage over websites like techcrunch, economic times, the next web, vc circle, business standard, yourstory.com, nextbigwhat.com, techinasia.com and many more & has been featured on a leading business news channel of india NDTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip7jpXGZx-Q) and also has been selected by Microsoft for the Microsoft accelerator program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.70.250 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search in google news brings several significant references which are enough to keep this article in Wikipedia. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 08:28, 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 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply because it at least has minimal news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:24, 26 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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deltalina[edit]

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

The notability of this BLP is questionable. Many statements are unsourced, and many sources in this article are unreliable (blogs, forums, YouTube, etc.) Does a former airline safety video presenter really warrant its own article? sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 06:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can see if there is continuing commentary. There were a bunch of articles about it back when her first video debuted. If I find in-depth analysis, especially that made years after the video, I'll say Keep. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sovereign Sentinel: I checked Google Books and found some commentary here:
  - Bogost, Ian. How to Do Things With Videogames (Volume 38 of Electronic mediations). University of Minnesota Press, 2011. ISBN 145293312X, 9781452933122. p. 143
- He refers to media mentions in Wired and makes a comment comparing Deltalina to the Pan Am era. What do you think?
- WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Martin, Grant. "United's New Safety Video Helps Turn A Page In Airline Marketing Strategy." Forbes. August 4, 2014. "Delta was the first carrier to user the legacies into the next generation of safety video largely helped by the talents of Deltalina, the finger-wagging flight attendant that both chided and fascinated the traveling publc. Published in 2008, Deltalina’s video has since surged to over 3.2M views on Youtube. Virgin America’s dance number, by contrast, has earned 9.7M views since its October 2013 launch."
- This indicates continuing coverage.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this "indicates continuing coverage" so I say keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 01:45, 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 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't really think that it is notable on it's own - would be better as a short passage on the Delta Air Lines page. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check the criteria for notability WP:N -- this is notable. Keizers (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – adequate coverage in reliable sources, notability guidelines met.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:44, 2 September 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. Might also be considered a consensus to keep, actually, depending on how much weight one gives the IP opinions. In this discussion, the nominator's view that articles that may be the result of PR efforts should not be considered evidence of notability is not widely enough shared to gain consensus and to override the standards our current notability guidelines provide for. Sandstein 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Burke Harris[edit]

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

Non notable. What she actually seems to have done is started a clinic and gotten significant publicity. I can find no papers in Google Scholar. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF. It is possible she meets the GNG because of the New Yorker article, but otherwise she is merely one of a team that produced a study.She is on committees but is chair of none of them. She has received no awards. This article needs to be started over., to be written without phrases like "Hailed as a pioneer in the treatment of toxic stress". I have removed some undocumentable claims about her from the article on Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I let this stand first time I saw it mostly on the strength of the 2013 and 2015 SF Chronicle and Examiner pieces. What say you about these? Too little to establish notability? — Brianhe (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle article is one on each of their nominees for an award, an award she did not receive. It takes herr at her own word, as principal investigation of the research project , which she was not. The Examiner is more about the project, & again bases its part about her on her. I consider both PR. The problem here is that a great deal of newspaper coverage is PR. AA PR guy who contributes legit here & whom I trust told me that the ideal way to do things is to persuade reporters to write genuine articles about the person or company, and editors to insert them. WP's notability-by-sourcing rules are helpless against such tactics, another reason why I would go by any rational measure of importance. I no longer think the popular press can be trusted as an indicator of notability (FWIW, I've for several years been having this suspicion about New Yorker profiles of various interesting people, and I have not been adding them routinely.) The only thing that ultimately shows notability by sourcing is the historical record, and that too depends on the particular interests of historians, and of course doesn't help us for current topics. We need WP:V, but anything dependent on the subject doesn't even have WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources here as well as ones in article demonstrate clear notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources on Google Scholar. Look under her maiden name "Nadine Burke" here

Here is some of the ones I found:
Burke, Nadine J., et al. "The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population." Child abuse & neglect 35.6 (2011): 408-413. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population

Briggance, Bram B., and Nadine Burke. "Shaping America's health care professions: the dramatic rise of multiculturalism." Western journal of medicine 176.1 (2002): 62.

Scott, Brandon G., et al. "The Interrelation of Adverse Childhood Experiences within an At-Risk Pediatric Sample." Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 6.3 (2013): 217-229.

Trade2tradewell (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent comments by DGG. User:Trade2tradewell, those are original papers by the subject, not independent third-party sources and don't seem to me to answer the notability requirement. This is in part my implicit taking of sides with DGG in the effort to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios, even when they have the backing of what I would have expected to be reputable publications. If I have anyhing to do with it, we shall not be content to be "helpless against such tactics". Tomwsulcer, would you do us the favor of not just throwing up a Google search, but rather point to specific entities that demonstrate notability? Brianhe (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe, I reference those papers because DGG wrote that he could not find anything on Google Scholar, so I pointed out that she does appear in Google Scholar as "Nadine Burke" , see link above. You stated that you are biased even though the objective evidence shows that the sourced publications like The New Yorker, San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, Los Angeles Sentinel and a news piece from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health are highly reputable. Whether you or me expect them to be reputable or not, The New Yorker is reputable. see here. She has received an award, I just included it on the page a few minutes ago, The James Irvine Foundation 2014 Leadership Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade2tradewell (talk • contribs) 22:40, 12 August 2015

Brianhe, maybe you could do us a favor and not vote "delete" until you've done your homework, such as looking at sources like this one, source says she is winning an award here, she's quoted as an expert here, a source says she is advising Hillary Clinton here, in which it says The San Francisco pediatrician is a key figure in Hillary Rodham Clinton's first philanthropic effort, an initiative to promote scientific studies of early childhood development and research-based policies to help kids. Many more sources possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trade2tradewell I did not say I was "biased"; I said I was persuaded. There's a difference, which you should understand if you'd like to participate in deletion debates. In fact my first statement when I entered this conversation was that I had decided that the subject was notable, so where in the world do you get this idea? Also please sign your comments. Tomwsulcer I guess the right response here is a succinct "all awards are not created equal", and to reiterate that I was persuaded by DGG's analysis that the Chronicle (sfgate.com) sources are now suspect. I think I'm done here. — Brianhe (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe so you think this source is inaccurate? What part of it do you think is untrue?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If true, it contradicts the basic premise of your article, and of your addition to the article on the study, because it says "i n late 2008, a colleague told Burke Harris about the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, a long-term project led by Kaiser Permanente and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. " The articles have been repeatedly insisting that she is the leader of the survey--it seems from this she isn't even involved as one of the leaders, though she may have participated as one of the people in this multi-center study. There might possible be a basis for an article on her, but not by a COI editor. You have shown your inability to write about the subject in a NPOV manner, so there's nothing else to do but to start over. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I see your point, that there may be a discrepancy here, resulting in confusion about whether (1) Burke Harris was the leader of a medical movement that figured out the link between adverse childhood stressors (parental divorce, incarceration, abuse etc) and long term health risks later in life or whether (2) Burke Harris implemented study recommendations in her clinic, such as asking about stressors and, if found, getting psychotherapy for her young patients possibly to help ease the stress. Still, DGG if you're right, that simply involves us Wikipedians getting the story right, and in my view, does not affect whether Burke Harris is notable or not. I continue to think she's notable, regardless of whether she was the study pioneer or not, since her role in this area is considerable, with plenty of media attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The solution might possibly be to make an article on the clinic, which is the only thing that appears certain, and the only thing for which there are RSs for notability. BLPs with substantial reliance upon unverifiable claims are normally deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: added this: Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship Recipient[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8101:8B82:BDDD:F911:6AF:68F2 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — 2601:640:8101:8B82:BDDD:F911:6AF:68F2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per DGG and Brianhe. Searches did not reveal anything to show the subject meets notability requirements. No substantial coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - our job is to determine if subject is covered in depth in reliable sources. It is NOT to do an investigation whether or not said coverage is the result of "PR" by a reporter who was persuaded to write an article by the source in order to get a Wikipedia article - that's completely ludicrous and is not policy in any way. Oh and Brianhe it's nice of you to side with DGG's witch hunt "to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios," but as someone who was outright accused by DGG as being "clearly" a paid COI editor, I can assure you that DGG's instincts as to what is a promotionally placed bio aren't that great. I'm still waiting for an apology on that one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. See also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK if there are minor inaccuracies in the sources or article, the entire world is welcome to edit. 009o9 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON.Mango 03:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) 28 August 2015‎— Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confirmed sockpuppet's !vote stricken
Comment 1 Certainly it is "our responsibility" to find out if the coverage by what purports to be reliable sources is based on PR, because if it is, the source is not reliable for notability in this instance--and if they make a habit out of it, not reliable for notability at all. Efforts to remove promotional articles are based on WP:NOT, and I think the present state of Wikipedia is evidence that all of us who care about our remaining an encycopedia need to greatly intensify them. I of course can be wrong in any particular instance, but I do not think I am in this one. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I do apologize for missing the articles listed. For the first one, there are 56 citations in G Scholar. The second is cited 14 times, the third zero. This is way below the standards for notability in biomedicine. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of multiple examples of significant coverage in presumably reliable published sources. In short, a GNG pass, which is what we're here to determine. Content debates belong elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. Also, WP:GOOG provideth: Mar'11.[1] Jul'11.[2] Nov'13.[3][4] Jan'14.[5] Aug'14.[6] Nov'14.[7][8] Lastly, WP:SCHOLARSHIP means legit papers, via wiki-reliable co-authors/editors/journals, do help show WP:N, there is no WP:ONLYIFSHEHASTENTHOUSANDCITES that I'm aware of. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@75.108.94.227: Just curious, as someone who is not voting here myself, why are you invoking WP:IAR? Seems a bit odd. Quis separabit? 17:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, satisfying WP:GNG is sufficient for a bangkeep. Clearly she does. But the arguments being made here for deletion, is that she's "gotten significant publicity" but somehow still fails wiki-notability. So I'll go ahead and fall back on the gold standard: WP:IAR applies to exceptional situations, where the rules indicate one thing, but common sense indicates another. Here at this AfD, the rules clearly indicate a bangkeep, so the only argument for bangdelete is basically, ignore-all-rules-and-delete. However, that would be mis-applying WP:IAR, since the article (when de-pufferized which isn't a matter for AfD) actually improves the encyclopedia. Anyways, I don't think invoking IAR ought be necessary, for either bangkeep or bangdelete, but I also think WP:GNG is passed with flying colors... since GNG has been brought up multiple times before, I figured I'd just cut to the chase. Shrug. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 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 Animal magnetism. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetizer[edit]

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

Nothing here that isn't in Animal magnetism, & I don't think article title is a suitable redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this substantially a list?--Savonneux (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article isn't very good. (That's not my fault -- all I did was make a Redirect.) But let's leave at least a Redirect. The reason I created the Redirect was that I heard someone use the word "magnétiseur" in French, and I wanted to know what it was. So I found it on the French Wikipedia. But there was no link to an English Wikipedia article. So I went to the trouble of searching for an article in the English Wikipedia that talks about these people, and then created an "article" (really just a Redirect) so that people can click on the link in non-English Wikipedias and find the article "Animal magnetism" in English. So please don't undo my work just because the article now is not of the highest quality, or for some other reason. (Find something else to do please.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and disambiguate It's a list-ish article with few sources and a confusing name. Could easily be merged into Animal Magnetism as a list of practitioners. The term 'magnetizer' is used more often in the sense of 'Give magnetic properties to; make magnetic' per Magnetism and not Animal Magnetism making this potentionally confusing as well.--Savonneux (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article animal magnetism does not have the necessary explanations, found in article magnetizer (magnetizer, mesmerizer, mesmerists and magnetists), as Mr. TheLongTone says. I believe we should also explain the difference between magnetizer and hypnotist (to enrich the theme). The Mr. Savonneux comment about being a possible list, He that would be a reference to the issue, identic to Nobel Prize (although there list), and to remedy the confusion referred, I suggest a disambiguation of the term, because merge or delete the article is take "effect for the cause" (Scientist - Science, Philosopher -Philosophy and etc, etc.), so the improvement of the article is required, but not to excluded.Rodrigo Elias Cardoso (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Animal magnetism (when we say "merge" this allows useful content to be transferred). At present we have a lot more to say about "Scientists" and "Philosophers" than we do about "Magnetizers", so these topics have their own article per WP:SPLIT: If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article... then the topic can be split off. If a large amount of encyclopedic information became available about magnetizers we could reconsider making it a stand-alone article: Noyster (talk), 10:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus appears to be that, at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Delete without prejudice to re-creation if better in-depth reliable sources become available. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil America[edit]

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

Previous AfD resulted in "no consensus" due to only two !votes (delete and weak keep). Only third-party ref with any depth is one article from the Bangkok Post. Other than that, sources are mostly primary or non-notable blogs, etc. Edit history of article creator suggests a strong conflict of interest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ probable vanity page with an enormous number of sources, claims, of which the strongest probably is this [9] article in an expat newspaper in Thailand. Exhibitions in minor places with no press coverage. The thing is, Notable people, authors, photographers show up in searches. This [10] news google search on his unusual name shows how lacking in notability he is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Reexamined, still voting DELETE, see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The photographer has held two TED talks that can easily be found online just by googling his name, a google search on his "unusual" name shows this [11] the search even leads to third-party journals and magazines where he's featured, i say the article should be kept but it should be updated. Tenuta134 00:13, 21 August 2015

Comment. Tenuta134's "Keep", immediately above, was struck out in this unexplained edit by an IP. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is numerous references to museum shows, an ISBN for at least one of the books found through google and numerous other links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.51.150.177 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Sock vote struck. T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phil America is a well known artist who has shown artworks all over the world. He exhibited at the museum I worked at. Can be seen with a simple Google serach. Shelly200mirrors 06:31, 22 August 2015
Keep He has held two TED talks.--Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 13:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG requires non-trivial third-party coverage, and it's not there. A TED talk is by its very nature not third-party, and plenty of people do them - it's not just Steve Jobs-level people, and it's gotten so big they do "independent" TEDx talks now. I can find a talk on Youtube, but nobody talking about the talk, and one of them, according to PA's Facebook, was a TEDx talk, so to claim two is inaccurate. The sizes of his exhibitions aren't ascertainable, nor is the notability of where he exhibited. He doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. His articles (and what I assume are exhibition books) are all considered self-published works and on indie press; they're not in major magazines, and there are no reviews of his work. His GHits from the search cited above are, in order: official site, WP, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, the TEDx on Youtube, Vimeo, etc. Hit #10 is a Guardian article, followed by a photo blog, another personal page, 2 Linkedins, and another Youtube of the TEDx talk. He exists, but he's not verifiable as notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Probable delete~~ as I pointed out above, searches on his unusual name are unpersuasive, although if you look far enough down the search some articles in reliable sources do come up. I just don't have time right now to read them all and render a firm opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Reexamined, still voting DELETE, see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like the GNG, an artist who has been around and is notable is going to have some combination of published third-party reviews, exhibition announcements, critical essays, and perhaps a few appearances in books. Aside from the Guardian article^[1] on his Thai slum project (which actually disparages his work as being far less notable than that of Santiago Sierra), I find very few of these. Third party sources are easy to find for notable artists. Sources for Phil America are not. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "The artist who took a 'slum vacation' to Thailand's biggest shanty town". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 August 2015.

Comments. What a wretched article. It at first appears to have have lots of references, but they're a mess. A lot of the URLs look very fishy. I tried a few. Some actually showed something useful; some did not. Imaginably enough is actually sourced for an article to be merited. (Incidentally, the fact that the opinionated Jonathan Jones didn't like what PA was doing doesn't affect PA's [Wikipedia-style] notability, if I understand the latter. For Wikipedia, any publicity is good publicity.) If any or all of Tenuta134, Shelly200mirrors and Eat me, I'm a red bean think that an article really is merited, they might make a convincing start of converting it from the mess that it is now into something solid. (Don't know what to do? Here's inspiration for you.) I'd then "!vote" to "keep" the result. ¶ MSJapan says: His GHits from the search cited above are, in order [...]. Uh-huh. One thing that should not affect the notability of Mr America is any awfulness of Google, particularly when the species of awfulness is likely to vary with one's particular "bubble". What matters is what good sources exist, not how much junk one must boredly go through in order to find these good sources. ¶ E.M.Gregory, are you saying roughly what I'm saying? I can't work out whether "probable delete" means "this will probably end up deleted", "this should probably end up deleted", "if I knew more I'd probably want this deleted but till then I don't", or something else. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks User:Hoary for reminding me to come back. When several editors insist there's something there, I feel like I ought to take a careful look. Searches on his name showed flickers of possibility like the Guardian that made me think there might be more out there. I've now just spent a few minutes looking. Phil America's slum stunt makes this a sort of WP:BLP1E of the art world. "Slum Vacation", the only Phil America accomplishment for which I find secondary sources, was a performance art stunt: he built a shack in a Thai slum and lived in it for 2 weeks, then took it apart and put it on display at the University of Bangkok. This got him dismissive coverage in The Guardian as an example of a failed attempt by an artist to be relevant to the conversation about poverty, and an article in the Bangkok Post that none of us can access (past the first 3 paragraphs). He posted the project on his facebook page, and a handful of apparently non-notable blogs and websites ran photos. That's all I can find, and it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - just FYI, since you changed your vote and this is the one you want to count, you should go back above and add the <strike></strike> tags around the other one so the reviewer knows which one to count. MSJapan (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, E.M.Gregory. The more I look at this article, the worse it seems. A humdrum example: "In 2014 Phil helped organize and took part in Freedumb, the first art show to be shown on all continents within 3 days." (Attributed to http://publicdelivery.org/freedumb/ .) Amazing that they got the show up and running in Antarctica so quickly! Except that of course they didn't: not "all" continents but six, and the source says nothing about this being the first time that even this had been done. I just now fixed that. Personally I've had quite enough of this sorry article; but I notice that Lopifalko has been doing a lot of work to it, and await his comment here before "!voting" myself. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It truly is a beast of an AFD. I would like to see some coverage in edited publications (not blogs, unless they are notable blogs). On the other hand, that exhibition list is starting to persuade me. Not Zurich - Zurich practically throws money at artists to show in its myriad art spaces and an artist living there as America was could fairly easily talk his way into getting a show. But he really did do a mixed media gig at MoMA. On the other hand, New York teems with small publication that pay intense attention to exhibitions, and the MoMA exhibit is sourced only to MoMa's own website. I'm a big fan of WP:HEYMANN, so I'm writing this to cheer User:Lopifalko on. Flag me if anything changes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MOMA, as in the big museum? Sadly, E.M.Gregory, I looked it up and, as it says here, the exhibition was in some kind of education centre, which turns out to be the MOMA research library. Sounds like the MOMA, but a show in the library is very different from a curated show in the gallery. I think this a telling example of the, ahem, inflation that has us looking so closely at the claims and notability. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have made that clear. A "real" MoMA show would have changed my vote in a heartbeat. My point was that he did get a moment at MoMA, and even that moment in the library or wherever it was is something of pretty big deal. But it was a couple of years ago. Nobody wrote it up. It does not appear to have been any kind of breakthrough for him. The other listed exhibitions are far less persuasive. I try to look closely at artists AFDs that show some indication of notability. But about the best I can find here is the possibility that it's just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Lopifalko is doing an excellent job, but I fear that the irritation is getting to him. Understandably so. -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the motivating comments folks. I've whittled down this huge cloud of hot air, into its few constituent parts, so we can best see what this person's achievements amount to. I feel there could be a reason to keep this article at the end of all this, but it would be on thin ice. I'm as yet undecided, haven't weighed it against WP:NOTABILITY yet. Lots of the achievements are based on his photographs of other peoples' graffiti, in publications focused upon the graffiti and not the photographer. And then there is his video-based work, where video is a less onerous medium to incorporate into a space than other media. And he has had installations, which I've not given much thought to yet - I would still like to whittle away at his solo exhibitions to see what they amount to. The MoMA show, which has been mentioned here, comes down to very little. It's disheartening to see how an artist bio fluffs up their career, employs smoke and mirrors, and it take enormous scrutiny from an interested observer to decipher what has actually happened - a lot lot less than what has been inferred. The obfuscation work itself feels like a work of art. -Lopifalko (talk)

User:Lopifalko's detailed examination (and highly informed deeflation) of this article's claims is nothing short of heroic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E.M.Gregory, most humbly. -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment I took a shot at improving it, and was able to find one new ref for the show in London. The gallery that is promoting his work (Public Delivery) has some decent artists on their roster.I was actually thinking about changing my vote, until I started editing the biographical details. The name "Phil America" is a stage name/artist name, and its ref was his own site. A whole lot of unsourced self-promotion going on. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public Delivery have a page for everything he does (and a list of exhibitions here with locations that appear to differ from the locations he desceribes them having been at on his own site here). They seem to be organising a lot of his exhibitions, rather than merely promoting them (or is this what New Media Theorist means, I'm not fully understanding). I don't yet trust using them as a ref for anything. -Lopifalko (talk)

Lopifalko, Public Delivery seems genuine to me. They have a few artists whose names I recognized-- Erwin Wurm really cements some notability for them. Although maybe they just exchanged mail correspondence one day and now they're "collaborators". I agree with what you say about "smoke and mirrors above." Regarding the MoMA show, it seems that it might have been just a "free exchange" show where anyone could submit. It was in the mezzanine of the MoMA library. See note #2 in the article. Yet another inflated ref, it would appear. One thing I did add to the article introduction is that he's an "activist", a term which seems to define many of his projects. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lopifalko you explained it perfectly when you say "it take enormous scrutiny from an interested observer to decipher what has actually happened - a lot lot less than what has been inferred. The obfuscation work itself feels like a work of art". E.G. I just discovered that Public Delivery is run by Martin Schulze, who is a collaborator on many of Phil's other projects. Keeping my Delete vote and stopping any further work on this! New Media Theorist (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. User:New Media Theorist You have my deep and sincere sympathies, as someone who revisited this article half a dozen times, just double-checking PhilAmerica's smoke-and-mirrors page to see if there was something to see. Just one last Question - Do you thing the whole Wikipedia article thing was another PhilAmerican piece of performance art?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I think Lopifalko deserves all the credit for figuring this one out and stating it so succinctly above. What he says about the way some artists operate is really interesting. In the real world, it's a valid way to make a living; here, it's not a valid way to present yourself. In answer to your question, the Stage name Phil America is a performance of an imagined artistic persona... New Media Theorist (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @New Media Theorist, to wit: "whole lot of unsourced self-promotion". Quis separabit? 17:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the deconstruction that has gone on here, is there a Wikipedia criteria for keeping an article based on it providing a clearer picture of an almost notable person than is available to interested readers anywhere else?! -Lopifalko (talk)
Comment. Lopifalko, you deserve some Quixotic barmystar or similar. (Another for New Media Theorist, for all this.) The amount of work you've done on this (non-) article, no wonder it's got your mind, um, whittling clouds so that they may rest on thin ice. I took another look at the article today, particularly on the man's solo exhibition "Journey of Voices" ... which turned out not to have been solo. (NB neither this nor any other exhibition was previously billed as "solo". Just "selected".) There really doesn't seem to be much left. Perhaps this is an "emerging" artist; if so, my comment is, as always: "Let's wait till the emergence has already occurred." Until then, somebody thinking that the biographee merits an article (Tenuta134? Shelly200mirrors? Eat me, I'm a red bean?) would be free to work on a draft, augmenting it with disinterestedly sourced material. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear. Hear. I think we can close this now on a delete consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hoary for all this decent editing attention. -Lopifalko (talk)

Delete Wikipedia:Too soon -Lopifalko (talk)
Delete per Lopifalko. There's something to the biographee, who could well be "emerging". If this is closed as delete (as seems likely), and if more material about the biographee comes to be published, then somebody wanting to revive an article should of course ask whoever has closed this AfD. But one tip: Work from the latest version of the deleted article, which may be far shorter than the latest before the AfD notice was slapped on but is far better (with a far higher percentage of references that actually say what the article implies that they say, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 3 September 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)} samtar^{(leave me a message)} 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartisan[edit]

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

Article about a company that fails notability. A search found no reliable sources about the topic. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : The sources cited in the article are reliable. Multiple credible sources including Economic times and Entrepreneur magazine confirm the information provided in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.16.70.12 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current article has multiple sources where Cartisan is the subject of the article. The sources aren't in a lot of depth, but they are bylined by reporters, as oppose to being an announcement or news release. CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:02, 26 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) 16:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ATOM Records[edit]

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

NN record label, possibly defunct. Endorsed prod removed by article creator. MSJapan (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice ATOM Records has one chart-ranking with Cornerstone and noteable musicans Jon Butcher (three albums in the Billboard 200, several singles in various charts) and Leland Sklar in it's rooster, one of the most prominent Bass-players in the music-business. MSJapan, by clicking this blue underlined words on every WP page, you'll redirected to the related pages, where you can check out all of the facts. I'm sorry that you're obviously not know that, but absolutely no problem to help out :-) User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)

Strong oppose MSJapan tagged the page Cornerstone for proposed deletion over and over again, altough reliable third party sources were delivered and refered to. MSJapan wants to remove the page plus related pages, because he personally hates the band and construct and invite reasons to do so, which has nothing to do with the reality or the facts. Simply ignores third party sources. I’ve already contacted Wikipedia in reagrds of this, block of IP requested because of vandalism. Talking ‘but the band page in accordance to WP: band:

“1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.”

Fullfilled. I have refered to two example sources (Classic Rock (magazine) and Powerplay Magazine), I don’t want to start refering to hundreds of reviews and interviews regarding the band. ^[1]

“2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart”.

Fullfilled. It doesn’t matter, if for one week or hundred weeks. ^[2]

“4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”

Fullfilled. Countless medias reported about the band’s USA-Tour and their several UK-Tours.^[3]. I refered to one example source (Dayton Daily News). Again, I don’t start uploading and refer to hundreds of sources, because one guy hates the band

“10. Has 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, etc. “

Fullfilled. Delivered two songs to the soundtrack “Little Alien”, which won multiple awards. Check out the films WP or the films Website.

“11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.”

Fullfilled. Rotation on national Austrian Radios Hitradio Ö3^[4] and “Radio Wien^[5] Example playlists delivered and refered, too.

Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet). The band played the mainstages at all of the Festivals that was mentioned, as cleary is viewable at the refered Flyers and several videos in the Internet. Btw., MSJapan, “Fireworks” and “Powerplay” are “two of the biggest rock’zines in the UK, not “the biggest”. Learn to read, or in case you can’t, tell me, so I’ll read it aloud for you. Let me add, that there should be no place on WP for personal grief and personal tastes.

References

^ Rich Wilson. "Bon Roxette, anyone?" (PDF). Classic Rock, Issue 05/2011, UK. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
^ http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=Cornerstone&titel=Smalltown+Boy&cat=s
^ Donald Trasher. "Austrian band teams up with Dayton record label". Dayton Daily News, US. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
^ "Eberhard Forcher's Friday Night" (PDF). Hitradio Ö3.
^ "Heimat bist Du großer Töne" (PDF). Radio Wien, Austria. Retrieved 2015-08-11.

User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)

Reply: Then you shouldn't prod articles in retaliation. Also, label notability is different than that of the band. Therefore, citing the band meeting criteria does not address the label. ATOM isn't notable because they distributed a single that charted, especially when it is very likely the single charted because it was for charity. Nothing else Cornerstone released on ATOM ever charted at all. That's why I find it interesting that a cover charity single is the only thing that did. A label is also not notable because an artist on their label charted somewhere else. The reason you find this to be a problem is because you are trying to establish notability for four distinct things using the same sources, and you can't do that. MSJapan (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey1976 as an editor who created this and other articles with an undisclosed COI (I do appreciate you finally disclosing it, btw) in an effort to promote Cornerstone, its label, and its single in Wikipedia, you are not objective with regard to this content, and taking a combative tone is not helpful to you. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP; the only two outside sources are passing mentions. Miniapolis 22:56, 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 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:CORP and was created as part of a promotional campaign. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It may be that a few artists notable enough for articles have released on this label but none of them seem to have a long term relationship with it, so I can't see how it hopes to inherit their notability as it has not released any of their more notable recordings. I don't see any albums on this label with articles. The search results are not encouraging in the least. The points made above by the promoter of Cornerstone are mostly unconvincing although the point about having released records that appeared in recognised charts could be persuasive if any evidence was offered for this beyond the one Cornerstone single scraping the edge of the Austrian singles chart. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, the organization just isn't really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:02, 3 September 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age[edit]

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

Contains mostly OR (I doubt there are references for the fact that Robert Walpole's retirement lasted 3 years and 35 days...) and trivial factoids. WP:LISTCRUFT. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mathematical calculations are not original research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but assertions such as "[t]he prime minister with the longest retirement" and other trivia are unsourced OR. Even if you include that, too, under "mathematical calculations", the fact that this is absolute LISTCRUFT remains. --Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A clear and concise article on all of Britain's PMs by age. And very much to the point. Boy Named Stu (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply put, this is not WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH AusLondonder (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, for the exact same reasons as applied in this AFD discussion for List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom's "trivial factoids" and "LISTCRUFT" arguments were not addressed by most "keep" commenters. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's arguments of "trivial factoids" and "LISTCRUFT" are best avoided per WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:WHOCARES and WP:USELESS. They are not supported by policy or guideline and so are inadequate as reasons to delete. The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN and the topic passes it - see Today's Prime Ministers are younger than ever or Prime Ministers: Salisbury to Blair, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topics such as this do not qualify as WP:LISTCRUFT. Halftime Hero (talk) 04:48, 30 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Amable[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable child actress. Quis separabit? 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's hardly much to improve and she's not independently notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Cant find anything notability-wise, Fails NACTOR & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 2 September 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 15:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Watt-Smith[edit]

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

Not notable for Wikipedia, just personal promotion/PR, article contains errors, links only to own personal Linkedin page and her company website Sheroddy (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "of of the Future 100 Young Entrepreneurs Of The Year" is in our terms an unmistakable "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm finding more recent sources, so the article is in need of updating: The Industry, Sunday Times, Management today, Marie Claire. There's probably more - this was just a quick G-search. LaMona (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now or at best weak keep as LaMona said (but draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing convincingly good, this and this (best results I found aside from a passing mention at Books). BTW, Sheroddy it seems you never notified the author (who is still active) Jpbowen. As I mentioned the possible drafting and userfying, maybe Jpbowen wants to save it in his userspace. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — she has multiple articles on her in national publications. I have added more references to some of these. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current version of article clearly demonstrates the GNG is satisfied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time for discussion given recent improvements. T. Canens (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like she's reasonably notable. There may be issues with the article needing some clean-up, but this isn't the place for that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Number of sources appear to confirm notability. Just because an article is promotional does not justify its deletion, it justifies it cleanup. Also, as WP:BEFORE makes clear, a nom should search for sources first, not simply nominate for deletion AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 27 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) 16:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey women's national under-18 volleyball team[edit]

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

Non-notable, this is the only existing under age national team article and template. Wikiproject Volleyball do not back the creation of under age national teams articles. Similar articles have been deleted so far, like this examples: 1 and 2. Osplace 14:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are such articles for other sports branches. Why not for volleyball also? What was not existing before, may not mean that it may not be existing in the future. --CeeGee 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, I don't think we need these kind of articles for any other sport (Football can be an exception) Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CeeGee Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROTM routine coverage as a sports team but not inherently notable. Even wikiproject vball doesn't consider them notable enough for inclusion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notability_guide_for_volleyball--Savonneux (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, but if you are concerned about keeping under age team records I suggest to create a section in the senior team page. Tomcat313 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, I don't know we need created articles for any other sport. Boyconga278 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Denning[edit]

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

Not notable, only links to own personal website, seems more like promotion Sheroddy (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He has one book that is held in >1K libraries in Worldcat (ISBN 978-0470548684); all of the others are in the low single digits. So that's a single successful book. The article lists awards, but none of them are of the type that supports notability, with the possible exception of being a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and nearly everyone there has a WP page. The only book review I found was on the American Express site. He does do the speaking circuit, but that isn't terribly notable. LaMona (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more or less per LaMona. The nom's assertion that Forbes (forbes.com) is the subject's "personal website" should bring their WP:COMPETENCE into serious question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, and the article was nominated for deletion by a new user User:Sheroddy who began nominating articles for deletion within their third edit. While I strongly believe that we should be bold this is maybe a bit too bold. Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 1 September 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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hattat Aziz Efendi[edit]

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

no evidence of notablity Redsky89 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...except for the freaking monograph about him cited under references? Look, this is a substub, and it can well be merged into "Ottoman calligraphy" or "list of Ottoman calligraphers" if you are up to the task of compiling these. But there are no grounds for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the English article was created long ago than the tr: one (2012‎ by Basak) but the tr: article is much longer now. Perhaps someone can translate and thereby expand this article. Solomon 7968 12:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was definetley a notable calligrapher. I've tried to expand the article. I am not that good in English, could you please check and edit it?--Basak (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now the article is quite ok in shape. Having calligraphic panels hanging in a notable Mosque (I note the article on the mosque is currently unreferenced) is not in itself enough for notability but having personally invited from a King presumably is; assuming that it is a very selective honour. Solomon 7968 16:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 16:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but I didn't even bother to type "keep" because this is quite clearly a spurious submission. There in't the remotest appearance of a "case" for deletion here, so I see no reason to even begin to argue. The article can be merged for being a stub, no deletion debate necessary. It can always be re-created with the addition of content, no deletion review necessary, but there is nothing in our deletion guidelines that would suggest a "debate" here. The submitter said "no evidence of notablity"; they apparently copy-pasted the phrase from somewhere, but as the article has cited a full monograph about the subject for years, that phrase as no applicability to the case, and the submitting user either does not understand the phrase, or deletion guidelines, or the information in the article. Either way, there is nothing to see here and I have to ask why this is relisted rather than speedy-closed as spurious. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 1 September 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hurley (doctor)[edit]

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

An accomplished but otherwise non notable doctor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No especial notability. Looks like a memorial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Yet another in the plethora of articles about St Peter's College old boys who clearly fail WP:N. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have used the search term "Peter Hurley nz -photographer" (without the quotation marks, of course) on Google to see what shows up, and Dr Hurley does not appear to have an online presence of a contemporary person who meets notability criteria. Schwede 66 06:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Duffbeerforme clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He made an important contribution to the development of nuclear medicine in Auckland. I have referenced a published history with a description of his role. He is notable as a pioneer of nuclear medicine rather than as a photographer.Rick570 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from tidying up an already existing department at a hospital exactly what did he pioneer in the field of nuclear medicine. There is nothing in the biography to make him particularly notable. NealeFamily (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some sources. Leading number is # cites according to google scholar:

477 Strauss, H. William, Barry L. Zaret, Peter J. Hurley, T. K. Natarajan, and Bertram Pitt. "A scintiphotographic method for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction in man without cardiac catheterization." The American journal of cardiology 28, no. 5 (1971): 575-580.
248 Zaret, Barry L., H. William Strauss, Peter J. Hurley, T. K. Natarajan, and Bertram Pitt. "A noninvasive scintiphotographic method for detecting regional ventricular dysfunction in man." New England Journal of Medicine 284, no. 21 (1971): 1165-1170.
99 Scott, P. J., and P. J. Hurley. "The distribution of radio-iodinated serum albumin and low-density lipoprotein in tissues and the arterial wall." Atherosclerosis 11, no. 1 (1970): 77-103.
115 Pritchard, David A., Bramah N. Singh, and Peter J. Hurley. "Effects of amiodarone on thyroid function in patients with ischaemic heart disease." British heart journal 37, no. 8 (1975): 856-860.
93 Hurley, Peter J. "Red cell and plasma volumes in normal adults." Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 16, no. 1 (1975): 46-52.
72 Smith, H. J., B. N. Singh, R. M. Norris, M. B. John, and P. J. Hurley. "Changes in myocardial blood flow and ST segment elevation following coronary artery occlusion in dogs." Circulation research 36, no. 6 (1975): 697-705.
59 Scott, P. J., and P. J. Hurley. "Demonstration of individual variation in constancy of 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion." Clinica chimica acta 21, no. 3 (1968): 411-414.

...

Not sure, but leaning keep. User:Rick570, Do you want to do the work to integrate these works? I strongly suggest that you work out how to use google scholar if you're going to be writing about academics. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He probably satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, as the founder of a department of nuclear medicine and a co-author of quite a few highly-cited articles.[12] Unfortunately all of the article's references are offline so they can't really be evaluated, but for someone who died in 1983 that's not too surprising. It sounds as if he gets a significant chapter in the Bruce White book; presumably the Auckland Star and New Zealand Herald articles are obits which also suggests at least some notability. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
founded? Really? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have incorporated a list of Hurley's research publications as researched by talk|Stuartyeates. Rick570 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is introduce some peacocked original research that it not supported by the references provided. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doubtless a fine physician but not otherwise notable. Quis separabit? 17:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The citation record listed above by Stuartyeates is a strong indication for meeting WP:PROF#1. Granted, the most-cited articles only list Hurley as a minor author (listed somewhere in the middle of multiple authors), but some of the opther highly-cited articles he is first or last author. Especially for someone who passed away 30 years ago, this is not bad at all. The absence of accessible sources on the person himself is a bit worrysome, though (WP:V...). --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While borderline, the fact that his work was more than 30 years ago may have something to do with a lack of a web presence. But what is currently there is enough for him to pass WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA[edit]

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

This article may fall short of WP:EVENTCRIT: "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." (my emphasis) This lawsuit may meet WP:GNG, but it has no historical significance or lasting effect, as it was only started in March, and as far as I know, no hearings have been held. I also question whether the sources are WP:ROUTINE, as almost all of them are dated from the 10th and 11th of March (press releases were released on the 10th). This google news search:"Wikimedia" "NSA" lawsuit, revealed very little of substance dating from after March. This lawsuit may gain some historical significance or lasting effect in the future, but for now, it is WP:TOOSOON. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: When will the lawsuits outcome be revealed? Dustin (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone can tell at this stage. According to this source, the first hearing will be on September 4th about a motion to dismiss, it could end around then if the motion is granted, or it could last for years. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High level legal cases are not EVENTs. WP:GNG applies (and as you accept, GNG is met). Darmokand (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You misrepresent my statement, I never accepted that GNG is met, I said: "This lawsuit may meet WP:GNG" the word "may" in that sentence is intended to imply uncertainty. You provide no evidence in the form of prior discussion, policy, or guideline that WP:EVENT does not apply to lawsuits, just the statement that they don't. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep or Merge - There are over half a dozen sources listed for the article. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected with history, or merged to another article, such as Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia Foundation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article is both sourced and notable. Arguments to delete are strained and unconvincing. I am, frankly, astonished by this Afd. Jus da fax 09:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Agree with @Jusdafax: the argument for deletion seems like a stretch. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a notable case that has received significant media attention. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channelomics[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Consensus is clear for a merge rather than deletion, which can be discussed from the article talk page separately; I'm happy with this.Klbrain (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. It conflates well-known methods used to study ion function with proteinomics and genomics; the term isn’t used with sufficient frequency to be notable. The definition is unreferenced, and I can’t find reliable sources that use it. The only evidence provided for its use are 3 listed examples, of which the first mentions the term only fleetingly in the discussion (Camerino et al, 2007; and uses a different definition to that used on the page), the second doesn’t mention it at all (Lehmann-Horn & Jurkat-Rott, 2003; did a text search on the full article), and the 3rd doesn’t mention it in the title or abstract (I can’t get to the full text). ~~An ‘all fields’ search on pubmed gives “Your search for channelomics retrieved no results.”~~

Other minor points made on the page are made more comprehensively on the Ion channel Page. Alternative: merge into Ion channel Page; but my feeling is that there is little left to merge. However, my recommendation is to Delete. Klbrain (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs a lot of work, but the subject passes WP:GNG rather easily. Here are results for Google Scholar [13], showing the term used repeatedly in peer-reviewed scientific papers ~~(I'm not sure why the nominator got a negative result at PubMed)~~, and for Google Books [14], ~~which even returns a 2010 book entirely devoted to the topic~~. That said, I would not object strongly to merging the page to Ion channel and Proteomics. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My error on the pubmed search. Not sure what happened there, but it now turns up 20 articles in total (that doesn't do a full-text search). I don't think that this is noteworthy over a 12 year period, and does rather smack of fishing for a catchy grant submission trying to catch the 'omics' wave ... call me cynical! On the google books search, the book you refer to is 30pages long from an obscure publisher with a mixed (non-specialist) output. That doesn't seem to be a notable contribution. So, I still suggest a Delete on the grounds of notability, but would be a relaxed by a merge; then await Enzymoomics, Histonomics, Lipidomics, Gproteinomics, TRKomics ... Klbrain (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to what you are saying about all those trendy omics, but it seems to me that that becomes an IDONTLIKEIT argument. And I just realized that that book publisher, Books LLC, is a Wikipedia mirror, so let's discount that. But, even discounting the book, WP:GNG is satisfied here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up the to the IDONTLIKEIT argument; consider it my conflict of interest declaration! WP:GNG requires significant secondary sources; I think that the Google scholar search shows up some primary sources, so still don't agree that WP:GNG is met.Klbrain (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three secondary sources: [15], [16], and [17], that I could find quickly; there are probably more. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And two more: [18] and [19]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article needs work, and I would think merge would be fine, but I have issues with some of the reasons for deleting. Proteomics does not usually involve studying the *function* of proteins. In theory it would, but generally it determines (with fabulous resolution) the identity an quantity of expressed proteins. Furthermore, proteomic analysis cannot generally capture the membrane pool of proteins (such as channels). There are techniques where you snip off the bits of the proteins which dangle out of the membrane into the cytosol or extracellular media, but the channels within the membrane themselves are excluded from most proteomics. There is no other term to describe the study of ion channels other than just that "the study of ion channels" . The study of other topics such as proteins, metabolites, inflammatory mediators are all now termed omic and there is no logical reason why some topics would be and others would not. "omics" is now really the new "ology". Merger with channelome seems logical though. Possibly converting this to a link to channelome and then including channelomics (the actual study of ion channels) as a subsection within that. I would volunteer... but am just off on holiday right now!!! (For the record, I have never used channelomics in a grant application!! ;-) ...but I do get that sensible semi-cynical view!! Does "channelome" itself return many hits? Is there a wikipedia entry for proteome AND proteomics? Thanks all you Wikipedians for keeping up the old quality control!! Its very important!!! Richard (user:RBJ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBJ (talk • contribs) 08:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything salvageable and redirect to ion channel, or possibly to ion channel#Channelomics if there's enough material for a subsection. Probably need a redirect at channelome too. This is total grant bait, but it's notable grant bait. (Note we've already got lipidomics and glycomics and kinome, and we don't seem to have GPCRome but it's used un-self-consciously in the literature.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that we also have Channelome. No way do we need both, so they should become a single article, and I'd have no problem with a merge to Channelome. Here's Google Scholar for channelome: [20]. But – grant bait or not, notable is notable. The subject still passes GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a Merge if that's the general feeling. The questions is, where too. Perhaps both Channelomics to Proteomics, with a view to then doing the same for Channelome ? Klbrain (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm still arguing that the subject passes GNG, and I just pointed out, above, five secondary reviews. I support merging Channelomics to Channelome, but I'd keep the resulting page. Not that it wouldn't still be badly in need of major improvement, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly don't need three articles on this, but I'm mostly indifferent to whether there's one or two. I suspect the channelome/omics content is better housed as a subsection in the ion channel article - which isn't too bad, but definitely isn't complete - unless it's expanded quite a bit. Meeting GNG doesn't mean it needs a standalone article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course it doesn't mean that. But it does mean that it should not be deleted on the grounds that the subject is not notable. Aside from notability, the arguments for deletion or aggressive merging come down to subjective dislike of having a page on a subject that some editors regard as "grant bait". That's a WP:IDL argument. At this point, the discussion here seems better suited to a requested move discussion at the article talk page, rather than an article for deletion discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 27 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant M. Shah and Vimal M. Shah[edit]

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

Okay, where to begin. First, article is not about a single person, but about two non-notable people. Searches on news, newspapers, highbeam and JStor produced zero hits on either of these folks. The only valid source is that one of them is very rich because he inherited a bunch of money. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I don't see any notability here. Me5000 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with assessment above-- . Shlok _{talk .} 07:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I haven't searched for better sourcing yet but why not simply redirect to the ccompany, if that's notable? If not, simply delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 1 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Tiger (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC: no clear secondary sources except WP:BLOGS, many are just top-level domains rather than specific pages. It's unclear what "Top 100 Number 1 Music Charts" is, whether the unsourced mention of a "Platinum Plaque" for a single is meant to be a serious claim to have "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" of WP:NMUSIC, and I can find no obvious evidence that King Tiger is "award winning". McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is the worst article I've ever seen. The entire thing is original research and most "sources" just link to home pages which say absolutely nothing about this person. This is a major WP:BLP violation. Me5000 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~verging on~~ Speedy G3 (hoax), G11 (unambiguous promo). Sources don't seem to bear out the claims made, such as #1 on the Dominican Republic music charts sourced to the main site for the country. This article was previously speedied a couple weeks ago with the explanation: "(G3: Blatant hoax: Not a single source I checked backed any of the claims to notability (songs charting, magazine coverage, etc)).[21] Crow^Caw 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also King Tiger (Musician)... Crow^Caw 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also see also King Tiger (Recording Artist). This pattern is starting to ring familiar. Flipping to speedy. Crow^Caw 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the claims have been dialled down each time, after repeated initial speedying as obvious hoaxes. This particular article has already backed down from "ranked as the Top 10 Hot New [etc etc] by Billboard Chart" to "ranked as Top 100 Hot New [etc etc] by Number 1 Music Chart". --McGeddon (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turned my speedy back into a regular delete. Since this has been open for a few days, I say lets let it run its course. That way we have CSD-G4 in pocket as well as the likely G5 from the socks. Crow^Caw 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To be frank, the article looks like nonsense right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable rapper.--Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this article has so many holes, it makes Swiss cheese look minor. If it hadn't been nominated, I would've AfD or speedied. It's worth mentioning my searches found not even a shred of good sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax, blatantly inflated with false claims. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Universal Records for more of same. JNW (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt all variants. Non-notable. Multiple re-creations and confirmed sockpuppetry. GermanJoe (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and fails WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it's not a hoax,[22][23][24] nothing out there suggests subject meets WP:NMUSIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Axelrod[edit]

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

Thinly referenced biography (probably an autobiography) of a not-notable writer. Poet laureate of small suburban area in central Florida and was one of dozens of Fulbright award winners one year. Received one of a large number of "Florida Book Awards" annually given out by a college in mid-sized U.S. state of Florida. BlueSalix (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree: delete, unfortunately. For a poet to be notable as a poet we'd need to see significant publications in the major journals, volumes published with reputable presses, reviews by reliable sources, etc. We don't have that here, I'm afraid. And I don't see any evidence of the subject being notable per WP:PROF, for instance, as an academic, or generally as a local cult here via WP:GNG. Sorry Mr. Axelrod. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have gone through all the sources listed by the subject himself at the reliable sources noticeboard and this Florida government press release (and this state funded magazine piece, which expand upon that) is the only independent, reliable source in the bunch. However the Florida Heritage Award is unlikely to suffice, by itself, to establish notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, especially given that the book on Merlin Stone that won the award has two other authors. Unless more sources are forthcoming, the article should be deleted. I had posted this comment at the RSN board, before noticing the talk-page discussion, which led me to this AFD. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Subject fails general notability guidelines, WP:NPOET, WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF. I can find no reviews of his work and his material which shows up in GScholar is un-cited. A spot check of previous versions (Going back to 2006!) does not show better versions of the article which might shown notability. Jbh ^Talk 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much I can add to the research done by the editors who preceded my comments, except that the article was created by one of the co-authors of works previously mentioned, and the subject himself being a major contributor to the article. So, WP:COI can be added in with the other reasons. Scr★pIron^IV 20:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith kollam[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references. Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course as another classic case of a Non-notable behind the scenes worker and there's not even much at IMDb, so often if there's not much there, there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources and found none. And yes, people in minor production roles are almost always impossible to source. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:29, 2 September 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 Sakarya University. Why wasn't this Merged or atleast redirected in the first place?, Anyway don't usually close on one !vote but the norm is to merge/redirect non notable institutes in to the parent article so Merge it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sakarya University Middle East Institute[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 for institute on a single campus. We normally do not make articles for these unless they are actually famous, for which there is no evidence. articles listing all their researchers belong on the web site, not an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it since it seems useful info about a university institution  especially for students  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.244.18 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because article is about a public institution and it seems useful for students and academics. It does not seem a promotion. rather it is just a description of a university institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.140.21 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a useful article because it introduces a public research center affiliated to a famous university in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.232.96.219 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it since it seems useful info about a university institution especially for students — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.244.18 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this institution is exactly same with the following ones University of Utah Middle East Center, Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, the last of which also includes staff category in its Wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.154.143 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sakarya University, stand-alone article not warranted, no coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 19:44, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chadbourne[edit]

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

This biography doesn't seem to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:BIO. A search for "Mark Chadbourne" brings up a semi-notable cyclist, but I couldn't find any reliable sources for this musician. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: -- deleted first time it was nominated; article not improved to merit keeping any further. SALT if necessary. Quis separabit? 00:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Clearly promotional page about a non-notable performer. --Slashme (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You should think with a discography like that there ought to be some sources to add, and still I can't find any. Fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:41, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Narsete[edit]

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

It is rather spammy. The first ref is not reliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Does not pass WP:BIO. It's PR for a small cosmetic surgery business. John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per nom. Brianhe (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not pass any notability guideline. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puffery. Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Football Federation[edit]

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

Non-notable proposed football league. Right now, only mentions I can find about this league are two websites run by the "league" and several facebook pages. This shouldn't be confused with Arena Football League or the former af2. LionMans Account (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good and it's not surprising as this is newly formed and I would've also suggested moving elsewhere but there's no apparently good target. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in secondary sources, so it fails WP:GNG. This may eventually be notable, but it isn't right now. I'm not opposed to userfying if anyone wants to keep this for potential future use. ~ Rob^Talk 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Technically, the primary notability guideline for organizations, including sports teams and leagues, is WP:ORG, but the WP:ORG standards are so close to WP:GNG, that they usually amount to the same thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the specific guideline, yes. No notability guidelines can be passed with zero coverage, though. ~ Rob^Talk 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Non of sources used in the article are independent of the subject; they are a collection of websites of the proposed league and proposed franchises. The article can be recreated if and when there is significant published coverage of the league in independent reliable sources, e.g., newspapers, magazines, books, sports news websites, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 31 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 (WP:CSD#A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) by Jimfbleak

Stacy Gunn/The Glad Yeah[edit]

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

No references. My sweep of Canadian news media did not reveal anything suggesting the WP:GNG. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (and tagged as such). Similar material has been deleted and salted at Stacy Gunn, and the author of that article (Peter Phillip Charles Leoni has been blocked for his belligerent attempts to keep the material up. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 26 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer Amos[edit]

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

The player's best achievement is almost signing with a Cypriot First Division club, which fell through. Otherwise, he didn't play senior football any higher than fourth division in Israel. Eranrabl (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we be definitely sure that he didn't make any appearances for Hapoel Jerusalem? They were in a professional league at the time by the looks of it. Spiderone 08:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked and doublechecked. Played with Hapoel Jerusalem youth team in 2008–09 (in Hebrew) and his senior matches after that were with Liga Bet clubs, starting with Beitar Givat Ze'ev in 2009–10 (in Hebrew).
  - Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 13:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 27 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) 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 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. Article was speedily deleted by User:Sergecross73 today. Kraxler (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ JY discography[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist). Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious speedy delete. No sources found whatsoever for the artist, either. 和DITOR E tails 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US soccer clubs listed by stadium capacity[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article is a haphazard assortment of poorly-sourced, practically unverifiable information and OR. It is an expressly "partial" list of stadiums claimed to be used by a variety of North American-based soccer teams, based on two sources of questionable reliability and utility. Both sources must be mined, deeply, to confirm the list here, which was constructed, state-by-state, by hand. The article does not explain what the criteria for inclusion are, or what teams or stadiums might be omitted or why. Finally both sources generally round capacities to the nearest 1,000, and contain obvious errors even then - e.g., two of the first three entries are simply wrong: Gillette Stadium has a soccer capacity of 20,000, and football capacity of 68,756 - not "68,000" as shown here; similarly CenturyLink Field. JohnInDC (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears from my quick check of a check of the first few stadiums in the list, that most of the capacities are correct and a reference exists for it on the stadium page. So it appears to be a valid information for which references exist in the linked articles - they only need to be copied to this article. The Gillette, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial & Vanderbuilt Stadiums' numbers are rounded and the Yankees Stadium number appears to be off but based on initial reports. Not sure if it merits deletion - the only reason I can think of is if the selection of which stadiums to include could be original research. My only other concern is whether this article was created to boost the Google ranking (ie the SEO) of the references included in the article. --Trödel 12:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium is also wrong, for soccer (it's 20,000, not the 45,000 shown on the chart), as is the as-yet-unbuilt Mercedes-Benz Stadium, which reflects the general seating capacity, not the soccer capacity. Also at least two teams, Atlanta United and FC Cincinnati haven't even begun to play yet. JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am seeing almost no reliable sourcing for the general topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There already exists this article List of U.S. stadiums by capacity which renders this one obsolete. Spiderone 08:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplicates information at List of U.S. stadiums by capacity. Completely unsourced, so there's nothing here worth merging. ~ Rob^Talk 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee 1[edit]

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

The current article has two sources, both the company website. I have searched for additional sources and have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. There is a potential problem since the name is so generic it is hard to narrow down a search for this particular company. The article is very close to just being an ad for the company as it stands. -- GB fan 11:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bordering on A7, no claim of notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written like an ad and I can't find any sources to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 2 September 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 Deletion isn't needed here - please use the processes outlined at WP:MERGE if you think that this merge proposal requires discussion (though I'd suggest just going ahead and merging). . Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M17 Half track[edit]

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

I have barely reliable sources to work with and I'd prefer to merge it into the M16 article. Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 29 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. No prejudice against recreation if someone can actually demonstrate it exists. Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedia[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this place exists. It is not present on Google Maps. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no parallel articles on any wikis, nor any other clue as to where this village is. If it isn't a WP:HOAX, there's nothing to indicate that it meets GNG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it in both Serbian and Albanian through GeoNames. The only place that comes up is Dedinje/Дедиње in Serbian, or Dedi in Albanian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reference to this place. It is not on GeoNames. No evidence for existence. Jbh ^Talk 12:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Dedinje/Dedi are correct and the location/details match then move the page to whichever of those titles. --OJ (TALK) 14:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article Dedi, Mitrovica, which claims that Dedi(nje) is in the Municipality of Mitrovica, while this article claims that Dedia is in the Municipality of Leposavić. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any forms of citations to VERIFY its existence, it would meet inclusion based on WP:GEOLAND. As there is nothing to indicate its existence (unlike Dedinje and Dedi, Mitrovica), I'm still for deleting it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 31 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Collard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having appeared in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that he hasn't played in a professional "league" per se is not an issue. Like I said when I removed the PROD, he played in an FFA cup match between two fully professional sides ie Perth Glory and Newcastle Jets. This is no different than an individual who has played in an English FA/league cup game featuring two pro sides, example: Andy Higgins, Daniel Koprivcic. Simione001 (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:NFOOTY says. In any case the rationale for the AFD is the failure to meet WP:GNG. I've searched the Factiva and ebscoHost databases and can only come up with one reference that deals with him in any detail and that was a community newspaper in 2009. Hack (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of articles relating to players who have only made appearances in a cup games involving two fully pro teams; example: Andy Higgins, Daniel Koprivcic. I myself have nominated such articles in the past and I've lost. Simione001 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koprivcic has never played for a club in a fully professional league, so that's an odd example. Hack (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet his article remains. Simione001 (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just barely, certainly the Higgins articles does not, I'm certain there are many more. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully-professional leagues, meeting the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played a competitive fixture between to FPL-clubs, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NSPORT. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having not played a match either as a senior international or in a fully professional league. Much more seriously, he doesn't pass the WP:GNG either on account of a lack of significant independent coverage; all I could find was either fluff from his club or directory entries. The arguments above pointing out that articles on similarly obscure players exist are WP:OTHERSTUFF and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep has played in national cup match between two teams in fully-professional leagues. We've long since considered that meets WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NSPORT and has played in a cup involving two clubs from fully professional leagues.Now the subject is 20 years and is playing for Perth Glory FC which is playing in a WP:FPL .Now the 2015–16 A-League season starts on 8th October 2015 and do no see any point in deleting it now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Racket (book)[edit]

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

Despite the reviews, not an important book. Only103 library holdings. The various praises given in the reception section are unpublished blurbs and do not count.People do this out of friendship or reciprocality, and they're no more to be taken seriously than toasts at a party. DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much as I dislike the author it does have two published reviews which meets WP:NBOOK--Savonneux (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is a very minimal requirement. Technically meeting the minimal requirement does not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It is the minimal requirement. Technically meeting the minimal requirement means that it meets the minimal requirement. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline is the guideline except when I decide it's not Kay.--Savonneux (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book meets WP:BKCRIT. The nominator, as a professional librarian (as stated on the nominator's user page), should be well aware of the OCLC "Vendor record contribution program participants", where "The following material vendors load records into WorldCat through the vendor record contribution program." Vendor contribution to the database makes the number of library holdings irrelevant, unreliable and minimal counts of library holdings (WorlCat) are not discussed in any policies or guidelines cited by the nominator. In fact, I contend that Amazon's, "Editorial Reviews" section, is far more credible than a WorldCat count, where the publisher can simply flood the database with donated books. (What would you do with boxes of books that didn't sell?).

Let's see who reviewed the book for Amazon's "Editorial Reviews". But, because Amazon also includes user-reviews there is a (also unwritten?) perception that Amazon peer reviews,[25] cannot be cited in the Wikipedia.

(Naomi Klein, author of This Changes Everything and The Shock Doctrine)
(Noam Chomsky)
(Alice Walker, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Color Purple)
(Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy)
(Owen Jones, author of Chavs and The Establishment)
(Mike Davis, author of Planet of Slums and In Praise of Barbarians: Essays against Empire)
(Antony Loewenstein, Guardian columnist and author of Profits of Doom)
(Michael Parenti, author of The Face of Imperialism and Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies)
(Nawal El Saadawi, author of Woman at Point Zero)
(Susan George, author of The Lugano Report: On Preserving Capitalism in the Twenty-first Century)

In reality, Amazon is an entity that can be sued, they would not and could not sustain any of these reviews without full permission from the reviewers; therefore, there is no reason to believe that they are not RS. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points re library holdings and the peer review. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The assertion that something is reliable because it hasn't yet been sued is not likely to stand up to much scrutiny. Most directly, Amazon regularly allows humorous or satirical reviews, and lets customers have fun with the format. There's no objective litmus for discerning such reviews, only a subjective feeling that a review must be in that category. Because Wikipedia generally doesn't accept self-published material as reliable, I don't think there can be much question that there is a written policy (What is a "written perception"?) that Amazon reviews aren't reliable sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nom disagrees with the criteria set out at WP:BKCRIT, which state "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." They have written at my talkpage "I've thought for years that a literal interpretation of NBOOK is too low a standard". However, disagreeing with an integral Wikipedia policy is not a reason for deletion. I think this is made pretty clear by the statement the NOM made "Despite the reviews, not an important book" - surely one of this more interesting deletion justifications. Basically, that translates to me as "Despite meeting WP:NBOOK, it's not a book I like" AusLondonder (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I completely agree that WP:NBOOK's "two review" rule is too lenient, particularly when we allow trivial reviews from indiscriminate sites like Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Unfortunately, though, NBOOK is what we have for now. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the two review rule is too lenient. Several million new books are published each year. Comparatively few will meet WP:BKCRIT AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree that two review rule is too lenient. Most books receive no reviews or just one review. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews in Publishers Weekly and The Guardian clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comment above. Almost forgot to vote.--Savonneux (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kaelin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-performing this second nomination for the nominator. The previous formatting incorrectly tacked on the new nomination to the first discussion (diff). I am presently neutral regarding the topic. The rationale for deletion provided by the nominator is below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current refs don't show notability a News search shows nothing to help with that. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam and JStor reveal only a couple of trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches, even the simplest, found nothing better than the existing listed coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; clearly non-notable. No extensive coverage available. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:04, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ketan Dixit[edit]

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

Delete. Notable only one single incident. WP:TOOSOON Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with assessment above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with assessment above.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 07:30, 29 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. Improvents have been made & sources added since so obvious Keep, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Black (Saskatchewan politician)[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, as it is a story (tagged since December 2007). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a major rewrite of the article, trimming many superfluous sentences and adding some citations. It read like family history before, but I think the article now has a proper encyclopedic tone. I removed the unencyclopedic and no citations tags. Curiocurio 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Now seems to pass GNG, and Regina is a sufficiently important city that its mayors should be deemed notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly some referencing improvement needed here (and kudos to Curiocurio for the cleanup work they've already done), but mayors of major cities are considered to pass WP:NPOL #3. They are a thing that the media do cover, so additional sources do exist and it's just a matter of somebody actually digging them out. Keep and flag for further referencing improvement if desired. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I delved deeper into the article by Marchildon and Black and I was able to adequately source the gaps with some rephrasing. Curiocurio 01:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 31 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 My Very Special Guests. The song is mentioned there already. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It Sure Was Good[edit]

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

Notability of this song is in question. What's noted here are simply anecdotes related to Jones' state recording this album and some subjective commentary about "the words to the song rang hollow", but nothing about what makes the song itself notable. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom if no references are provided about it or no other notability criteria is proven to be fulfilled. I found none so far. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 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 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also per nom. I was able to find a book ([26]) on George Jones but there were no keyword matches for the title of the song in it. I think it's fair to assume that if we can't find anything about it even in a book about his life and we aren't able to find anything else online, it's not going to pass WP:N. I'm going to keep looking for sources though. Nomader (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as others have said. B side according to article. BTW the article is well written and interesting but says a lot about the two singers and almost nothing about the song itself. Borock (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to the album article. 和DITOR E tails 05:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article's content should go to the My Very Special Guests page and the title should be a redirect link over there as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:38, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topper's Pizza (Canadian restaurant)[edit]

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

No third party sources indicating how this smallish chain of restaurants is notable. The only current source is about a news item involving an employee. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous links to Topper's Pizza on Google News (even excluding the articles about the unrelated US chain); I see several dozen from major Canadian media outlets (CBC, Global News, Financial Post, Globe and Mail, etc.) for just 2013-2015. It has also received some international coverage (Phát triển công ty gia đình: Câu chuyện Topper's Pizza in Vietnam, Pizza concept preps for 120%-plus sales boost on Halloween in the US). There are also quite a few articles in the Google News Archive specific to this chain, and I would expect many more offline sources. This article needs significant revision and sourcing, though. Mind matrix 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I was the original creator of this article, back in 2005 when our sourcing and notability rules were a lot less developed and a lot less strict than they are today. It's not that the notability and the sourcing aren't there — those things just didn't have to be demonstrated in anything like the same way they do now. It definitely needs improvement to comply with 2015-vintage wikistandards, but per Mindmatrix the sourcing does exist to get it there. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 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 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm surprised at the nominating rationale based off of the amount of sources I found on a quick search. Some here: [27], [28], [29]. Definitely needs a lot of work but also should still have an article. Nomader (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree pretty much word for word with what Nomader stated. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:07, 26 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. Headcount split down the middle (with a lot of non-sequitur rambling on both sides). The fundamental debate here is about the quality of the sources, and neither side has made a convincing enough argument to negate the other side.

As a side note on policy, it's generally a bad idea to "reformat" other editors comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG on various levels for not meeting non-trivial RSs, no awards and no charting. Also, majority of coverage is for the looks of the actress Katrina Kaif in the song and not really about the song. Views of non-RS sites like bollyspice.com, bollywoodlife.com, bollymeaning.com, englishdekho.com, indiawest.com, etc. don't matter. Also, Youtube hit count doesn't really talk about notability due to the click frauds that happen. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

Editor Human3015 has made many "NOTES" and "Comments" on this debate at various places on this page. I have moved them together at the bottom of the page so that they are separated from the actual debate. No text has been changed and timestamps have been preserved. I hope no one is offended, this is merely a cosmetic formatting change in order to make the page "look" better. You can revert me without pinging me if you oppose this formatting change. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominator has selectively ignored national newspaper sources from India and Pakistan for unknown reason which are mentioned in article. Moreoever, Bollywood related website mentioned by nominator are "critics" of Bollywood related stuff, we will not get any Nobel laureate reviewing Bollywood music, we have to look for Bollywood related media for that. Anyway, I will mention some national media already mentioned article Dawn, Pakistan, IBN Live, The CNN-IBN venture, India Today, Tribune India, India Times, The Indian express, The Times of India. Moreover also [BBC Music]. Also this song is nearly having 10 million views on youtube in less than one month. Also article is getting more than 500 views daily. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(or perhaps redirect if the situation calls for it): There is virtually no grounds for keeping this up to be frank. Policy makers were pretty nice to use the word "non-trivial" when they made the notability policy on songs. I took the sources given by human3015 and saw that all of them are just trivial mentions. Even the youtube hits have not gone into double figures as we can see (hovering at 9 mil something atm). compared to Shiela which has almost 40 mil on official and above 14 mil on all other versions, this is almost nothing. Anyway, redirect if someone really , really wants this to stay up as a page but delete as per nom if you want to follow policy to the letter. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL I see are talks of Katrina Kaif in the video, not even a description of the video itself, let alone the song. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan related deletion discussions.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This afd nomination is a mockery of AFD as those who vote oppose really had rift with Human3015.... FreeatlastChitchat had regular editing dispute with Human3015. If an article has notability, the deleting administrator won't delete the article in-spite of large number of delete votes. And Human3015 should develop the article, instead of going for ANI in battleground mentality.Aero Slicer 11:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Does not meet GNG or NSONG. Has not charted or won awards. Coverage is trivial mentions at best. Case of perhaps WP:TOOSOON, when film is released more coverage could potentially be given but sources currently don't support keeping the article. Potential to merge some of the content into the main film article's soundtrack section. Youtube views or views of any kind are not a criteria of notability. In any case, why would it be a surprise that an article of a soon to be released film which gets over 7,000 views a day, would lead to the song article getting over 500 views when there are at least four links from the film article to it? Cowlibob (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: : There is no official char system for Bollywood songs. You can see songs in Category:Songs with music by Pritam Chakraborty and can say how many of them are "charted". Still you can see this this BBC Asian chart. I said this article was in development, I was going to update everything. And newly created songs don't get any award, we have to wait for 1 year for that, still song got major recognition form national media. On BBC Asian chart it is on 12th number in Asia, what else notability you want. See that chart again. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 14:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: As I'm not well-versed in how charts relate to Indian films, I shall ask an editor who has worked on both Bollywood and music articles. IndianBio, would the above charting in the BBC Asian Download Chart and Radio Mirchi's top 20 help the song to meet WP:NSONG? I do note that charting is only a "may be notable" criteria according to NSONG. I also still mention the option of merging some of this content back into the film article. Cowlibob (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Thanks for calling expert. Actually charting is not done for Bollywood songs, only charting is of Radio chartings, and Radio Mirchi is one of leading FM Radio in Metros of India. In above discussion nominator was defending song Sheila ki jawani which itself do not mention any charts or awards. "Sheila ki Jawani" is notable, same way "Afghan Jalebi" is notable. In UK, chart culture is famous so BBC makes charts for Asian songs too. In India, charts are only famous on Radio.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish you can AfD "Shiela" but don't give OSE excuses in any AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think both are parts of WikiProject Song. And no, I will not AfD Sheila because I'm here to build Wikipedia.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Notability.--Musa Talk 07:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which clause? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per WP:TOOSOON. The youtube views are just 3.9 million and the creator mentioned 9 million views with no reliable reference. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Umais Bin Sajjad: Song is currently having 11 million views YouTube in just one month. And What "TOOSOON" you are talking about? Song is already released, even film is released now, song got charted on BBC. This song is first collaboration of Pakistani singer Asrar with Bollywood. Moreover this article itself is getting 700 daily views [30]. I don't think that it is case of deletion in any way. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 06:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Human3015:, can you please point me to the part of the Notability policy that says Article Views are counted? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: You are yet to provide your rationale for deletion.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 11:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just going crazy here. I gave my rationale with my original !vote, and if you are unable to understand it, I cannot help you out there. Countering my legitimate question with a nonsense question is not going to help you out at all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: Please cool down and do not make personal attacks. Your rationale was not policy based. Cheers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 12:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm afraid you have not understood the policies. Only one of the 19 sources talk about the song per se. One is a translation of lyrics, one is the YT video, 7 of them are about Katrina Kaif's looks. How are they even relevant? Two are for chart positions. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We usually read sources "selectively" and we usually ignore things that we don't like. Sources do talk about Pakistani Singer Asrar, "witty" lyrics, also criticised lyrics, about composer Pritam and of course about Katrina Kaif. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 12:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phantom (2015 film). Song fails WP:NSONG and as that guideline says a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. The article is a classic example of content and source padding, it expands what can be said in three sentences into 20 and adds sources willy-nilly (for example the sentence in the current lede "As of 30 August 2015, song got over 11 million views on YouTube in 30 days." has six sources appended to it, all of which dated and accessed prior to that date.) Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At first it appears to be the case of WP:TOOSOON but significant coverage (WP:INDAFD; see here) in reliable should not be ignored which follows the general notability guidelines and ultimately makes it notable. Further, it meets the notability criteria WP:NSONG after being ranked by several independent media and tv/radio networks. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - (via WP:DELSORTPAK) Fails WP:NMG and WP:PLOT. Critical reviews, no nominations or awards even after months. You cannot establish the notability of music by it "Youtube views". Given the population of India, "A few million views" are something common. Faizan (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I think I should better keep out of here. Faizan (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim by the nominator of "no charting" is false. It is currently number 16 in this BBC chart (down from 12). Perhaps the nominator does not regard the BBC is as notable organisation - he/she keeps deleting the citation from the article.[31][32][33][34]-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: About Chart of this site says “The Official Asian Download Chart is compiled by the Official Charts Company from UK sales data measured across a 7 day period from panel of more than 25 digital retailers”. Just like Youtube hit counts and page view stats, online download stat is no gauges of notability. Also, as mentioned earlier, WP:CHART doesn’t list this BBC site, and neither other BBC sites, as notable. In case the Chart doesn't appear on our guideline page, I am open to consider the chart's notability being established here. Please also note, out notability page says, "This guideline provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts." (emphasis added). If these sites are not even deemed suitable for inclusion in article, they naturally cannot be used to establish notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your opinion. I do not share it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! This AfD has seen editors before too who don't understand guidelines. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1:The opinion mentioned here which you said was Your Opinion is not HIS opinion. It is the opinion of Wikipedia consensus where mutual consensus between a lot of editors has deemed this kind of internet chart a poor source, rather a source so poor that they do not even mention it. Therefore just saying that it is a matter of opinion is not going to cut it. In order for this kind of chart to be used in this article you will have to provide rationale, as you are the one going against consensus. Also you don't seem to realize the different between BBC charts and BBC as an organization. The BBC is good enough for what it does, i.e report news, but it's chart has been deemed unworthy of mention due the reasons cited above by Dharma. Please be kind enough to list your reasons as to why this chart should be used when it has been ignored and deemed unworthy by a consensus of other editors. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Abecedare. Fails WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and comments by Human3015:

Note: Article has all reliable sources, same articles on songs featuring Katrina Kaif exists like Sheila Ki Jawani. Article is getting more then 500 views daily, I think that is not fraud. [35] . --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 06:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OSE. If you really are comparing this song with Sheila or Munni, then this one fails badly on notability. And if we started keeping porn on wiki, we would get more views. But that's not the criteria for notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that this song is porn?--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you understood, this AfD is gonna be tough for you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Human3015 he meant that your argument about page views is null and void because if wikipedia ran by page views then a person posting a pornographic video (porn=nude people having sex btw) will be able to contest its deletion simply by saying "ZOMG it has been viewed 100000 times by pervs". As this is not happening on wikipedia, we do not go by pageviews. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I had several rifts in past with nominator and persons voting "delete" here. So closure should keep that in mind. Wikipedia is not democracy, decisions are made on the basis of Policies, not on the basis of number of votes. Here no one has provided any valid rationale for deletion. There are clear cut reliable sources are present and song is highly notable. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are gonna assume bad faith on my part it would be better if you come up with evidences. Also, there is no need to assume bad faith on unknown admin who would close this AfD 7 days hence. The fact that you misunderstood what I said above could be interpreted that you don't even understand what "rational reasons" are. All here are talking about a guideline that has/had been linked for you several times. You have twice blindly reverted notability tag I placed on the article yesterday. I doubt you have competence to understand that essay anyways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After nominated for AfD I have added more reliable sources to article and also charting of the song on BBC.[36]. Gone up by 14 places to 12th from last week's position. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 16:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now this song is peaked at number 1 on Radio Mirchi Top 20 Songs which is India's one of most prestigious Radio charting. It is also declared as Song Of The Week.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:CHART doesn't mention any of the Indian charts as notable. So you will have to also establish the notability of this chart if that's what you are basing the song's notability on. I tried to find out, but their website says nothing on how the charts are prepared, how listing is done, what factors are considered and such. There is no transparency it seems. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are expecting that Indian Hindi/Urdu songs should chart on Billboard Hot 100. Anyway, what rationale you have for BBC Asian Chart on which this song listed?--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 04:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The said "chart" needs to be notable before giving notability to others lol. A source must be valid before it can be considered reliable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the charts Human3015 is mentioning are listed in WP:CHART and the natural because none of the Indian charts have such notability. So if you claim a certainc hart PQR is notable, you have to establish its notability. The onus is on you to prove notability. Only counter questioning all editors here isn't helping the AfD in anyway. It only adds junk and spam to archives. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it is not compulsory on me to answer every unnecessary question.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 06:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't raise unnecessary fake claims of notability and no one will bother talking with you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool down. There is "no answer" that will satisfy you people, reason we all know. So there is no use of replying to your comments here, I'm off for you people, I will only reply to any other new user if commented. Don't want to waste time of both of us. Still you people trying your best to get this article deleted and I think you people will win. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 06:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've fully protected the page in its current state while this AfD continues as it has been subject to numerous reversions, which is not helpful to the discussion. The protected version is not an endorsement of that version of the article, nor shouold any inference be drawn on whether I think it should stay or not; I have no opinion on the matter. Please make sure you have a look through the history. Ged UK 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge any relevant content not already covered into the film, which may be "nothing" and so potentially delete. insufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources to merit a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by Indian express, Times of India etc. is enough more me and WP:GNG (two multiple realiable sources). Not convinced by the delete arguments. Solomon 7968 10:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources, are not talking about the song but Katrina Kaif's looks in the song. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That there's apparently some controversy about the song's music video doesn't negate the fact that said controversy has been covered by reliable sources, as documented in the article. Notability is not the same thing as moral approval or disapproval. As well, the song has charting success that's notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What controversy? And it hasn't been on any chart. But forget it. You guys don't wanna listen. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Users are giving too much importance to this song, turning this into a battle of egos. They have not learned anything after blocks.112.79.35.14 (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sensible IP spotted.

--Demon3015^TALK 15:23, 6 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alter Ego (Danish band)[edit]

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

Simply because both the English and Danish Wiki are unsourced and my searches found nothing although generic name is no help, the Danish Wiki claims they were on MTV in the late '80s and played at other events but without sources, there's not much to it. This has existed since December 2007 and was actually tagged for speedy until removed "to give time to source" but there haven't been any since. If sources are found and the article is improved, I'm willing to withdraw. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, I don't think a source displaying chart positions in Denmark or other nation of this band's work will be enough to save this articles. I hope more sources discussing the band will be found, though. 和DITOR E tails 05:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They may be notable but I found no independent coverage (have to wonder how easy would it be to find pre-web Danish sources from a Google search). Even getting past the non-music Google results there are a large number of band's artists of the same name. The band's discogs entry is here, which just shows 4 singles released. One of the members, Flemming Borby, is possibly independently notable. The only information I found on the band is from Borby's website here, which claims one of their music videos ran on MTV. With the sources we have (or the lack of them) I think we would have to go with delete on the basis that it fails WP:V. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As "alter ego" is used in Danish just as frequently as it is in numerous other Indo-European languages, it is not straight forward to search for sources. However, combining with other keywords or phrases (Barbue, Next Stop Sovjet, Roskilde 1990, Flemming Borby, Søren Hossy) and restricting searches to site:.dk I find nothing online. As article creator suggests on their talk page the band is pre-Internet, fair enough, bring out the scrapbook. But as apparent nobody has mentioned them much online since or in books indexed by Google Books suggest they have not gone down in history. As for the 2007 A7, obviously {{Db-bio}} does not apply and {{Db-band}} wouldn't either as the claims of significance are credible. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:47, 30 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Chase[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced (sole source is a community history book in which he isn't the primary or even a major corollary subject, but just gets namechecked on one page) WP:BLP of a person with no substantive claim of notability under WP:BLP: the most substantive thing here is his non-winning candidacy in a provincial election. As always, that isn't something that gets a person into Wikipedia — a person has to win an election, not merely run in it, to park their notability on the fact of the election. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails coming even close to meeting notability requirements for a politician. He ran in an election and finished 3rd. That is not the stuff of notability. The one source is a passing mention in a local history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto Operating System[edit]

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

Although this operating system is known for "gaining a reputation as vaporware or hoax", i don't think this is notable. It might pass WP:GNG but I'm not sure. A lot of the article focuses on speculation and information on what the OS was supposed to be. With a few sources, this might pass WP:GNG. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure speculation based on press releases and rumors, a fad of 1997, long gone Kraxler (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as above. PianoDan (talk) 13:36, 1 September 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. – czar 01:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Code of Tanks[edit]

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

No secondary sources, just the game's own website and a public wiki. Fails WP:NSOFT. McGeddon (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article seems relevant and historically significant since the sources indicate there are a limited number of programming games of the like in the history of computing. There are comparable Wikipedia articles about similar games that have been up for a long time that are not challenged, including Mouse_Run, Robocode, and RobotWar. The secondary sources for these are public, web-based sources including topic-specific wikis, which together comprise a somewhat complete collection of items in that genre and how they are related. Also, based on having compared those articles, they all should probably be included if any of them are.

--Cotdev (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking arbitrarily at RobotWar, that article is sourced to articles in Computer Gaming World and BYTE magazine. These are the kinds of sources that the Code of Tanks requires, if it is to meet WP:GNG (showing that the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Open wikis are not considered reliable sources per WP:SPS. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything for this other than the routine listings on gaming websites and the odd mention in a forum here and there. It doesn't seem to have garnered any coverage or reviews in reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia would require for notability. Just because something is one of the few examples of something does not automatically mean that it is notable. It can sometimes make it more likely that something will be notable, but it isn't a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither of the WP:VG/RS custom google searches came up with anything (which isn't surprising considering the nature of the game). The main thing that comes up when I search for it in quotes on Google is this article and a number of Wiki sites that fail our verifiability guideline at WP:SPS per McGeddon's rationale above. Nomader (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated by others above. Nothing noteable about this. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:07, 26 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) 01:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 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 Deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karunamoyee[edit]

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

If the article was about a neighbourhood, okay. But this unsourced article in fact about a single "housing estate" and sounds like promo. The Banner talk 09:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article about some housing estate, no in-depth coverage anywhere, just trivial mentions as a location, to small, and not a legally recognized subdivision, to qualify for WP:GEOLAND Kraxler (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination and Kraxler. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:07, 26 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. Secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, As Kudpung notes sources for BLPs, Films, Schools etc etc in developing countries are alot harder to find than in for instance the UK or US which is why 9 times out of 10 leniency is given. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Star Secondary School[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Previous PROD tags removed by author/sockpuppet. No reliable sources found. Bazj (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some proof is uncovered as to its official existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent for high schools as documented in OUTCOMES. The photo is ample proof that it exists and we should not expect the same quality of sources from Nepal that we would expect from the US or the UK. Perhaps the nominator has never visited or worked in a developing country.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, You mean the photo that wasn't there when the article was nominated for deletion? The photo uploaded by a sockpuppet operated by the same master as the puppet who created the article? The guy who keeps adding vanity crud [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] to the article?

I may not expect the same quality of sources from developing countries, but I do expect the same application of rules on vandalism and sockpuppetry. Bazj (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make claims of vandalism and sockpuppetry please substantiate them and take them to the appropriate noticeboards. It is permitted to edit and add content to articles while they are under discussion. We have here an article about a secondary school that is proven to exist (many schools in developing countries look like the one in the photo). The comments in your post above are not reasons for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral because A) either 1) the school is not accredited (I can has proof of accreditation? No, a photo doesn't count), 2) the school does not grant diplomas that serve the same role as a "high school diploma" does in the United States, or 3) unlike most US high schools and their international counterparts, the school does not have sufficient media coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. #3 is the key: Even accredited, diploma-granting high schools in the US sometimes get deleted at WP:AFD if a diligent search for coverage turns up nothing more than a mere proof of existence and routine government documents. Also delete because B) even if sources are found, this sockpuppet's presence has "poisoned the well" and a judicious application of WP:Blow it up and start over and (because TNT is not normally used for "non-hopeless" articles) a judicious dose of WP:Ignore all rules would serve Wikipedia better than leaving the page as-is. If the article is substantially improved and referenced before this AFD closes I may change my recommendation, but for now, delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I've been out of touch on the school WP:OUTCOMES. "Back in the day" high schools which had zero press coverage other than proof of existence and pro-forma documentation such as government reports occasionally fell at AFD. In the United States this usually meant "alternative schools" with no sports teams and nothing else that got them any press coverage. I see things have changed in the past few years and articles about such schools would almost certainly be kept. I'm neutral because I haven't had time to dig into this enough to be convinced that it's the equivalent of a government or accredited private school. That's not the article's fault, it's my lack of time to devote to the subject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with any AFD on a topic that might meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, the best outcome is to find reliable sources that demonstrate that the subjects meets WP:Notability, then rewrite the article so there is no longer any question about it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC) preceeding sig added after-the-fact at 03:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC) by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)[reply]
Keep 1)Accreditation is irrelevant, it's existence that matters. 2) A secondary education is one at the level which prepares for college, that it might not give a diploma is irrelevan, and that the people may anot actually go to college is irrelevant. 10th grade is the usual high school completion grade in India and in that region generally. . 3) No secondary school school with a real existence has ever been deleted at afd for lack of notability in the last 5 years, except for special cases such as virtual schools with only dubious existence, or small home schools, 4) TNT is used for articles where the subject is notable but the article hopeless and unfixable--here the situation is that the person who wrote this also included information about himself, but that can be removed. 5) We are very flexible with sources for this area to avoid cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 12:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The photo suggests it does exist, although I acknowledge it has been added since the nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 26 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Nathani[edit]

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

does not meet wp:notability, awarded by unkown firm also not notable, wp:reference from self published source Shrikanthv (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I was also going to suggest redirecting to Cybage but essentially all my search results found were specifically for the company so it's probably best to delete for now in this case. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; it also fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my searches found nothing notable. Delete per WP:BLP and WP:GNG-- . Shlok _{talk .} 07:18, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagat Pal Singh[edit]

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

does not meet wp:notability, reference only cite the name as a passing by no self notability is seen, awarding company seems to be also not notable, seems to be work of PR company as all CEO, CTO, COO and the official company website has be created by a single IP Shrikanthv (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose although I was also going to suggest redirecting to the company as my searches found nothing independently good here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person, and as stated above, it seems this page was created specifically to promote this individual. However as stated above by SwisterTwister it is best to have this page be redirected to the company main page, however deleting it would have similar results. All in all it seems this person is just not notable enough to be here, all the sources are directly related to the individual. --CyberWarfare (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Note: It relates with Afd at Deepak Nathani . — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:13, 26 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Gajwani[edit]

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

references stated does not meet wp:RS , many sources are pr websites and are not known, does not meet wp: notability , even the awarding company seems to be non notable and no information is available in any major newspaper about the event nor about the actual person Shrikanthv (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing independently good. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Significant coverage in reliable sources is need. Delete per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not meet wp: notability and yes awarding company is also non notable. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 06:59, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sink and Stove Records[edit]

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

Another non-notable and localized record label with a now non-existent website and my searches found absolutely nothing, of the linking articles, none of them are obviously good aside from the list of record labels. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable independent sources. Decent history of releases, but not by notable artists. No prejudice against re-creation if/when sources found, or multiple of their acts achieve notability. Reads like PR release, also. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Copyvio. Nom is correct, but I went on the Wayback Machine, and if you click on the "About Us" link, here's your article word-for-word. MSJapan (talk) 23:14, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canarc Resource Corp.[edit]

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

The stock exchange listings would suggest notability but my searches found nothing to suggest improvement with the best results here, here, here and here (browser and Newspapers Archive found nothing). I thought speedying this but thought, also considering the stock exchanges, this would be better with comments. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. these are not the key major stock exchanges we accept for notability (the main board of NYSE and London). And one wouldn't expect anything more , for the article itself says they are mainly doing exploration. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP. It trades on the OTC bulletin board, not a good indication of notability. Vrac (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:53, 30 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. sufficient consensus. This promotional article ought to have been deleted back in 2011. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guilnar Majdalani[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement aside from this and this but it's imaginable any good coverage (if any) is going to be in Lebanese. If anyone can improve it to show notability, I'm open to withdrawing. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You'd think one of the 'most popular and successful' pianists in Lebanon would have a bit more coverage. I couldn't even find any substantial Arabic sources except for this Annahar article. It doesn't really confer much significance to her, it's just about her tutoring some piano students. She doesn't seem notable. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search on each of the engines and there is nothing to show this person's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 27 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 Royal Engineers. If the content has been merged, deletion is not suitable. I'll redirect it. Courcelles (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sapper VCs[edit]

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

Book does not appear to be notable. Unable to find any reviews/coverage in RS at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Royal Engineers - Decorations section, where it is likely to be more informative.Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the book defines 'sapper' more loosely than R. Eng, including 'commonwealth etc' sappers serving under British command and ex-sappers serving in other regiments Sappers VC ext link, this should be corrected. Does this affect my merge suggestion?Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of merging the content with Royal Engineers.Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The content of the book is significant. The book itself is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Necrothesp. The book isn't notable enough for its own article, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be notable per WP:NBOOK. Anotherclown (talk) 12:36, 28 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vechoor church[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable church. No external references found. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I moved the article to St. Mary's Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Vechoor. Kraxler (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Vechoor. Malayalam Wikipedia has quite a detailed article, with some references (though I can't guarantee how good they are). Google searches provide a few results in English - these do, however, seem to confirm it as a long-established local pilgrimage centre. If available sourcing does not seem to be good enough for a standalone article, a sentence or two should certainly be included in the article about it locality. PWilkinson (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very old Church for this part of the world. Shows up well in image and books searches.160.39.35.48 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some context, and there are many sources all over the web. Kraxler (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added four book sources. Subject meets WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:12, 2 September 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. By pure headcount, this looks more like a NC, but I give a lot of weight to people who opine in one direction and then change their opinion when presented with new data. That happened in spades here, with several deleters changing to keep after a big cleanup and presentation of new sources. Good call Juliancolton for relisting. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016[edit]

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

Note to AfD closer: most bangvotes here are related specifically to the article about the BLP's 2016 presidential campaign, which was redirected midway through to the BLP article Harry Braun.

I'm bringing this to AfD for discussion. I regard it as promotional, and feel that it fails WP:POLITICIAN, but I also feel that consensus is needed. I would point out that as a UK resident Brit, I am neither pro nor anti Mr Braun and his candidature. Peridon (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the vast majority of the sources have nothing to do with Braun. "neither the Democratic party officials Iowa or New Hampshire or the major newspapers or television news networks would acknowledge Braun’s campaign" says a lot. shoy (reactions) 13:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been rewritten since this !vote. Keep, appears to weakly pass WP:GNG. shoy (reactions) 13:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As does, "Braun’s formal presidential announcement to the American public and the national news media is expected to occur during the month of August 2015 . . . after his Wikipedia and Facebook postings are completed." (emphasis mine) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article as written is pure advertising. The vast majority of sources cited in the article have nothing to do with Mr. Braun at all and are merely being used to support his positions (i.e. Braun warned about a doomsday scenario back in 1984 and it's coming true, because bees and fish are disappearing.[Citations showing that bees and fish are disappearing.]). The article is written to support his current presidential run, but those few sources that do discuss Mr. Braun and his ideas are mostly from the 80s, with a couple from 2011 and 2012. A search for news about his current presidential run gives one result; "Bernie Sanders continues to gain on Hillary Clinton in 2016 race to White House". Examiner. July 16, 2015. which says about Braun,
But Sanders and Clinton are not the only Democrats seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2016. A total of 17 other candidates have officially declared including . . . Harry Braun . . .
A web search, as opposed to a news search, turns up a lot of results, but most of them are on his own website (pheonixprojectfoundation.us). He might be notable for something he did in the past; based on some of the cited sources from the 1980s, but as a current presidential candidate he doesn't seem notable, the past notability is sketchy at best, and this article is not written in such a way that it is salvagable. Even if he is notable a better idea is for an editor who doesn't have a conflict of interest to blow it up and start over. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He and his candidacy are not notable. A search of Google News finds nothing recent at all. This article is frankly promotional; he admitted as much at Peridon's talk page, saying that nowadays he is "solely focused on my scientific research and my presidential campaign, that will go nowhere if I cannot get a page on Wikipedia, which is necessary for being listed as a presidential candidate on Facebook." This article is just a means to an end for him. When I saw that I left an (admittedly a little harsh) warning on his talk page, about using Wikipedia to promote himself. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Noticing that he talks about "my research," I decided to check Google Scholar to see if he has a presence there. It is minimal [47] [48] so he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC either. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an ongoing discussion on my talk page with the author of the article, as Melanie says. I would prefer it to be here, but you can't win them all. If there is evidence of notability in the 80s, that is still valid. It doesn't evaporate like popular fame. One point that escapes me - is he a candidate for the presidency or for the Democratic nomination? American politics puzzle me. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peridon: The answer to your question is: both. He is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency.--JayJasper (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and to get that Democratic nomination, he needs to enter separate Democratic primary contests in each of the 50 states, or as many states as he can manage. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both. It makes the troubles of our Labour party trying to elect a new party leader look simple by comparison. And possibly explains why only people with money can make it through... (Or so it appears - I may be wrong.) Peridon (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not only is this man completely non-notable, he has received virtually no external references, with a completely biased autobiographical article. Westroopnerd (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No evidence of notability per WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. Agree w/ nom. & others, clearly promotional and runs afoul of WP:COI. Per ONUnicorn, even if enough reliable secondary sources can be scrounged up to establish notability (which seems presently dubious, based on google searches), it would be best to start over from scratch by one or more disinterested editors with an understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion standards for standalone article creation and fundamental policies governing mainspace content (e.g. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:FORMAL).--JayJasper (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:JayJasper, please see my scrounging-attempt below. The offline 1980s sources in particular. Agree about the stubification of the existing overly-promotional prose. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SOXROX (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination and other comments above. Un-encyclopedic autobio of a non-notable subject.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: The article was moved to Harry Braun after the start of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not sure that Harry Braun exists at all. His windships seem to be a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.172 (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If Harry Braun doesn't exist, then who wrote this article? :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comment by 92.26.0.172 is unfortunate and should not be taken seriously. We are talking about a living person here, who deserves respect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's a hoax, it's a very well done one. Whether or not his ideas will work is not part of this discussion. That's for the Democratic Party and the American electors to decide. What is at stake is his notability with reference to our policies, and not to anyone's political views. If he can be proved not to exist in reliable independent sources, so be it. But prove it, don't just say it. Peridon (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update The author of the article, who is also the subject of the article, has reacted to the concern about the article being used to promote his presidential campaign, by writing a new version which does not mention his presidential campaign and focuses on his scientific advocacy. The new version can be seen here: [49] Would anyone find this version to be more acceptable? --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the promotional aspect was not the primary issue. With or without mentions of his presidential campaign(s), the article still consists primarily of original research and still falls far short of the standard notability threshold needed to merit a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word 'advocacy' that you used is significant. What he's written IS advocacy, which in Wikipedia terms means promotion. For me, the new version still doesn't cut the mustard. (I do like these old fashioned expressions...) Peridon (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His scientific advocacy is not notable. His principal paper is in a minor Serbian journal, and had attracted little attention. He would be , if anything, more notable as a potential Presidential candidate, and I doubt he is recognized as one. If he should be, a brief aticle about the candidacy would be acceptable--without hte advocacy. The best thing to do with all versions of the preset article is to delete them. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please see list-o-sources below. BLP seems to be a combo-type, who has a bit of scientific cred (not many cites but not zero either), a bit of newspaper-popular-cred, and a bit of politician-cred (especially for his 1980s congressional campaigns -- of which the majority of the WP:RS are offline). Agree about the need to remove WP:SPIP, but I think the sources exist to pass WP:42 for the BLP article; rest should be redirect there. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability for different unrelated things is not additive. If you're not notable as a scientist, and not notable as a politician, that doesn't make you notable as some hybrid.The notability as a politician may be marginal; the notability as a scientist is non-existent. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Call me crazy, but WP:42 sure sounds additive to me, and Braun-as-a-whole-BLP defintely satisfies that heuristic. See also WP:BLP2E and WP:DOGBITESMAN, both of which Braun also satisfies. See my comment to MelanieN, this particular BLP very much *is* a hybrid: the political messaging-candidate with scientific training. He's not the top politician in the world. He's not the top scientist in the world. But he's way up there in the scientist-politician subcategory, and because he satisfies WP:GNG when we add (ahem) all his WP:SOURCES together, that makes him wiki-notable. We're not talking about a bunch of distinct articles here; this is an article about the topic of Harry Braun, which means we cover him as a politician and also as a researcher in that singular BLP-article. Not fair to divvy him up into Harry Braun (politician-aspects) and also Harry Braun (researcher-aspects), just so we can justify deleting *both* articles as "not having enough sources" per article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep && Improve for the Harry Braun BLP-article, but Redirect Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016 to Harry_Braun#Political_campaigns (1984/1986 in AZ CD#1 versus McCain, and 2004/2012/2016 for president). Also, create the wiki-traditional Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2004 + Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2012 + Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2016 redirects, pointing to the same location of Harry_Braun#Political_campaigns. Braun's 2012 campaign satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY, with articles in WP:SOURCES specifically about his presidential campaign efforts. Braun's 2004 potus campaign was also covered, once by C-SPAN, and also got ~10 sentences of reasonably-detailed listicle-depth in WaPo, which again is WP:NOTEWORTHY for inclusion into the most-appropriate article, in this case Harry Braun the BLP article.

2003, "New [federal government] Energy Policy" with guests Harry Braun and Vijay Vaitheeswaran, NPR (Talk of the Nation), November 21, 2003.[50]
2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2004/01/13/a-show-of-hands/bf185f6d-e1d3-4d02-90f1-75d47356b957/
2004, http://www.c-span.org/search/?searchtype=Videos&sort=Newest&personid[]=1008862

2012, http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/07/25/Metro/24295.html
2012, http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/19/democrat-highlights-trigg-palin-at-soapbox/
2012, "A movement or a street fair?", by William D. Cohan, philly.com, October 11, 2011.[51]

Technical-glitch-note: Braun *is* running again in 2016, although I note that the FEC website (and www.TheGreenPapers.com as well)[52] mis-reports his candidacy as "Harry Braul" due to a mistake by the FEC data-entry personnel.[53] Since Braun is only officially launching his potus campaign this month (August 2015), despite filing in late May 2015, it is somewhat silly to demand immediate production of WP:RS sources to demonstrate the wiki-notability of said Braun'16 campaign, and if such cannot be produced, delete the completely-distinct BLP article. See also, WP:WITCH. Braun is wiki-noteworthy for his earlier campaigns in 2004 and 2012, which got a bit of coverage (per URLs provided above).

The question becomes, then, does the dedicated article Harry Braun belong in mainspace, aka demonstrate plausible wiki-notability ... which I hope User:Peridon has carefully explained to Braun is very different from real-world notability? Or instead, per WP:PRESERVE, should the political-sources above be merged into an appropriate article, such as in this case Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016#Other_candidates. As it happens, I believe the case can be made that Harry Braun the BLP article satisfies wiki-notability and passes WP:42. The usual wiki-tradition is to demandeth three in-depth independent-third-party wiki-reliable sources, in three distinct years. To four, thou shalt not count; five is right out.

Before he started running for president during the current millenium, Braun also ran for u.s. rep in Arizona CD#1 versus none other than another presidential candidate, John McCain. According to legit-looking newspaper-clippings on Braun's website,[54] there was some press-coverage of his 1984 and 1986 campaigns. Assuming they check out, these are dedicated articles about Braun specifically, and in different election-years. Wiki-notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. His political campaign-coverage in 2004 (e.g. by C-SPAN) and 2012 (e.g. by Des Moines Register) also counts towards demonstrating wiki-notability, of course.

1984, "Candidate seeks to halt 'suicide' energy policy: Urges moratorium on atomic weapons to foster research", by Joel Nilsson, The Arizona Republic, September 19, 1984
1984, "Braun outlines plan for energy mecca", by [unknown], Tempe Daily News, page 3, September 19, 1984
1984, "Candidate: Hydrogen alternative energy source", by Sanaa Al-Marayati, ASU State Press, page 5, September 24, 1984.
1984, "The World According to Braun", by Doug MacEachern, The New Times, page 3, September 26, 1984.
1984, "McCain, Braun vie for House seat", by Susan Turley, Tempe Daily News, October 14, 1984, page 1 and A4.
1984, "McCain vs, Braun", by Susan Turley, Tempe Daily News, October 23, 1984, page A3.

1986, "Candidate serious on energy issues", by Max Jennings (Executive Editor), The Mesa Tribune, page A7, May 7, 1986.
1986, "1st District candidate says solar energy only answer", by Adrianne/Adrian Flynn, Tempe Daily News, June 3, 1986.
1986, "District 1 Democrat finds hope in hydrogen", Adrian/Adrianne Flynn, The Mesa Tribune, Vol. 38, No. 202, page 1, August 19, 1986
1986, "Sunshine Man: Braun hopes solar solution stirs District 1 voters", by Don Harris, The Arizona Republic, August 22, 1986, page B1 (Valley & State).
1986, "Braun broadens appeal, shows promise in District 1 race", by Adrianne/Adrian Flynn, The Mesa Tribune, October 6, 1986.
1986, "Braun says energy is not his only issue in House campaign", by [unknown], The Arizona Republic (Special Edition), October 10, 1986.
1986, "1st District contest heats up after debate", by Adrianne/Adrian Flynn, The Mesa Tribune, October 20, 1986.
1986, "Braun levels attack on Rhodes over CAP", by [unknown], The Arizona Republic, October 24, 1986. page B1 (Valley & State).
1986, "Braun blasts CAP as welfare for rich", Stephen Higgins, Scottsdale Progress, October 23, 1986.

Braun the BLP was not always a political candidate; he also has some coverage-bursts related to his scientific work, see his peer-reviewed papers here,[55] and also [56][57], which per WP:SCHOLARSHIP can count as WP:RS (not mere WP:ABOUTSELF) despite having Braun listed as an author, since the publication-system of editors and journals and peer-review surrounding such works makes them more than just a science-blog, they are scientific papers. Note that not all of these papers are the *right* "H.Braun", see WP:DBTF; unfortunately for wikipedians trying to use scholar.google.com, besides Harry Braun of Arizona/Georgia, who publishes in energy/chemistry fields, there is also the completely distinct human named Hans-Werner Braun of U.Michigan, who publishes in networking/internet fields. Here are the BLP's cite-counts (according to google), that I was able to find:

4 cites, 1990, The Phoenix Project [version#1990]: an energy transition to renewable resources.[58] (also gives birth-year as 1948, useful for BLP article)
2 cites, 1991, Hydrogen Storage Systems (in Hydrogen: Journal of the American Hydrogen …)

2 cites, 1997, Stirling Energy Systems (SES) dish-Stirling program (several co-authors) (ieeexplore.ieee.org)

3 cites, 1999, Status of the Boeing Dish Engine Critical Component project (four co-authors)
8 cites, 2000, The Phoenix Project [version#2000]: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen , reprint-entry at books.google.com for this version#2000 == [59] , listed at a couple other quasi-WP:RS websites, once for environmental purposes,[60] once for Braun'16 political purposes.[61]

9 cites, 2003, Calculating hydrogen production costs
5 cites, 2003, The Phoenix Project [version#2003]: Shifting From Oil to Hydrogen with Wartime Speed
4 cites, 2003, The Bad News About Natural Gas

2 cites, 2008, The phoenix project [version#2008]: Shifting to a solar hydrogen economy by 2020 (Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly)
10 cites, 2008, Photobiology: The biological impact of sunlight on health & infection control

I'll note that the WP:GOOG is still imperfect: not listed at scholar.google.com that I could find, one of the BLP's scientific papers from 1992, “Solar Stirling Gensets for Large-Scale Hydrogen Production,” (in: Solar Energy Technology, ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol 13, pp. 21-31), is still being cited today, for instance in the concentrated solar power chapter by Alan J. Sangster in the 2014 Springer textbook Electromagnetic Foundations of Solar Radiation Collection.[62] Point being, the list of peer-reviewed papers above is partial, not complete. And since this is WP:GOOG, the list is probably not correct either; I doubt all the listings are peer-reviewed, and all the cite-counts exact.

But we can use the scholar.google.com output, rough and imperfect as it is, to give us some idea of Braun's academic street-cred: he's not a world-famous researcher by WP:NPROF standards, but he's got legit scientific publications spread out over a couple decades, and he has seen some peer-review (via the scientific journals) and some peer-recognition (via the cite-counts). Most of his papers are about energy-production, either solar-power or hydrogen-power or both, but interestingly his highest-cited paper is from 2008, yet hearkens back to his grad school days, since it is about photobiology rather than about solar power. Braun published The_Phoenix_Project:_Shifting_from_Oil_to_Hydrogen in 1990, which was revised-and-reprinted in 2000 and in 2003 and in 2008; as with his academic papers, publication and editorial-control might have made this book count toward notability, but in this case the publisher was his Braun's employer-slash-startup SPI. (The book-article, just like the campaign-article, should be merged-and-redirected into Harry Braun the BLP-article, methinks.) That said, his opus has been cited by serious people in serious places: Lester Brown for instance.[63][64][65] See also the 2002 book-review below (WP:PAYWALL unfortunately) published by Elsevier. Outside of academia, there is additional reasonably-in-depth-coverage of Braun's solar&hydrogen ideas, for a popular audience, considerably before he entered the 2004 presidential contest in most cases:

1982, "Quality of light held important to your health [by Braun -- the piece is all about him && his research]", by Kitty Maclnnis, Phoenix Gazette, November 17, 1982.

2002, "Book review (of The Phoenix Project: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen, 2nd Edition, 2000)", by M.V.C Sastri (Dept of Energy, U.Madras, Chennai India), published by Elsevier (in: Intl Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 27, Issue 4, April 2002, Pages 465. doi:10.1016/S0360-3199(01)00129-X.[66]

2002 (undated on evworld site but dated in this[67] blog) , http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=317 , conceivably WP:RS at first glance.[68]
2002/2003, six talk radio shows on Coast to Coast AM (cf Art Bell), http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/braun-harry/5738

2008, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-01-20-solar-power_N.htm

His startup-businesses are relatively small in terms of revenues and employees; they are consulting vehicles for his personal skillset, from what I can tell via a quick glance, and mostly involved with renewable energy projects of one kind or another. Here is the Dun & Bradstreet for SPI aka Sustainable Partners, founded 2005.[69] There was an earlier small startup company called Mesa Wind LLC, which played some role (unspecified by any WP:RS that I could locate) in a wind-farm-development-project in New Mexico.

Bottom line: just for the 1986 election-cycle, we have easily satisfied WP:GNG; consider spinoff article about Arizona's 1st congressional district election, 1986 of Braun versus Rhodes. But for this AfD discussion, Braun's other political campaigns have also generated WP:NOTEWORTHY-to-borderline-WP:N press coverage. His scientific papers have been cited, albeit not *widely* cited, and spread over a couple decades. He's got popular coverage of his scientific ideas, as well. Thus, strong keep of the BLP-article, since WP:RS exist from 1982 through 2012 at least. That said, merge all subsidiary articles (campaign/book/research/etc) into subsections of the BLP-article, with possible exception of congressional races getting their own dedicated articles. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for your extensive research. I was unaware of his 1986 congressional campaign and have added it to the article. I also rearranged the article into a somewhat more logical order, putting all the political material into a single section. I did not tackle the second half of the article, which is mostly advocacy; if the article is kept that will have to be severely pruned. Also, I was unaware of the article about his book; it has been an unreferenced stub since 2008 and should either be redirected to his article (if that article is kept) or deleted. (BTW you seem to be under the impression that there are two articles here, the presidential-campaign article and the biography article, but that's not the case. Actually the original article "Democratic Presidential Candidate" article was moved to the biography title "Harry Braun", leaving a redirect. So was the later created "Harry W. Braun III" article, which focused on his scientific advocacy.) You make a good case, but I am still not persuaded that an article is appropriate. Basically he is an unsuccessful political candidate and a little-noticed, self-educated writer on energy topics. Others may disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, you are quite welcome. :-) On the last point, he is an unelected political candidate, but whether his message advocating wind&solar was unsuccessful or not, is another question. There is such a thing as running for president, to shift the debate... cf Kuchinich'08, Gravel'12, Istvan'16, and quite possibly Sanders'16, plus of course, Braun-every-time. They *are* trying to become president... or congressional-rep or whatever... but they are also trying to shift the debate. There are 18+ repubs running in 2016, and at least half of them are message-candidates or stalking horses, a special sub-breed of messaging-candidate. Any electoral system based on first past the post is mathematically guaranteed to have message-candidates; they are a fixture of American politics for a good reason. In Braun's case, his research-work and his political-message are inextricably intertwined: he is a political candidate, with a message, that revolves around energy policy.

Anyways, thanks for thanking me, but most of the legwork was done by Braun himself, especially all the 1980s sources, which he thoughfully collected... but not knowing wiki-policies, mixed in with a bunch of aboutself and youtube and tangentially-related-sources. I'm not under any misimpression about the wikilinks under discussion, that I can tell. The vast majority of the "strong-delete" bangvotes here at AfD are specifically about the Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2016 ... which I agree should be a redirect since there are basically zero sources as yet (examiner.com is WP:BLOGS not WP:RS). Midway through the AfD, somebody implemented the redirect, and thus the *later* bangvotes are sometimes about deletion of Harry Braun the BLP-article, and sometimes about the deletion of Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2016 ... so with luck, the AfD closer will exercise some diligence, rather than just counting noses. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1)It is not right to say that his energy papers have been cited but not widely cited"; it would be more accurate to say "his energy papers are almost uncited". Cites s low as this are essentially equal to zero--notability as a scientist in a field like this would consist of multiple papers with cites over 50 each. What is notable, and very much so, is hydrogen energy & the hydrogen economy, but he has made no contributions to it worth mentioning. (2) I have long argued that essential every losing candidate of a major party in a 2 party system for a national office is notable, and if it looks otherwise its because we have not yet found the inevitable local sources. He's notable for this. His presidential campaign now is just possibly notable also. (3). Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Moderate notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. This article is straight political advocacy, and a new one should be written by a npov editor. Conceivably this could be used as a starting point, but a better article could be done if this isn't even in the record. (4)If it is kept, the first step in improvement is to remove sections 2.2 3rd and 4th paragraph, section 4 entirely,section 5 except for one summary sentence, section 6 entirely, section 7 entirely, and to reduce section 8 to a single paragraph. Section 9 belongs as the first section--putting the bio at the end is a promotional tactic inappropriate for an encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Section 9 ("Background") to the top of the article as you suggest, and retitled it "Personal". I also moved the "World According to Harry Braun" material to the 1984 Congressional election where it belongs. The rest of the article is a disorganized mess but I have not attempted to straighten it out; let people judge the article as presented. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've attempted to straighten it out, and cut out most of the promotionalism, and the discussion of topics not directly related to the BLP-qua-BLP. We have sources that discuss his stances in more detail than I've left, and I'm not satisfied with the shape the article is in (might still be giving a bit too much weight to his presidential campaigns), but the current state is now much closer to what methinks is wiki-acceptable. Almost uncited is a fair description of Braun's academia-impact, but also not the whole truth: his research efforts have generated general-readership-press, prior to his presidential campaigns. WP:GNG is additive -- we count the number of in-depth sources, and if there are three, then wiki-tradition says keep. We've got like a dozen now. Bangvotes, on the other hand, and not supposed to be additive. One anon, with WP:SOURCES in hand, and wiki-policy on their side, should be enough to overcome WP:BURNTHEWITCH. ;-) Deleting the article as wiki-punishment for promotionalism? That's just silly and petty. The wiki-honorable approach is to delete the promotional material from mainspace, which I believe is 90+% accomplished now, and then convince the editors making promotional edits, to adjust their behavior or be blocked. MelanieN seems to have accomplished that attitude-adjustment already with the BLP themselves, though there was also the User:H2016 editor at some point, not sure if that has been sorted yet. User:DGG, this is incorrect: "he has made no contributions to it worth mentioning" , unless you add the qualifier, "mentioning in the article on hydrogen economy" (or for that matter the article Hydrogen). Braun's research work has been proven WP:NOTEWORTHY, because wiki-reliable sources have mentioned that work. It would be WP:UNDUE to mention his work outside his BLP-article, at present, but that's not the same as saying 'he has made no contributions to it worth mentioning', methinks. Anyways, I think Braun passes WP:GNG, and that improvment is the remedy for promotional content, not deletion-as-a-punishment. Braun is a presidential candidate, and a technological futurist, both traits which make him naturally act in a self-promotional fashion in the outside world; he seems reasonable on usertalk, though, and I expect he'll learn the ways of the wiki-culture soon enough. Reasoning on usertalk (or blocking should that be ineffective) is the correct tool to fight persistent on-wiki promotionalism, not article-deletion. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "noteworthy" has a special meaning at WP--for science, it means referred to by reputable science sources with to an extent considerably more than the average scientific article. That is not the case here. if we keep the article I would put in references to the papers, but not list them in the article: it's overemphasis. DGG ( talk ) 12:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wiki-noteworthy has a special meaning, but I think that special meaning is spelled out at WP:NOTEWORTHY. "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. ...Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is wiki-noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." And of course, in true wiki-policy fashion, the definition of wiki-noteworthy includes, by reference, the entirety of the WP:PAG. :-) Anyways, I don't care if we move the selected bibliography subsection to a footnote or something, although that is somewhat annoying to do, because references cannot be nested inside other references. I'll give it a try though, please edit collaboratively to your liking, if I miss the mark. p.s. Does somebody have access to this[70] 2002 book-review? It is behind a paywall. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus here seems pretty clearly in the favor of deletion, and I could surely justify carrying that out, but given how much the article has changed since first listed I'd like at least a few more days to make sure everybody's on the same page. Given that the subject is (hopefully "was"?) heavily involved in the evolution of the page, there aren't likely to be any serious BLP objections in the short term. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm not sure what you mean by this: MelanieN seems to have accomplished that attitude-adjustment already with the BLP themselves. If you mean I have tried to improve the article, that's true. But if you are suggesting that I have changed my mind about deleting the article, you are mistaken. As a scientist he is not notable: he has no academic position or advanced degree; his "research", actually advocacy, is sparsely published and is almost completely uncited by others; his book is self-published. And as a political candidate he is not notable. Note that for an unsuccessful candidate for political office, election coverage is not enough to establish notability - because such coverage is routine and is not about them specifically. But election coverage is pretty much the only Reliable Source coverage the article has to offer. So, sorry, I still favor deletion. I know he pleads that he must have an article here if he is to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, but IMO it's the other way round: since he is not taken seriously by reliable sources, should not have an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, I meant that you convinced Harry (aka "the BLP") to adjust his attitude towards wikipedia, and to stop ~~disruptively spamming~~ inappropriately contributing to the article about themselves . :-) Sorry about my confusing phrasing. And although I understand your argument in favor of deletion, despite this BLP passing WP:GNG, my position is also still the same: Braun is an historically-interesting political candidate, and has easily passed WP:GNG, because he's found press-coverage in the wiki-reliable sources. Not all that coverage is positive! In fact, much of that coverage paints him as a guy with no shot, aka not a 'serious candidate'. But I note WP:EVERYTHINGISVERYSERIOUSHERE remains a redlink. Braun is an encylopedic topic, by virtue of his coverage in the WP:RS, not by virtue of his being likely to win the 2016 election. He is not likely to win, and wikipedia should not say so, because no sources do. But he has sufficient coverage, and as a student of the history of political elections, I think his story is interesting, as a messaging-candidate with a very specific message. His coverage in the sources stems from that same basis; as a BLP, he's quite an interesting character, and thus we have a dozen sources across the decades with plenty of depth. I understand that wikipedia should not promote Braun's candidacy, and I think we've convinced Braun of that basic wiki-fact-of-life, as well. Although it is possible to delete the BLP-article, as a kind of WP:IAR move that says, wikipedia should only cover serious candidates, I think that would be the wrong move, since it would violate the NPOV pillar. Wikipedia should neutrally cover 100% of the candidaets that satisfy WP:42, and Braun is one of those, by reflecting what the WP:SOURCES actually say. By the same token, neutrality also requires that we disallow 100% of the candidates we cover, from using wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion. But we can achieve both goals: keep the BLP-article, and delete the promotional content, if necessary blocking the agenda-pushing-usernames. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see I was unclear when I said he was "not taken seriously by reliable sources." I didn't mean that we should delete the article because he has no chance of winning the election; that's not a criterion here. By "sources don't take him seriously" I meant that sources just basically don't cover him at all. IMO he does NOT pass GNG, because of lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources (aside from routine congressional election coverage, which doesn't count). I realize you believe he does pass GNG. Reasonable people can differ. (BTW saying "the BLP" to mean the actual human is kind of strange. BLP means "biography of living person" and refers to an article, not a person.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood, you are interpreting 'significant' coverage in a specific way, which you are perfectly free to do, WP:N is left somewhat ambiguous, quite on purpose methinks for tricky cases. WP:NPOL guideline disagrees that his 1980s coverage was not 'significant' , see type#3 therein. The BLP -- which I use as shorthand for Harry Braun the "Biography" article as well as Harry Braun the "Living Person" -- as a way to remind us all that he *is* a living human and deserves respect per WP:BLP -- was given coverage in 1984 as an unsuccessful candidate, and if 1984 was all we had, then the BLP would arguably fail WP:GNG, but because the BLP was again the nominee in 1986, and because of coverage outside the congressional races in 1982+1990s+2000s for research-stuff, and small-but-not-negligible coverage in 2004/2012/maybeSoon2016 for potus, the 1984+1986 congressional coverage cannot be discounted as "routine" anymore. Instead of WP:BLP1E, we have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of an interesting-to-the-WP:SOURCES living human (see WP:BLP2E) across a number of decades. WP:ROUTINE is meant to exclude things like sheriff elections; it is NOT meant to exclude coverage of Clinton'16, even though the presidential election is 'routine' in the sense that we have one every four years! :-) I think the same reasoning applies to congressional races, they are not 'routine' even though there are 535 reps, see WP:NPOL which explicitly includes state reps and state senators, not just federal reps and federal senators; if Braun's only coverage was as the 1984 federal nominee, he might fail WP:BLP1E, but that is clearly not the case here, Braun is WP:BLP2E. But as you say, reasonable people can disagree, and although we do, I understand what you are saying now with respect to 'significant' coverage. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment: WP:NPOL gives automatic coverage to state representatives and congresspeople, yes. But it emphatically does NOT give automatic coverage to unsuccessful candidates for Congress or state legislatures. In fact articles about unsuccessful candidates for Congress get deleted all the time for failing WP:NPOL - even if they do receive local coverage about their candidacy. See, for example, the electoral history of the congressional district I live in. Only two of the dozen-or-so unsuccessful candidates have articles, and those two were previously notable for other reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we are on the same page in our reading of the wiki-tea-leaves. I just think that in the case of this BLP, he became post-1984-and-1986-notable, due to the press-coverage of his hydrogen-from-renewable-energy-research, and the press-coverage of the (related) series of potus campaigns, which is three coverage-bursts. He doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL criteria#1, since he's never won an election, but I think he satisfies WP:NPOL criteria#3, aka an unelected candidate that (in this case later) passed WP:GNG due to additional coverage, outside the 1984 election and the 1986 election. Once that additional WP:BLP2E coverage exists, the 1984 and 1986 coverage becomes useful for demonstrating WP:N, in my interpretation of the WP:POLITICIAN wiki-policies at least. Anyways, I do absolutely agree there is a lot of subjectivity involved, and if you still think 'significant' coverage is lacking, by some definition of significant, or even that the 1984/1986 coverage cannot be counted towards wiki-notability since the BLP lost the elections in question, by your reading of WP:NPOL, I can definitely understand your stance. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News articles in major papers show his notability as an advocate and "Perennial candidate". Please don't punish him for what he is not by deleting his article. Borock (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 75.108.94.227 and MelanieN have done a great job cleaning up the mess this article originally was. It now cites sources that clearly show he is notable. I still have a few concerns about the article; for example, although the overtly promotional tone and nature is gone it still seems to portray him in a more positive light than some of the sources do. Also I don't trust the 4 sources I've mentioned on the talk page without seeing them. However, those are clean-up concerns, not deletion concerns and AFD is not clean up. At this point I think this article should be kept. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from previous !vote for "Delete"). Kudos to 75.108.94.227 for a great job of digging up and adding some not-so-easy-to-find sources, and making what I find to be a convincing argument that the subject does indeed pass WP:GNG. Thanks to all those who've worked on the rewrite, great job of cutting out the promotional stuff and making it more encyclopedic.--JayJasper (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the praise, but credit for the bulk of the rewrite goes to MelanieN, my contribution was just deleting the remaining scientific-advocacy leftovers with an axe, plus organizing the existing sourcing into AfD-format ... credit for the actual offline-sourcing-legwork goes to the BLP themselves, who as a researcher actually read the byzantine wiki-policies before posting his autobiography here, and provided a 45-page-PDF with press-clippings since 1982 to demonstrate wiki-notability (no link due to DMCA). Reading the wiki-policies isn't the same as understanding them deeply, hence the series of beginner-mistakes, but the BLP is cooperative, and I have hopes they will become a long-term contributor about more than just Braun'16, once they know the ropes. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Perennial candidates are often not really notable, but it looks like he's had frequent coverage over the years from a variety of different publications that are reliable sources. Having said that, I still am somewhat torn given that the references seem to be tangential and fleeting. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:55, 29 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ghanem[edit]

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

It's a WP:TOOSOON situation here. The only notability here is a WP:BLP1E situation, namely the Future Dragon pitch. The student advisory mention here isn't much. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Exactly and my searches found nothing independently good aside from passing mentions and such. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 26 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marafie family[edit]

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

2.5 years later and there's still no sign of a reliable source. The source intermittently used is Marafie.com, which one IP editor (193.42.223.251) self-identifying as a Marafie claims isn't even the official family website. Bromley86 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can actually be improved but, as such with Middle Eastern subjects, there are name variations which I found myself so the best results I found were Books. The current sources are not acceptable for improvement nor for notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of reliable sourcing and fails GNG. Quis separabit? 19:41, 2 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amerind metal[edit]

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

My searches found absolutely nothing for "Amerind" (only for "Amerindian" subjects) and the article has existed since August 2013 without the slightest improvement and more importantly no signs of it happening. Pinging the author and taggers @OCCullens, Ogress, and Mesoderm:. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either a WP:HOAX or WP:CSD#A11. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slightly different from a WP:HOAX; the bands do exist, and their music could be described as falling into the category defined in the introduction, but no Google hits appear at all for "Amerind metal." It appears that the article's creator coined a new name for a sub-sub-sub-subgenre with obscure performers. There's a little bit of WP:CSD#A9, a little bit of WP:CSD#A11, and an obvious lack of WP:N and WP:V. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:01, 27 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. Obvious Keep, As an aside I notice the 3 previous AFDs were all by this nominator .... So Me5000 stop constantly nominating the article as it's getting rather disruptive. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Mall (Missouri)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not seeing the notability here. Out of the sources we have 1 wp:primary source, 2 directory listings, a book with one sentence about the mall, an article with half a sentence about the mall, 1 source about an arcade opening, 2 sources about an H&M opening, 3 sources about traffic around the mall and one halfway decent source. The article only has one source good source. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cited sources plus 'Further reading' pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the size and scope of the mall, the sources already in the article and in further reading, notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn How do the sources establish notability? In what way are any of those sources wp:significant coverage of the mall? Me5000 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per both the sources in the article that combined passe the threshold of "significant" and the scope of the mall. --Oakshade (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade Could specify which 2 sources are wp:sigcov of the mall and clarify in what way they are significant coverage? Additionally, 2 sources are not enough to pass WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 source could be enough to pass WP:GNG if the coverage is significant enough ("multiple sources are generally expected"). If you'd like to change WP:GNG to require 3 or more sources no matter how in-depth a lesser number is, you need to make your case on the GNG talk page. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade You avoided the main question: "Could specify which 2 sources are wp:sigcov of the mall and clarify in what way they are significant coverage?" Me5000 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a combination of all the coverage from multiple sources that amounts to significant coverage. WP:GNG makes no requirement that 1 source out of many be extremely in-depth.--Oakshade (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade Could you clarify the 2 in-depth sources and specify how they are in-depth coverage of the mall? Additionally per WP:GNG significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail". How does a combination of passing mentions/sources not actually about the mall amount to significant coverage per that definition? Me5000 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a single source that addresses the topic directly and in detail (one actually does, so there you go). If a combination of sources culminates in significant coverage, then it passes WP:GNG. If want to get all WP:LAWYER and specifically WP:GAMETYPE and demand that all sources go in detail, then so be it. We know you've been trying furiously for over a year to get this article deleted, but consenus has repeatedly disagreed with you and your interpretation of the guidelines. You need to move on.--Oakshade (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade I have already asked you 3 times to specify the 2 in-depth sources and clarify how they are in-depth coverage of the mall. Why do you keep avoiding this simple question? Me5000 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is become WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Me5000, seriously, move on.--Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade So you refuse to answer? Why? I just want you to clarify your original statement, I see no reason to continually avoid the question unless you realized can't answer it because you just made it up which would also explain why it was so vague in the first place. Me5000 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You miss-read my original statement. I didn't mean "both" as is in 2 specific sources, I meant "both" as in a combination of two factors - 1. The combined coverage passing the threshold of "significant." 2. The scope of the mall.--Oakshade (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade I did indeed misread your statement. But what I still don't understand is where the in-depth coverage is. Which sources do you think are in-depth? To quote the first source that isn't a primary source all it says about the mall is "Columbia Mall at Stadium and Bernadette Streets is the city's largest, but Columbia also has a thriving downtown district centered near Providence road and East Broadway." That is probably one of the worst sources I have ever seen and it is questionable whether it should even be used in the article. That is about the quality of all the sources used. Then you scroll down to the further reading section and you have these somewhat long sources that appear to be about the mall, but upon reading them two are simply about "Traffic Development Districts" and their attempts to expand/improve roads. While I will give you the source from the columbiabusinesstimes.com is the best source used, it is still just about development in the general area with very little about the mall overall. So in what way do you think there is significant coverage of this mall considering the quality of the sources used like I explained above and which sources do you think are in-depth about the mall and why? Me5000 (talk) 17:56, 31 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) 17:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ingibjörg Egilsdóttir[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, just slightly know from WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have fixed the issues that made the article not fit within GNG and ONEEVENT. This article is no longer eligible for deletion.--Snaevar (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It still is as those non-notable events are not adding anything to her notability. The Banner talk 20:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree fully. Under WP:oneevent stands: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Miss World is an worldwide highly significant event. That isn't just my opinion, but it is also regarded as such by Wikiproject Beauty Pageants.

So basically you are basing your delete request on a personal opinion that it is falsely not a significant event. Honestly I also expect more from an deletion nominator than one-liners. I am not going to explain this in depth if you won't do the same.--Snaevar (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, your opinion is also just your personal opinion. But she has only won a preliminary round for Miss Universe 2009 amd did not reach of the top places there. So she had not "a highly significant role" there. The Banner talk 22:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new source that proves that she did not even win the preliminary competition but ended as nr. 2. The Banner talk 21:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - did not win any pageant, coverage is not sufficient to pass GNG Kraxler (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Kraxler. Searches returned nothing to show this person meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:04, 3 September 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. Fails WP:V. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's Corner[edit]

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

Nothing I can locate info about any location in the Pacific Ocean called Johnson's Corner. According to the talk page, the creator of the article knew of Johnson's Corner from his father~~, and mentioned that there's supposed to be a source in military websites or books~~. TheGGoose (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGGoose -- I tried an alternate spelling (Johnstons Island), I wonder if this is the place, Johnston Atoll? more here [71]009o9 (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the talk page he doesn't actually say sources exist in military publications, just that he is going to look. That was in 2007 and the article still has zero sources. I can not find any evidence that this place exists. Me5000 (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect this is really Jones Corner per [72] MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:v Pokerkiller (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. I can't find anything about this particular Johnson's Corner. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 3 September 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 List of Swedish supercentenarians. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Eriksson (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a standalone article as per WP:GNG in my opinion - no significant coverage in reliable sources and lived to the age of "only" 110... she was the oldest person in a (relatively small) nation but hundreds of people have lived longer. The only thing making her notable is her status as "former Sweden's oldest person" but other people who have held this distinction don't have articles themselves. I propose this article is either deleted or merged with List of Swedish supercentenarians and a mini biography is added to it, like there is at List of British supercentenarians, List of French supercentenarians, etc, in line with WP:PAGEDECIDE. Ollie231213 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians. There's nothing worth merging (which would entail expanding the existing tables there). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by Ollie. OscarL 22:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Canadian Paul 16:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular opinion on the delete/keep axis, but if it is going to be deleted (which seems like a done deal), at least provide a hat note at Maria_Eriksson pointing to List of Swedish supercentenarians -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 3 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Muhammad Akbar Khan (Raja of Bhimber)[edit]

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

Can't find any details which meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited a reliable book on the subject matter, refer to it please. If you need other citations, I can add them also. I can also pinpoint many wiki articles which don't cite any references. But it's other debate, i will cite additional references in two or three days. Wikibaba1977 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another reference which states that " Raja Muhammad Akbar Khan, was a Naib-tahsilar, but was compelled to resign on account of the precarious state of his father's health. He is now a Member of the Jhelum Municipality and since his father’s death in 1908 has succeeded to the family pension and seat in Provincial Darbari, and to the hereditary title of Raja". Please look into it. I think it should be enough. If you want other references please ask. Wikibaba1977 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference from book The Garrison State: Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab By Tan Tai Yong states that "The 1920 provincial elections thus returned, as the provincial government had hoped, a Legislative Council dorminated by the ”Old World The first expanded council inaugurated in 1921 comprised mainly ”landlords, peasant—proprietors, ex—army officers, and a sprin—kling of traders and lawyers”. The Punjab government reported that ”a large number of members of the council were landed propri-etors typically representative of the province and the council as a whole represented a moderate current of political opinion”.

This first expanded Legislative Council in the Punjab contained thirty-eight members who belonged to the landed / military families of the Punjab, or were rural notables, ex-soldiers and minor officials who had functioned as the state's military intermediaries during the war. Notable members of this group of rural-military elites included: Syed Mehdi Shah of Gojra, a leading Muslim from Lyallpur who was actively involved in recruiting during the war, elected from his rural Muslim seat in Lyallpur; Raja Mahommed Akbar of jhelum, chief of the heavily recruited Chib Rajputs of jhelum, elected from the west Punjabb towns.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE, K.C.I. E. "The Golden Book of India", 1893 AD, Page 17 under the heading ALI BAHADUR KHAN (of Saidpur),Raja. or Prominent Indians of Victorian Age: A Biographical Dictionary,by SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE, K.C.I. E Page 17 under the heading ALI BAHADUR KHAN (of Saidpur),Raja.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Punjab Chiefs page 170 by Sir Lepel Henry Griffin, W. L. Conran, Sir Henry Craik, you can find complete family tree or pedigree chart of Raja Muhammad Akbar Khan chib. Google it pleaseWikibaba1977 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Wikibaba1977, your sources are all off-line. That's not forbidden, but makes verifying somewaht difficult. I have found some on-line sources which confirm that this person was indeed a member of the Punjab Legislative Council, and thus passes WP:NPOL, see here (#81). Wikisource has his entry in The Indian Biographical Dictionary (1915), see here. Kraxler (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Kraxler, thanks for additional online references. It would make my job a lot easier.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage found in a cursory Google Books' search to satisfy WP:GNG. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 3 September 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 Java (band). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Bossard[edit]

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

I had made into a redirect to his band, explaining fully in the summary, but the author has reverted without explanation. Regardless, this drummer's "sources" are talking about projects he has worked with but not specifically him. As such, he fails WP:GNG at this time. Being a BLP, this is particularly important as there are few sources to back up much information outside of that you would expect to see in the main band's article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Java (band).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as that seems best and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 1 September 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 00:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macon The News[edit]

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

No sources are offered to indicate what is notable or significant about this weekly publication; does not seem to meet notability guidelines. The PROD I had put was removed with the reason "Although Macon The News is more recent publication it has a significant impact upon the community which it serves. It also generates original content and not just news or press releases" but no sources have been offered to demonstrate "significant impact". 331dot (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also may be too soon for an article about it as it was founded this year(which would also undercut a "significant impact" argument). 331dot (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The publication may become notable in the future, and I wish them well, but this is indeed 'too soon'.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches show no reliable RS. Most likely WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable at this time. Fuzchia (talk) 15:48, 28 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.

[1] "The artist who took a 'slum vacation' to Thailand's biggest shanty town". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 August 2015.

[2] Rich Wilson. "Bon Roxette, anyone?" (PDF). Classic Rock, Issue 05/2011, UK. Retrieved 2015-08-11.

[3] ttp://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=Cornerstone&titel=Smalltown+Boy&cat=s

[4] Donald Trasher. "Austrian band teams up with Dayton record label". Dayton Daily News, US. Retrieved 2015-08-11.

[5] "Eberhard Forcher's Friday Night" (PDF). Hitradio Ö3.

[6] "Heimat bist Du großer Töne" (PDF). Radio Wien, Austria. Retrieved 2015-08-11.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]