Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 July	14 July >

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 redirect to Pocket_808. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Sengupta[edit]

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

Lack of substantive reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pocket 808, a duo he is one half of. Lacks notability independent of that band. Wikipedia is not a staff directory for Studio 301 and is not here for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lacks "significant coverage" in independent reliable sources to establish notability so fails WP:GNG. However, its probably a valid search term so redirect to Pocket 808 per Duffberrforme. Anotherclown (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect at best as my searches found nothing good aside from this and this (possibly?) to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cohen (record producer)[edit]

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

All sources are linked to the artist, no genuine substantive independent sources cited. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a staff directory for Studio 301. Promo piece for non notable producer. Lacks independent coverage about him in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing significant aside from this to let alone suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NotGTAV[edit]

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

Non-notable video game fails WP:GNG, almost all the references are just places where you can purchase the game, the developers website, or minor reviews some of which are from questionable sources. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Sam Walton (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. Eh, the game was picked up by a few of the vetted video game sources, but they're mostly short blurbs. Longest articles are Kotaku (its follow-up) and RPS, but they're just average coverage. There aren't any formal reviews or enough coverage to make this topic particularly noteworthy. So it fails in breadth for significant coverage. – czar 18:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's received coverage, even if only minor. Ana r chyte 06:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that WP:GNG explicitly states that minor coverage is not sufficient. It needs to be "significant" coverage, not "minor" or trivial coverage. This article does not inherit notability from the Grand Theft Auto IV game it is spoofing. The only reason it's received any coverage is because the gameplay is so poor and proceeds are going to a charitable cause. All of that is fine and dandy, but this doesn't have the coverage to pass WP:GNG, at the very least it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of its quality or reasons its getting coverage, it is getting coverage, and that's what matters - the reasons why do not. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Sam Walton's sources. They are sources that are not trivial, passing mentions, but rather, articles focused entirely on the subject. Each article is a few paragraphs long as well. To me, that satisfies significant coverage. Its not a home run, sure, but it limps by the standard. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - spoof of a game but still a game. no reason for it to be deleted.^[1]Thursby16 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Averitt Express[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG . This has been around for over a year but still has no significant references other than its own web-site and appears to have no special notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete - I've actually seen these trucks on the road several times but my searches found nothing outstandingly good to suggest good improvement here, here, here and here. I suppose if needed, I'm open to draft/userfy. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the links that SwisterTwister provides do establish notability, as far as I see it. There is some coverage in books, such as this, and quite a few news articles, and even an academic journal article. That's enough to meet WP:GNG. This is not to say that there aren't problems with the article. "Today, Averitt is one of the leading transportation companies in the US", sourced to Averitt's own website, is clearly inappropriate, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on the weaker side. Source examples include: ^[2], ^[3] (preview), ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.NotGames.NotGTAV
^ "Making EDI Pay Off: The Averitt Express Experience". Production and inventory management journal. pp. 6–11.
^ "Making EDI pay off: The Averitt Express experience". (Preview page of the first listed source). proquest.com.
^ "Executive's Guide to the Wireless Workforce". p. 153.
^ "Transportation & Distribution". pp. 27–28.
^ "Going Canadian: Averitt deal opens avenues to the north". Nashville Business Journal.
^ "Plunkett's Transportation, Supply Chain & Logistics Industry Almanac 2009".

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:G3. Just Chilling (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donte Tate[edit]

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

Appears to be made up. Google search for "Donte Tate" "Miami Heat" gets no hits; not listed on nba.com players; Not listed on NBA 2012_NBA_Finals#Player_statistics KylieTastic (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. I could find no evidence that a man named Donte Tate played basketball for the Heat or the University of Memphis. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- possible hoax, as there is no evidence that Donte Tate played for the Miami Heat. The only 'Donte Tate' I could find of similar age is from Colorado Springs, not anywhere in Florida. Speedy deletion criterion G3 (hoax, blatant vandalism) may apply. -- Bad Weather 2014 ^{My work • What's wrong?} 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. No references to this player exist for either Miami Heat or University of Memphis. NBA basketball is extensively documented, and even seldom-used reserve players generate many thousands of Google results in connection with their teams. Calamondin12 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per all. I also removed the info about the Heat so no one would stumble upon the article and believe it. Rikster2 (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 as my searches found nothing good and confirmed this is fictional. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ormonde-Ottewill[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:02, 13 July 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) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Amiri Moghaddam

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Brother (U.S. TV series). (Page has been redirected on July 17 by User:Elijah.wilhelm.) (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 18 (U.S.)[edit]

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

Very clear case of being too soon, as there is only a single reference, and all that is is an announcement that the show was renewed for 2 more seasons, i.e. the current 17 and next year's 18; if there's nothing else to say about an upcoming season other than "it was renewed", then it should remain a redirect until such time as concrete details are announced, which based on past seasons will be sometime in Spring 2016. This is a recurring issue; see where Big Brother 17 was created Oct 1st 2014, it is removed as being too soon, and recreated May 9th 2015 once there is actual substance to report. Every year, overzealous new users insist on creating the article now, now now, it is regrettable that we have to come to AfD, but several of these users refuse to participate in the talk page discussion, so here we are. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 21:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (U.S. TV series) - It's the same with the UK - They get created early so they're just redirected until a few months before it airs, personally don't see the point in deletion as obviously someone will recreate it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a redirect, but since we're dealing with IP users and a WP:SPA who revert and do not participate in the talk page, going the AfD route is the only way to get a redirect cemented IMO. Tarc (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope you're bang on - If you redirected you would've probably got reverted so you done good coming here :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (U.S. TV series): the subject isn't notable at present and there are only 3 1/2 sentences that contain information about the 18th season. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (U.S. TV series). Source searches are providing passing mentions, not finding significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Bellmore Fire Department[edit]

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

Dealing with this as per WP:ORG. Being a fire department, it has numerous new article mentions in regards to the various emergencies it responds to, but very little focusing on the department itself. I would either delete OR delete and redirect to The Bellmores, New York. Safiel (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge & Redirect - Nothing notable about this department. I am all for having pages about departments but only if they are properly structured and actually have the basic information CITED. See WP:FIRE-STRUCT. WIthout this information this is just a directory of departments. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the one reference that hasn't been excised is to http://www.newsday.com/extras/firefighters/firealarm.pdf -- its 404, but archive.org has something -- [6]. Quite a lot of information, and several references, have been excised since this article was first nominated for deletion eight years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and Redirect Nothing notable that I see - passing mentions that aren't directly about the department don't establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only non-notable, but insignificant, local department, no sources except their own website, the newsday link above is a list of fire department specifics without any prose, no in-depth coverage anywhere, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Osias[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE Agtx (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, college athlete, doesn't meet our notability standards. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 21:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No different from any other college athlete in the USA, fails ATHLETE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of why she stands out from other NCAA Division 1 college softball players enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not show notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Holley[edit]

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

Subject unmistakeably fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. The World Basketball Association is a semi-professional league and appearing in it does not satisfy the basketball notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOOPS. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have played in a major professional sports league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Playing in semi-professional basketball does not show notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by article creatorBasketball figures are presumed notable if they

Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league.

Would like to suggest the Stewart Holley fall into the similar major professional sports league. The Tobacco Road Basketball League (TRBL) is a professional men's basketball minor league in the United States that began play in April 2012.

Also not notable as first round draft pick for the World Basketball Association which is difficult to achieve.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee530 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator placed this comment on my user talk page rather than here, so I am moving it, even though the discussion has already closed. Safiel (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EV Group[edit]

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

Advert for a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I say weak because I think the company may be notable, but as pointed out by the nominator, I believe this whole page would have to be scrapped completely and re-written. If someone is willing to do this, I'd probably be willing to change my vote. (I don't really have an interest in doing it, because of their borderline notability and my complete lack of knowledge of the science involved with what the company does.) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good sources are found and the article is improved as my searches found some results here, here and here but as I'm not an expert or familiar with this subject, I couldn't help further. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Festival of Lights[edit]

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

no evidence of any but local notability -- the GNews sources seem to be local. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep coverage in the Toronto Star shows at least regional coverage, not to mention the fact that 1,000,000 visitors a year would certainly disprove any notion that this is just locally notable. Not to mention a simple google news search pulls up coverage in Pittsburgh and Buffalo as well. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pittsburgh
- Buffalo

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep':- this appears to meet our primary notability criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but . . . There are many sources apparent in searches such as GNews and HighBeam, sufficient to establish this as a notable event and tourist attraction. On the other hand, the current version of the article does little to provide the sort of information that would make this notability apparent. In particular, independently sourced information about the history and significance of this festival would make a big difference. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). No consensus for a particular action regarding the article has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick William University[edit]

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

Unneccessary second article on the early history of Humboldt University of Berlin, the history of which is covered there (and better!). Creator of the page objected deletion in first attempt. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is also the issue of two seperate disambiguation pages, Frederick William University (disambiguation) and Friedrich Wilhelm University (merger proposal in process). This article that I entered for deletion only adds to the confusion... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article about the Frederick William University should be keept. After WWII there have been two successors: HU Berlin and FU Berlin. Hegel, Marx, and Heine haven't studied at Humboldt. Who studied at Humboldt? Zwerg Nase and of cause he defends "his" university. That's what we call POV. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being an alumni does not make me blind to the obvious. To name it:

It is widely accepted that the Humboldt University is not just a successor, but the very same university that was called Frederick William University between 1828 and 1949. What is disputed is wether alumnis should be counted towards both Humboldt and Freie Universität.
It is astonishing to me that you defend your article, which is supposed to cover the early period of the university, but does so very poorly and a lot worse than the period is covered in Humboldt University of Berlin.
Having a seperate article on the Berlin Frederick William University confuses readers from the fact that there were three Frederick William Universities. The article name should lead to the disambiguation page, if anything. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you have no problems with the "fact" that famous Germans from Bismarck till Einstein are connected with your university (Humboldt; example: Hermann von Abich), on the other hand you are worrying about someone might confuse the article about the Frederick William University with the University of Bonn or the University of Wrocław. That's not very convincing. If you think the article is too short: Well feel free to add more information. Historically the Frederick William University is fare more important than HU or FU Berlin, so it should be easy to enlarge it (see also de:Liste der Rektoren der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin). --Kolja21 (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolja21: This is ridiculous. You change the German list you give yourself to have it point to the Freie Universität, while before your edit it was quite clear that that list also supported my thesis of continuity between FWU and HU... Unbelievable!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you better take a look into this book: Peschke, Elke-Barbara (2010). Rektoren und Präsidenten der Universität Unter den Linden (in German). Berlin. ISBN 978-3-9813135-8-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), where all the presidents of the university are listed, from 1810 to 2010... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the Liste der Rektoren der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin is not what you like to see, but feel free trying to delete it too. I haven't written it. The Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität will stay the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität even if it doesn't fit into the PR concept of the HU. And the book by Peschke? Who published it: "Der Präsident der Humboldt-Univ." What a surprise ;) --Kolja21 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why you say that self-description is of no importance in this matter. The difference between the HU and FU is, that the latter only wants to be associated with the good heritage of the FWU, namely the Nobel Prize winners. The HU takes full legal and moral succession to the Friedrich Wilhelm University, including its dark chapters in National Socialism. Also, you claim that the end of WWII, the seperation of the FU and the name change were a big caesura for the university and that makes it necessary to have seperate articles. Well, guess what, these three things did not occur at the same time. Cutting the history off at when the name change occured is the worst way to do it, since it is the least notable break of the three. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I wrote that self-description is of no importance? What is important is that you are an alumni of Humboldt and that you are doing PR work for your university, giving missleading information like citing a book as an independent source withholding the basic bibliographic information. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view." We do not take the standpoint of one organization. Furthermore the article about the Frederick William University helps us to avoid historical inconsistencies. Deleting it you would force every author to link to your university. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Humboldt University of Berlin, and succinctly describe different name (in a devoted section, if need be). The fact that University of Berlin (the original name) and Berlin University redirects to Frederick William University is even more confusing, especially when trying to sort out historic sources that clearly use "University of Berlin", not "Frederick William University" (e.g. I'm currently working on Thomas Harrison Montgomery, Jr.‎‎ and no source I've seen states he attended "Frederick William University"). There is currently not enough new content to warrant a size split, although possibly eventually a sub-article may be appropriate, that describes in depth a historical period in the University now known as Humbold (e.g. History of Humboldt University of Berlin, 18XX-19XX), but for clarity, context, and convenience, all relevant university names should redirect to the central article. Also, merging might more clearly inform categorization: as there is no Category:University of Berlin alumni, the next best thing is Category:Humboldt University of Berlin alumni --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that there are so many incoming articles to Frederick William University (mainly due to the redirects Berlin University and University of Berlin) suggests that a lot of readers may be given an inferior article to read after a click, and increases the burden on them to find a satisfying, appropriate article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus to delete here, and also that WP:V has not been met. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jabr bin Muhammed Al Thani[edit]

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

Only a single reference to a genealogical website, thus notability is not established. Searches for references in both Arabic and English have yielded absolutely nothing on this subject. Elspamo4 (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor royals of minor nations are not really notable by themselves. Virtually all of the information in the stub is utterly mundane: every man in Islamic countries studies the Koran, has a few kids, and assists the emir. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - member of royal family who played a role in establishing Qatar as a nation. Hmmm, I'm not aware of what a "minor nation" is. Is the definition something like "non-white country I don't care about"? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our problem, of course, is that we have no sources which confirm he was any more than one of several sons of a ruler and himself had sons who were notable. If he was indeed significant in the establishment of modern Qatar then of course he's notable, but we do need some proof. Even Arabic Wikipedia doesn't have any more than we have. However, given he was the son of Qatar's ruler and we usually keep articles on the children of monarchs I'll err on the side of keeping and hope someone (probably someone who reads Arabic) can find some more about him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Indeed, I too have never heard of a 'minor nation'. Even if such a nation were to exist, this wouldn't undermine the notability of its associated topics. Necrothesp, I can't find anything purporting Jabr's importance in any of my books on Qatar. In the comprehensive book The Creation of Qatar by Rosemarie Zahlan, Muhammad's three sons are mentioned as such: Qasim (emir of Qatar), Ahmad (governor of Doha). Jabr's name is mentioned but with no particular allusion to his significance. Likewise, in Jassim our leader, founder of Qatar by Mohammed Althani, Muhammad's other two sons are mentioned throughout the book with no reference at all to Jabr. The same exact theme appears in every book I've searched (I own about 10 books on Qatar's history). I have searched his name in Arabic in countless variations and haven't found any reliable sources on Jabr. That's not to say he definitely doesn't have any notability, but I don't think we will be able to establish any such notability. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Question~~ Is there a notability guideline or common outcomes page for royalty? I thought I'd seen one before, but a quick search didn't turn one up. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Bearian linked to it in his post. Royalty can be an exception to the rule that notability is not inherited. The article claims that the subject is a "senior member" of the royal family - how senior, exactly, is he? Does he fall under that exception? I believe the rules of succession and calculations of seniority are generally different in the Middle East than in Europe, but I'm afraid I'm a bit short on the details. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Qatar was a British Protectorate until 1971, during this person's adult life. He is "minor" because his nation was still very small and not yet sovereign, not because of the size of the country, nor the color of his skin, nor his religion, nor any bias on my part. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Wikimandia, do you have any substantive reasons to keep this article? This subject was a member of a non-sovereign ruling house, whose article is lacking sourcing, and has minimum content. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Elspamo4's extensive search that does not bring enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I came under extreme abuse early on in my career as a sysop for creating Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, lack of reliable sources. Royalty or not, if he was indeed "influential in making Qatar a stable country" he sounds notable enough, but notability is not the issue here, it's verifiability, and a self-published genealogy website isn't enough for that. Sandstein 17:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kho Ping Hoo[edit]

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

This has preumably been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved, because it looks like he should meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, but I couldn't verify that he does. A large part of this is that I can only access sources in English. I hope someone can prove me wrong here, but I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some poking around on Google and other search engines, and I can assert the same; there doesn't appear to be any sources for this person to satisfy WP:AUTHOR and it seems to fail WP:GNG as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arpwatch[edit]

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

Although this topic has some "How to's" written about it, It is not WP:NOTABLE as a "how to" dosn't really provide notability. No articles are written about it or its history. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I might be incorrect, this article does seems to satisfy the third criterion of WP:NSOFTWARE. For instance, look at the results I found on Google Books and Google Scholar. I would also advise you to look at the previous AfD for this article, in which Canley pointed out multiple significant references in printed third-party books. --Biblioworm 20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest that all mentions are either ancient (2005 is ancient in networking), or little more than passing mentions, but I am certainly willing to accept other points of view. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any requirement that the source be recent. Also, some of the "passing mentions" in those books and articles do in fact appear to be rather significant. --Biblioworm 02:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no requirements for anything on Wikipedia. My point is if a colleague came to me for help on networking stuff I would almost certainly not direct them to a book from 2005 because its very likely to mention programs and techniques that are not at all in use, and that person would spend a lot of effort trying something that is just stupid. If we can't find any significant sources in the past ~5 years (and I would disagree with your assertion that those sources are significant) this article should be deleted or merged into the arp article. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So...let's suppose that I wrote an article on a very ancient operating system, such as Windows 1. (The article already exists, but this is merely a thought experiment.) If most thorough sources available are from many years ago, we should delete or merge the article, right? My point is that the age of sources should have no bearing on whether or not we keep or delete the article. By simply having an article on a particular piece of software, we are not implying that it widely used as of now. The software may very well be out of date. Under your reasoning, we should progressively delete software articles as they become outdated, which would mean that in ten or twenty years the article on Windows 7 might be gone. Also, I re-assert that some of the mentions in those books are significant, since a few of them have entire sections devoted to ARPwatch. Also, based on my Google Scholar results, it appears that there are some articles which are completely dedicated to it. --Biblioworm 15:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Canley's original analysis in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpwatch that Linux Firewalls, Third Edition (Suehring & Ziegler, Novell Press 2006 [7]), Wireless Hacks (Flickenger & Weeks, O'Reilly, 2005 [8]), and Real World Linux Security (Toxen, Prentice Hall, 2003 [9]) taken together amply demonstrate notability. A partial list of other books and research papers covering the subject includes: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15] (large).

The arguments that how-to's can't prove notability, that their coverage is old, or that arpwatch would not be the tool of choice today hold no water. 1) A Wikipedia article should not be written like a how-to, but there's no reason a how-to can't be a reliable, independent, secondary source, or contain significant coverage, which is what is required for notability. 2) Notability is not temporary. 3) The purpose of an encyclopedia is not simply to document current best practices. I wouldn't suggest bloodletting for a patient, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it - see WP:DEFUNCTS. If the content of the article is dated or doesn't give enough information on some aspect of the tool, that is a problem to be solved through editing, not deletion. Worldbruce (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Worldbruce and Biblioworm. The first AfD correctly states that third-party printings and books exist for this article to meet WP:NSOFTWARE. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the same as above and the earlier AfD discussion. It's the standard tool for the purpose of monitoring ARP changes when there is network trouble, not only for spoofing detection. --HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chandpur Village. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES backed by consensus Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsha Sishu Bikash Shiksa Niketan[edit]

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

Primary school with no further claim of notability. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chandpur Village, where it is already mentioned. This is the usual way of handling non-notable primary schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Non-notable primary school, concur with redirect per MelanieN and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Worldbruce (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Muhammad Iqbal. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Noor Muhammad[edit]

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

According to the article, Sheikh Noor Muhammad "is most notable in being the father of (Poet of East) Muhammad Iqbal." Per WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited (neither as the descendant of a notable person nor as the ancestor of one). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think about a redirect to Muhammad Iqbal? We often do that with non-notable relatives of notable people. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the Muhammad Iqbal article does mention his father (and apparently from cited sources), I can support the redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhammad Iqbal per MelanieN's recommendation and WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES. Every mention of the subject I could find was brief and of the form "Iqbal's father Sheikh Noor Muhammad ..." Nothing suggests he was notable in his own right. Worldbruce (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Siddharth[edit]

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

While it looks like there were a few human interest stories written about the subject (cited in article), I don't think it's enough to meet the notability guidelines. Falls under WP:BLP1E. Agtx (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Congratulations to him for making the ride, but searches confirm that all three conditions of WP:BLP1E are met (albeit for a 49-day event). Fifteen minutes of fame, not notability for an encyclopedia article. Worldbruce (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC --Badnaam (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Image Films[edit]

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

Single secondary source cited is a bio of the founder, not really about the company. Google turns up an occasional blog mention of the company, but no real independent coverage. Agtx (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is working on more films and TV shows that are not listed in this article. Google turns up more than an occasional blog mention of the company. --DesertRoad101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has no edits in Article space. Agtx (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced that a Talent Monthly editorial, even if it provided significant coverage of the company (which it doesn't), would be a reliable source for establishing notability. The remaining cited sources contain no more than trivial mentions. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and ProQuest turned up no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so fails WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing even close to suggest local notability let alone universal notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trending keep, but might be renominated if media coverage hasn't improved after some time. Sandstein 17:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stag PDX[edit]

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

References indicate local notability only, fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. This club has been covered by multiple reliable sources, is relevant to Portland/Oregon's LGBT culture, and is only the second club of its kind (all-nude gay strip club, after Silverado, which is also located in Portland). Reviews have described its origins, design and activities, and surely there will be more press about this venue as it becomes more established. I propose we keep the article and let it grow. It makes a good companion article to CC Slaughters, Darcelle XV, Silverado, Three Sisters Tavern, and several other articles related to Portland's LGBT culture. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High quality article, nicely done. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ordinary nightclub receiving only mundane and typical coverage in the press received of all such establishments, thereby failing GNG. Wikipedia is NOT A DIRECTORY, no matter how nicely crafted the directory listings are. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use the word "ordinary" to describe this nightclub. In fact, it is quite unique! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Incubate Searches turned up no sources beyond those already cited in the article. The Willamette Week review, PQ monthly, and GoLocalPDX together satisfy most of WP:CORP, but nom is correct that the article fails WP:AUD because all its sources are local to Portland. The club has been open barely 10 weeks. Given more time it's likely it will gain attention from regional or national media. Silverado, for example, is covered in Lonely Planet's guidebook to the Pacific Northwest, and was reviewed last year (along with 10 other Portland strip clubs) in Bon Appétit. Another possibility is that the club may fizzle out in short order; it's the fourth bar at that address in a year. So move article to User: or Draft: space until the club gains at least regional notability. Worldbruce (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PQ Monthly is a regional publication, not a local one. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This venue has received reviews by multiple entertainment magazines. Those reviews were not paid, but because a journalist wanted to highlight the venue. The details which make this place unusual - it is a nude gay stripper bar in a region where this is uncommon - are highlighted by the sources, and are a likely reason why this place gets special attention when 95% of other similar bars would not be reviewed by the same journalists. I grant that Wikipedia policy about travel journalism is unclear - the reviews are short but then also they say everything that needs to be said, and for some topics, being brief is enough. I am satisfied that 2-3 sources which are reliable for what they are have covered this and that at a glance, this seems to meet WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Incubate: I think that it is very difficult to establish notability in the sense taken here for an entertainment venue established in the same year the article was composed and whose founders are not themselves notable. There is virtue in patience, though people who like the venue, or find it unique, or wish to combat bias here, could find it very hard to pull back an article and wait a year or two until notability is firmly established (I think it will be, by the way). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Stelter[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 08:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that there is consensus that the UFL is not a top-level league as described in WP:NGRIDIRON (see here). ~ Rob^Talk 08:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Played college football as a reserve long-snapper (i.e., not a starter on offense, defense, or even special teams, but rather a backup in a limited, special teams capacity) at a fourth-tier, Division III program for which he received no significant coverage that I have been able to locate. He was not selected in the NFL Draft, nor did he sign with an NFL team. Instead, he played three years of semi-pro football and then in the United Football League (2009–12), a low-tier professional league. I have not found sufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to pass the notability bar. Also, he doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH as he has not won a major award, set a major record, been inducted into a Hall of Fame, or gained national media attention. Willing to reconsider if other sources can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources for notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet any notability standard, such as WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. This is not unexpected for a on offensive lineman who has not played in the NFL. College long snappers rarely make the news to achieve notability and I see no reason to make an exception here. Naturally, if sources are presented I would reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g5, created by sock of blocked User:Xbeachsoccer. Sources appear to be fake, and this appears to be a hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 World Dwarf Games[edit]

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

Author has made claim of significance, PROD has been removed. Would like insight from other editors. Garchy (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and no independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that we have editors suggesting all four common outcomes here, I am closing this as no consensus, but will of course point out that BOLDLY merging and redirecting are editing issues, and not for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop (motion)[edit]

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

Is this used in the real world at any regular basis?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously bogus. Snap-crackle-and-pop? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was closed by MelanieN after speedy-deleting it as a hoax. It's actually not a hoax and not bogus; it's just a lame physics joke. Note we also have an article at jounce, which is another name for snap. (This article appears to duplicate some of that one's content.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stand corrected on this, and I thank Opabinia regalis for knowing the truth about this whimsical physics naming tradition. (So should we also have an article on Crackle (motion)?) --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to jounce. Oops, I got distracted leaving you a note and making sure I hadn't screwed up the templates, and forgot the part where you actually comment on the article. Hrm. I don't think we need separate pages for each of these - they'd just be 'the nth derivative...' dicdefs. I think very selectively merging this article to jounce, where this terminology is already mentioned, is the best approach. Snap (motion) and crackle (motion) can be redirects, though unlikely search terms I'm sure. To answer the original question, snap does get used on occasion, but I've never seen an un-self-conscious usage of crackle or pop. And fly geneticists win at science when it comes to goofy names. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA isn't bad at it either [16] -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to jounce. I don't think the content merits merging. The one paper cited is primarily about jerk and snap. The content is largely duplicated from jounce. The equations add little, and anyone with sufficient mathematics/physics knowledge to understand the article will be able to derive them. Similarly I don't think we need merge the large part of the article that describes the weakness and lack of consensus about it all, which is in any case largely copied from jounce. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be fine with merge/redirect if someone with sufficient understanding of the concepts will undertake to do it. For one thing, it does appear to be rather duplicative of "jounce". For another, a redirect is much less likely than an article to elicit a "WTF?" response from non-physicists. Personally my favorite physics humor is the short version of the laws of thermodynamics.[17]--MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a little silly, but it's physics, and it's real, and it's got references to back it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete The two references are basically asides, showing that cosmologists do have a sense of humor but failing to demonstrate that anyone really cares about this contrived bit of terminology; indeed, they both tend to imply the opposite. A paper showing some analysis of this way-out-there derivative is really what is needed to give this meaningful notability. Seyasirt (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Hamed[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's sources: a directory listing, the doctor's health center, a press release, and a newspaper paragraph about him cutting the cake at the health center's opening, do not begin to establish notability. Searches of the usual Google types and HighBeam turned up an asked-for-comment quote in this story and two papers ([18] and [19]) by an A. Rami Hamed, with fewer than 20 citations each. In short, does not meet WP:BASIC.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Kincho[edit]

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

A rooster is the brand image of Kincho or ja:大日本除虫菊, but the English Wikipedia does not even have an article on the company (otherwise, I would just merge this into the company article). The brand image is rather well-known, but I can find no articles even in Japanese on the "Papa" character, let alone ones that that include this in-universe information. One could perhaps re-do this just focusing on the Kincho rooster, but I still don't see enough RS for that, or the need given we don't have an article on the company. Michitaro (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in deoth coverage in independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, and possible hoax. --DAJF (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. another tiny museum from Malacca lacking significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find detailed coverage in sources such as Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia: Identity, Representation, and Citizenship; Museums, History and Culture in Malaysia; Re-scripting colonial heritage; The Guide to Melaka. Andrew D. (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add many other references (including from local gov website), improve and add more wordings on the article, add complete street address, add the building construction & completion date, add into another article category, add its architectural info, add the purpose of the museum, add the info on who gave the fund for the construction. And this museum explains about the regional Chitty community which exists in Malaysia and Singapore, thus it is really legit and important article to talk about. Of course the detail explanation of the Chitty community and culture itself is not explained in this museum article. Chongkian (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another references from Utusan Online & Kosmo (Malay language) & the name of the museum director/curator. Chongkian (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sourcing to establish notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs expanded but appears to pass notability. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references 2-6 are used in the opening line to merely confirm existence of museum. refs 8-9 confirm opening times. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage has been demonstrated. Altamel (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody wants to keep the article, so there you are. I'm also userfying it as requested. Sandstein 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian engineering college rankings[edit]

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

The list doesn't specify a certain year, and looking at the article history, the 2013 rankings have been removed. This list (at least in the way it is currently handled) would require maintenance every year, and is a good example of recentism. I suppose a solution would be to organize it differently, in the same manner as the Rankings of universities in Brazil, or year specific such as THE–QS World University Rankings, 2005. A huge unwieldy table is currently the majority of the article, so at the very least the article should be blown up. Perhaps some of the info that was previously removed should be restored to show a historical perspective, and give the article merits to be kept. But as it currently exists it should go, hence my nomination. I'll withdraw if my suggested changes or another appropriate fix is made. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a recent list AfD that had the same problems with sourcing and dating. The decision in that case was "keep" but after serious culling. Maybe that's the answer here but these type of articles will always be subject to frequent changes based on POV pushing editors who believe that their college, city etc. is the best. Trying to keep this in a proper state will always be a Sisyphean task, even if it is blown up and restarted. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maintenance issues aren't significant: everything is dated, and the worst that would happen is that the information would be a little out of date and clearly indicated as such. The real question as I see it is whether we want rankings with this level of detail: all colleges yes, engineering colleges maybe not. Doubtless this can be organised better, and there will be debates on which rankings and colleges to include/exclude, but that is part of the normal editing process and absolutely not reason for deletion. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a news site. It either needs to be dated and preserved with a new article each year, or each year preserved (in a different manner than it is currently) within one article. I linked examples in my opening rationale. As it is now, it should go.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think a background on how colleges and universities in India work is necessary. For the most part, engineering colleges are essentially independent entities unaffiliated with, say, arts colleges or law schools. It would not make sense to compare all Indian colleges, making as much sense as comparing apples and oranges. The system is distinctly different from the prevailing way of doing things in the U.S., where each independent university has different faculties ranging from Arts to Zoology, which gives some (however little) basis for comparison. This does mean that there should (in my opinion) theoretically be articles on "List of Indian law school rankings", "List of Indian xyz college rankings". I can see why that can be a bit too much fuss, but I've got no better ideas. MikeLynch (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is way too much a directory-style article, and we are indeed not the news. I believe that we are seriously overstepping the boundaries of what is "encyclopedic" in these kinds of articles. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't remember how I came across this list, but since February I have been active in trying to keep it accurate and legible. Currently it contains the details from three surveys published in 2014 and two published in 2015. Two of the 2014 survey publishers have now released their own 2015 editions, so some editors are trying to add numbers from those surveys in too. I recognize the current system is unmanageable as a "running tally". Personally, I like the idea of forking it off into separate 2014 and 2015 articles, but perhaps that's because it is my effort which is at risk of being deleted here. On the other hand, I see the validity in the deletion arguments. Godsy, you said you would withdraw if an appropriate fix is made. But would it be inappropriate to split these into 2014 and 2015 articles in the middle of an AFD? Also, would Drmies' concern about it being a news directory still be valid? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me an appropriate fix would be a historical perspective on the rankings, going back as long as they've been ranked. If the article became too long then it could be slit into years. Much smaller tables with a bit less info for each year would be appropriate. The other issue perhaps greater than what I originally brought up, is (as Colapeninsula mentioned) whether we want an article with rankings about engineering colleges specifically (as opposed to one simply on all Indian colleges).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the article, I think there is enough material in previous revisions that we could go back to 2010. I mentioned 2014 & 2015 as they form the basis of the current article.

As for Colapeninsula's point, overall college rankings are certainly a valid topic, but I think separate rankings of different academic fields is also equally valid. From a practical point of view, the target audience of this article is potential students. (Potential employers may find it useful to see how a job candidate from a school they've never heard of measures up, but hopefully this isn't the basis of their judgement.) For an Indian kid who wants to be a software engineer, how Bombay Tech. ranks compared to Madras Law School isn't going to be very useful for them. As far as notabililty goes, I think the topic meets Wikipedia's criteria because rankings specific to engineering colleges are being published by multiple sources. I would agree it was a problem if the numbers were being cherry-picked from rankings of colleges in general. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't have any objections if you wanted to request the article be userfied. That'd give you more time to work on it, it wouldn't be as visible for the moment, and it could be moved back to the article namespace when the appropriate changes are made.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I started this article, the vision that I had, if I may, was for it to develop on the lines of List of United States graduate business school rankings (which is currently a featured list with two orange notices on top of the article, but whatever). However, I don't see that happening. From experience, I can say that this is a rather nebulous subject in India. Hardly anyone takes rankings seriously (except for publicity purposes when a college is ranked higher): the ranking methodologies are often not made public, many colleges do not participate in surveys at all, and in the overall scheme of things, national rankings do not matter because admissions are largely taken care of at the state level. Anyway, I would tend towards supporting deletion if there is no consensus for a good restructuring (perhaps limiting the list to just 25 ranks per survey, or something like that?). As it stands, the list is unwieldy and largely unhelpful. I will comment on the specificity aspect above. MikeLynch (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Since this discussion has come to a halt somewhat, I will volunteer to have it userfied to my userspace. I will split the current contents into 2014 and 2015 articles, plus try to create other articles for previous years from earlier revisions of the article. Another issue that MikeLynch has touched on is the criteria for inclusion. Previously on the article's talk page, I proposed a fairly generous requirement of being ranked in the top 50 of at least two surveys. I am open to any other suggestions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation)[edit]

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

Also, for similar reasons:

Redirect to Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 5) (or other appropriate season-specific article). Article(s) tagged for being little more than a plot summary since 2008 (or tagged for other issues, long-term in all cases). Later tagged for notability, but editors are refusing to let the notability tag remain in place while failing to provide sources that would satisfy notability concerns. Even if every other episode of Star Trek had its own article, WP:OTHERSTUFF would still be applicable to this case. DonIago (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, I'm hoping it won't come to actual deletion for these, but I felt the matter was forced when editors refused to let notability tags remain in place, which IMO caused no harm to the articles and may have ultimately led to improvement. I didn't seem to have any option other than forcing the issue here unless I wanted to edit-war. DonIago (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in all the above listed cases. Leave tags for future improvement. Episodes of iconic American television series deserve their individual entries. Sir Rhosis (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that option, as long as it's made clear to the editors who kept removing the tags that they are in fact appropriate until such time as notability has been clearly established. DonIago (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-tag Yes the sources are out there, but it needs to be clear on the individual articles that improvement still needs to be done. This isn't just limited to these episode articles but across the whole raft of them. As always, we're making progress, but it's slow going - but now roughly one in eight episode articles are fully cited but it's slow going as there are only a handful of editors working on these. But there are numerous sources (Star Trek being one of the most heavily covered series for production information). Anyway, I'm waffling - keep and re-tag sums it up really. Miyagawa (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created sections below for discussion revolving around a particular one of the episodes covered under this AFD. Probably should have done that earlier; sorry for the oversight. DonIago (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time's Arrow[edit]

Comment, as much as it pains me, as little more than a plot summary this really doesn't belong here. I've tried looking up to see what real world impact it had, but drew a blank; it's not one of the "classic" TNG episodes and nor is it bad enough that any non-fan source seems to have written much about it. Hoping that someone can add some real-world sources and impact to the article to save it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep all The Time's Arrow episode is notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Exploring Science Through Science Fiction; The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion; Time Travel: The Popular Philosophy of Narrative; Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future; The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy; Star Trek 101: A Practical Guide to Who, What, Where, and Why. The episode seems especially notable compared to others because it was a double episode split across the end-season cliff-hanger and involving time-travel loops. In any case, it seems that the topic has just been nominated because of some petty dispute about a tag which is insufficient reason to delete this or the other pages. It is clear that Star Trek episode are, in general, something that we will cover and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tholian Web[edit]

Keep -- the article on the Tholian Web should definitely be kept.

Nominator also seems to have skipped performing a Scholar search on "Tholian Web". In a 1994 article in Psychological Perspectives Alexandra Wolf described a phone call, that left her feeling trapped, so trapped she wrote: "With that phone call two years ago, I began to feel like Star Trek's Captain Kirk in ”The Tholian Web,” drifting, transparent, helplessly vanish..." The article itself is behind a paywall, but that passage was picked by google's search engine. I suggest an episode so iconic that scholars assume it will be meaningful to readers interested in other topics, helps establish its notability.

Alexandra Wolf (1994). "Into another Universe with the U.S.S. Enterprise". Psychological Perspectives: 76-87. Retrieved 2015-07-14. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Political Scientist, Chad Miller entitled his 2006 PhD thesis after the Tholian Web episode. He devotes the first page and half of his thesis to explaining why he chose the metaphor of being trapped in a fractured space-time continuum as the title for a thesis on public administration. "...It also raises the question of whether the network governance of regional economic development is a Tholian web that might trap and crush public administration."

Chad R. Miller (2006-05-04). "THE THOLIAN WEB: THE POLITICAL/INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF REGIONAL CLUSTER-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT" (PDF). Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved 2015-07-14. Going back to the metaphor of Captain Kirk and the Tholian web that started off this story, this dissertation was not meant to be about "high" public administration theory and network governance, but it could be the basis for research in that area. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Gerry Beyer cited the episode as illustrating an early instance of a video-will, in a 2010 article on video-wills for a law journal.

Gerry W. Beyer (2010-04-01). "Video-Recording the Will Execution Ceremony". Texas Tech University School of Law. SSRN 1609462. From Star Trek's Captain Kirk leaving a video to be watched upon his death in his attempt to get Spock and McCoy to work together in an emergency situation to Rodrigo Rosenberg making an 18-minute video to be viewed upon his disappearance in May 2009, which allegedly named his murderer, people have wanted to "speak from the great beyond" to their family and friends. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

A newspaper search for "Tholian Web" shows that the Star Trek episode was notable enough that the US Customs named an operation after it that resulted in "hundreds of prosecutions". Let me preclude counter-arguments that I am ignoring WP:NOTINHERITED. Those arguments would be backward. The USA has hundreds, or thousands, of bridges, parks, schools, avenues, named after Martin Luther King Jr.. Some of those bridges, schools, etc., are notable. If someone unfamiliar with Reverend King argued that being a namesake did not make King notable due to NOTINHERITED, they would have NOTINHERITED backward. Parks and other fixtures, where someone argues Reverend King had a personal connection, like a school he attended, a street he lived on, a bridge he lead a march across, would inherit some notability from King, due to the citable connection between them. But all the Parks and other fixtures would add to King's notability. Similarly, that customs agents remembered the unique hook from this episode, saw a connection with their entrapment exercise, and chose "Tholian Web" as its title, helps establish the notability of this particular episode

Nancy Garland (1997-09-18). "Child-porn trial focuses on internet". Bangor Daily News. Bangor, Maine. p. 2, 12, 16, B6. Retrieved 2015-07-14. Named for a device used to ensnare spaceships in a "Star Trek" television show episode, the earthbound Tholian Web has resulted in hundreds of prosecution.

Where would readers of any of the articles I cited above first turn to, to read about the episode, if they weren't familiar with it? They would first turn to the wikipedia -- unless this frankly poorly thought out nomination were to succeed. Successful deletion would be a grave disservice to our readers.

WRT the other episodes, I am not familiar with them, but I suspect that they too would be iconic enough that we would find lots of scholarly and cultural references to them. Geo Swan (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might assume that we would find lots of references as well, but the fact that the articles have existed for years and no such references have yet been provided suggests otherwise. I think everyone participating in this discussion would agree that the easiest way to moot this discussion would be to improve the articles with such references, and many if not all of the participants would also consider that the best case scenario. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have existed for years, in a less than ideal state. But they aren't biographies of living people. For various reasons, including protecting us from being sued, we require BLPs to measure up to a higher standard of referencing. I suggest that years of existence strongly erodes how much weight we should place on your personal frustration with the contributors who erased the notability tags on these articles.

Sorry, but in retrospect, do you really think you did an adequate job of explaining your concerns? Please review Talk:Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation), Talk:The Tholian Web and Talk:Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation). It is only in Talk:Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation) that you attempted to explain your concern over notability. You didn't initiate Talk:Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation)#Notability tag, someone else did. Looking at that discussion it looks like you just bailed out. Your good faith correspondent wasn't ignoring you, but it seems to me you just stopped trying to explain yourself.

I hadn't looked at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) recently. On the one hand, buried in it, it says "...particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries." But the most important thing is that it is an essay, not an official wikidocument. I think this makes it understandable that the contributors who you didn't convince over to your favored interpretation of what an article should and shouldn't contain, don't see themselves as policy violators.

The wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative, collegial project. In this particular case, you were the one with the concern, so I think it should have fallen to you to explain to your correspondents why an article had to be more than a plot summary. At several point in this discussion you wrote that you couldn't imagine what else you could have done. Well, beyond making a greater effort to explain your position, why not look to see what WP:Fiction recommends? It recommends WP:Dispute resolution when discussion between the original parties doesn't work. Not deletion, dispute resolution. Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your perspectives and will take them into consideration going forward (you have my word on that), the fact remains that we are here now. I'm willing to accept that I may have jumped the gun, but I think RBB in particular similarly failed to address this situation as well as they might have; I might hope that this escalation will encourage them to reconsider their approach going forward as well. In particular it's been my understanding that maintenance tags generally shouldn't be removed without addressing the situation they refer to unless there is a clear consensus to do so; I don't believe such a consensus was ever established, and I believe it should have been incumbent on them to make the effort to establish one. Again, maintenance tags do no harm to articles; the whole point of them is to call out potential problems and hopefully lead to improvement.

In any case, I'd be happy to withdraw the remaining two nominations if either 1) the articles are updated to address notability concerns, or 2) the notability tags are reinstated and it is made clear that they are appropriate. I'm open to other options as well, but I'm not going to support simply keeping the articles with no notability tagging, as I believe these articles do need to either be bulked up with sources that establish that the specific episodes were notable or redirected. And frankly I see no harm in having them redirected (the material would still be there, merely suppressed) until such time as information could be added that would address notability concerns, if it comes to that. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been improved to the point where I no longer feel notability is a concern. DonIago (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for withdrawing your nomination of Tholian Web.

We used to recognize, back in the golden age of wikipedia article building, that AFD should be reserved for articles on topics that weren't notable. We used to recognize that articles should generally be retained, even when their current state sucked, when they were about notable topics.

Exceptions were made when an article, and all its previous revisions, were entirely copyright violations. Additionally, when a topic was notable, but highly charged, and the article had a long history of failures of good faith efforts to improve it, to reach a consensus as to what it should say, deletion was sometimes used as a last resort.

So, I asked myself, do these three article show a long history of failures of good faith efforts to reach a consensus, sufficiently serious to justify deletion? The answer is an unequivocal no.

Talk:The Tholian Web is brief, and shows no such record. Sadly, turning to reading the edit summaries recorded in the article's revision history... First, no one should have to look at the edit summaries to see there had been a dispute. I see there was one, a minor one, where you made two reversions, explaining your reversions solely in your edit summaries Reverted edits by RBBrittain (talk) to last version by 109.153.179.63 notability of this episode has not been addressed" and Reverted edits by RBBrittain (talk) to last version by Doniago don't remove maintenance tags without discussion or fixing.
In my experience the most common trigger for edit warring is the mis-use of edit summaries as the sole explanation for complicated or controversial edits. The easiest way for the primitive hind-brains of our fellow contributors to respond to a controversial edit, poorly explained solely in a brief edit summary, is with their own inadequate provocative edit summary. Both you and @RBBrittain: should have taken the time to explain why you engaged in a reversion exchange, on the talk page.
Similarly, Talk:Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation) shows no sign of serious, potentially AFD triggering content or editorial disputes. The record shows you did voice two mild concerns, in 2011! They are stale. Anyone reading the talk page would assume that, since you didn't repeat them, they were addressed, back in 2011.
Finally, in Talk:Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation)#Notability tag we see a discussion over your concern over the article's notability, initiated by @Chaheel Riens:. That was a good thing.
On July 3rd Chaheel Riens gave you a mild warning on edit warring. You responded, then he or she responded with a compromise, which you apparently accepted with good grace, writing "I'm okay with that; I just hope it will lead to some tangible improvement of the article. Thank you. "
What the heck! You accepted a compromise on July 3rd, and then nevertheless nominate the article for deletion on July 13th? Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reconsidered my position after RBBrittain left me this comment on July 11. As I've said, I would have been happy to simply leave the articles tagged for Notability concerns, but the other editors would neither accept that nor indicate that they intended to do anything to address said concerns. If there was a better way of handling this then I'm open to such in the future, but RBB specifically suggested AFD as an appropriate option, and it seems clear that additional eyes were needed on this situation. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw RBB left the suggestion that you consider escalating directly to an AFD. I think they were mistaken to advise you to skip the remaining intermediate steps, like calling for attention from previously uninvolved third parties. Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to tell them so; I was left with the distinct impression that they were disinclined to listen to anything I might have to say on the matter. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cause and Effect[edit]

Keep. I believe the information that has been added to this article satisfies notability concerns. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2015 in sports. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in ball sports[edit]

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

There is no previous history of chronicling the results of 'ball sports' on an annual basis on wikipedia and the fact these various sports involve a 'ball' does not create sufficient similarity that wikipedia is enhanced by an article of this nature GLG GLG (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into 2015 in sports – I think Rockies77 is very much justified in trying to manage the length of the 2015 in sports article, and I'm more than happy to support the continued creation of spin-out articles for individual sports or obviously related classes of sport; but I agree with the nominator that splitting out the ball sports from the non-ball sports is a very unnatural way to do that. Aspirex (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aspirex. How about each ball sport has their own "2015 in sports" topic? That way, this cumbersome general topic can be deleted for more smaller and individual Wikipedia ball sports topics. Rockies77 (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good approach. Aspirex (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge to 2015 in sports or split into separate articles for each sport - Categorising as "ball sports vs non-ball sports" is extremely unnatural. – Pee Jay 14:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or splitting it as mentioned above. Kante4 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A small majority in favour of deletion, but a lot of essays and guidelines are being used as rationale here, and so there is no consensus to delete. I would say, however, that the article should not have been nominated in the first place per WP:DPAFD, which is a policy ("After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again."). I suggest that policy is followed this time. If anyone wishes to take this close to DRV, please do so without waiting for me to discuss it, just drop me a courtesy note saying that you have. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vrac (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Is Wikipedia a directory of where people live, or used to live? How long do they live there before they qualify as "having resided"? Who decides that? Where does it go from here? List of plumbers who stayed in hotels in Akron, Ohio? Vrac (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Artists from Brooklyn (lists and categories are "considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative"), and per WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid.

Furthermore, this is a a notable topic. The list satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN. The article qualifies per WP:LISTN because the overall topic of Brooklyn artists has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. See source examples below. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5].

References

^ "12 Street Artists From Brooklyn Celebrate The DIY Culture Of Berlin". The Huffington Post.
^ "Six Brooklyn artists to exhibit at fifth Contemporary Art Fair NYC". brooklyneagle.com.
^ "Brooklyn Performance Artists To Make Giant Hamster Wheel Their Home". cbslocal.com.
^ "Re-Emerging Older Professional Artists from Brooklyn Display Work at Carter Burden Gallery". Bed-Stuy, New York Patch.
^ "Artists from Brooklyn and Dallas descend on 500X Gallery near Fair Park". Center Stage.

Also, the article is fully sourced with inline citations to reliable sources to verify content. The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Artists, also initiated by the nominator here, was closed as keep less than one day ago. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that it is a different article now, after the name/criteria for inclusion change. Vrac (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a few words in the article's title does not negate the notability of the topic, nor the applicability of WP:NOTDUP in this matter. Also, the article's criteria for inclusion as stated in its lead fully conforms to the above-stated guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on notability is welcome, however, the article has fundamentally changed and is therefore eligible for a new AFD. Vrac (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, disruptive and bad faith renomination that was closed as keep just yesterday. The nominator has spent that one day blanking entries without regard for whether they can be sourced (as easily as from their linked articles), and edit warring to even remove entries that are sourced. Their wikilawyering over the title is completely frivolous, as is their WP:VAGUEWAVE NOTDIR rationale. Recommend ANI report if this nonsense continues, as Vrac is merely determined to attack this list and make it difficult for other editors to expand it. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threats and accusations aren't going to change the fact that you do not have reliable sources to back up your inclusions on the list "List of artists from Brooklyn". That is hardly frivolous. As for the article under this new name, your opinion on whether it belongs in Wikipedia is welcome but try to stick to the issues at hand instead of throwing out attacks. Feel free to open an ANI...Vrac (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are no basis for deletion, and nothing you've said justifies starting a new AFD a day later. I welcome anyone to look at the list's edit history to see that you've repeatedly removed entries that were sourced to establish, for example, that the individuals had worked in Brooklyn as an artist,[20], [21] purely because in the case of one he was born elsewhere and the other they subsequently relocated elsewhere. So it is false to say there were no reliable sources; you have instead ignored them just to push a narrow view that no one can be listed as from a given place if they ever had an association elsewhere. This is pure disruption to empty the list in support of your attempt to have it deleted, and this nomination is completely meritless. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AFD for "List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn". To me it's quite obvious that it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Is Wikipedia a phone book? How long do they live there before they qualify as "having resided"? Who decides that? Where does it go from here? List of plumbers who stayed in hotels in Akron, Ohio? If you want to talk about "List of artists from Brooklyn", an article that no longer exists, perhaps you should take the issue to the article's former talk page. Vrac (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to speedy close this and review nominator's editing of the list now at ANI. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would !vote "weak delete", but I am instead !voting speedy keep per my reasoning here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting "Speedy keep" instead of "Weak delete" for reasons unconnected to the notability or content of an article, is rather WP:POINTy. I'm sure the closer of this AfD will consider your "weak delete" !vote. Kraxler (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Wikipedia is not a list of things , per, WP:DIRECTORY, just as Vrac says. If the artists are notable, set them up with their own article and delete this one. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it that three years after having your last list AFDs rejected, you are still inexplicably claiming that Wikipedia doesn't have lists? WP:NOTDIR itself contradicts you on that in its first sentence, even if it wasn't otherwise painfully obvious that, yes, Wikipedia has lists of things. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is "How is it that three years after having your last list AFDs rejected" supposed to mean? What has anything that happened three years ago to do with this AfD? Are you arguing ad hominem, Postdlf? As an admin, you should know better. Kraxler (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should know better than to make an accusation before you understand what a comment is supposed to mean. And do you really want to defend the completely nonsensical assertion that "Wikipedia is not a list of things"? The same editor went on a spree a few years ago claiming that NOTDIR forbade lists, period, because "Wikipedia is not a list". These were snow closed, and nothing anyone said to him made him understand. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - But you have seen WP:OTHERSTUFF, right? So what have actions from three years ago to do with this list? "The same editor went on a spree a few years ago claiming that NOTDIR forbade lists, period, because "Wikipedia is not a list". These were snow closed, and nothing anyone said to him made him understand." is a classic example of an argument ad hominem. Kraxler (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You have a strange understanding of "classic example" as well as of "ad hominem". "Wikipedia is not a list of things" is complete nonsense regardless of who said it, and knowing that he has used this claim before and had it soundly rejected, I asked him why he is still saying it, particularly when it's contradicted by the very policy section he's citing. He's free to respond or not, but no one is entitled to keep offering the same garbage rationale without being called out on it (and he has not offered an argument about this list but only a claim about all lists). But you're not actually defending his "rationale", so this thread seems, like your overall participation in this AFD, pointlessly combative rather than substantive. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Garbage"? Are you sure that you're still within the bounds of WP:CIVILity? Kraxler (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure WP:LISTCRUFT. ukexpat (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Borderloine, perhaps, but on balance a useful list. BMK (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is what categories are for. Thomas.W ^talk 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CLN says otherwise. postdlf (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Could you post a quote? Kraxler (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole guideline generally, and WP:NOTDUP specifically. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that no one closes this early, despite it having been started less than a day after the previous "keep" result for the same page, I incorporate here by reference all of my comments and arguments from the first AFD. postdlf (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This will run the full length, and may be relisted any number of times, until a clear result becomes visible. FYI the whole previous discussion, not only your comments, are available to be seen at the link in the box at the top right of this thread. Kraxler (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An indiscriminate listing of names. It could include people who at some point in their lives sculpted, painted, were photographer, musicians, dancers, poets, rappers, actors, or writers, and who at some instant or period in time (growing up, college, apartment, studio, non-artistic job) were within the legal boundaries of Brooklyn. Nothing states that they have to be closely associated with Brooklyn, like a "Brooklyn Rap Style" or the "Brooklyn School of Impressionist Painter". At the extreme, it could include many thousands of names, and is unlikely to ever be a comprehensive or meaningful listing. Edison (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a general complaint against lists of people by occupation and place, but we have plenty of those and it's a subcategorization staple (hence Category:Artists from Brooklyn). The subdivision, even when it can't be justified in its own right as here as Northamerica1000 has demonstrated above, can still be arrived at either by splitting groups of people from a given place into occupational sublists, or from the other direction, by subdividing groups of people with the same occupation by place. Do we even have thousands of articles on artists, let alone thousands with a substantive connection to Brooklyn? The category has forty-two, so doubtful your slippery slope is remotely meaningful. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it sounds like an intelligent rephrasing of WP:DOAL # 6 . Kraxler (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I support a speedy keep per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion:
Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.
Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) has shown with several sources that "List of artists from Brooklyn" is a notable topic.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory says:
Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject.
Since "List of artists from Brooklyn" is a notable topic, WP:NOTDIRECTORY actually provides support for the retention of this article, not its deletion.
I also agree with postdlf (talk · contribs) that several of the "delete" votes advance arguments that conflict with the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative, which says:
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.
Another argument for deletion is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which has four bullet points: (1) Summary-only descriptions of works, (2) Lyrics databases, (3) Excessive listings of statistics, and (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. None of these bullet points can be applied to "List of artists from Brooklyn".
The "keep" arguments far outweigh the "delete" ones, which is why Xymmax (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Artists as "keep" despite the split vote count:
The result was keep. Numerically it would be no consensus, but the keep !votes were more policy compliant. The list technically isn't indiscriminate because it has both a context (affiliation with Brooklyn) and sourcing. The fact that in its current form it duplicates the function of a category is not a reason for deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:LISTCRUFT , worthless not notable topic. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is the overall topic "not notable" when it passes WP:LISTN? See the sources I provided above in this discussion. Also, LISTCRUFT is an opinion essay, whereas WP:LISTN is a part of the Wikipedia:Notability page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fallacious argument. You say "How is the overall topic "not notable" when it passes WP:LISTN". But whether it passes LISTN or not is exactly the question here, answered by a majority in the negative. So, you can't presume a positive outcome when the question was not settled yet. By the way, none of your sources has in-depth coverage of "Artists which resided in Brooklyn", all sources mention that there are artists and that there's Brooklyn, none mentions any residence. Kraxler (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "List of Brooklyn artists". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per WP:DOAL # 5 and 6. Anyway it's WP:LISTCRUFT (that's an essay, I know, but one that is supported by a vast majority of Wikipedia users). Kraxler (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DOAL doesn't provide a basis for deletion of a particular list, it's just a list of disadvantages of lists in general. And here there's no reason to believe that either being an artist nor having a connection to Brooklyn cannot be sourced, nor is there any reason to believe that this list is, or would become, unmaintainably long. Even if either was the case, the first is not a valid deletion argument and the second would be cured by splitting into sublists. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOAL provides for a good argument to delete this list, and keep the Brooklyn artists in a category only, that's what it says, and it is part of the often by yourself cited guideline WP:CLN. Besides, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to which you link above, is just an essay, while WP:DOAL is part of a guideline. Thus the latter takes preference. Anyway, you can't selectively cite a guideline and dismiss part of it to suit your own convenience. Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dismiss part of the guideline, I explained it to you. DOAL doesn't say "delete lists in favor of categories" any more than WP:DOAC in the same guideline says "delete categories in favor of lists". And you've made no argument as to why the disadvantages listed at DOAL (which, again, are given as inherent in the list format generally) apply to this list in such a way that it is unsalvageable. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did dismiss my argument which is based in the same guideline (albeit a different paragraph) which you cite. That's selectively dismissing according to your own convenience. You did not argue, countering my argument, you just dismissed it as irrelevant, wrong or whatever. So here is an explanation for you: DOAL 5 and 6 apply because there are now about 40 names in Category:Artists from Brooklyn and anther 7 names in this List which are not there. That's already 50 certain candidates. There are also about 700 names in Category:Artists from New York City many of whom were just not diffused to the subcat and are from Brooklyn, or they may have set foot in Brooklyn once and, due to the uncertain inclusion criteria, may be added here. Then there is Category:Artists from New York (statewide) and Category:American artists where the same applies, so we have more than a thousand candidates to be added to this list under the current criteria. There are also new entries, new articles, and artists from other states and countries (for example, Zittel [Californian] and Okamura [Canadian] are there already) which increases the size ever more. In the end, as DOAL 5 says, you'll get "bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion" and DOAL 6 adverts: "Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles [or a list of all people from a major populated place with a wide-ranging qualifier like "artist" my adaptation of the example) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable." Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page, and per policy that should be attempted at length before anyone throws up their hands and says it's unworkable. As there has not even been a substantive talk page discussion on that yet (particularly since the nominator jumped to this second AFD before the ink was dry on the first one), it is at best premature to make that claim. But none of the concerns you have raised (nor the straw men or slippery slope panic invoked by the nominator) over the threshold for how lengthy or significant the contact with Brooklyn must be, are particular to this list but equally apply to any list of people from a given place (e.g., List of people from California), not to mention the corresponding category Category:People from Brooklyn (and your agreement that the category does correspond to this list is an implicit disagreement with the nominator that this is a "fundamentally different" list from the first AFD). We're always making editorial judgments regarding what's trivial to include in an article and what's relevant, even outside of lists and categories. And even if there are examples on the border that people may reasonably disagree on, it's not reasonably disputed that there will be plenty of verifiable entries that unequivocably qualify, so uncertainty over a few cannot justify deletion of the whole. Further, even assuming your speculation that this list will balloon to hundreds of articles, the obvious solution for dealing with an overly long list without deleting it is to split into sublists (as could be done here by time period, medium, etc.). Again, with only 50 candidates identified for inclusion on this list at present, that's not a problem we're facing any time soon. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Astana seasons[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and there is no need for this separate article. This can easily be in FC Astana article. Qed237 (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this can't be put in the main article, i don't know what should... Kante4 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary fork, I have merged the content with the parent article. this article could be recreated in maybe ten years time when the table might overly dominate the parent article. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: User:ChelseaFunNumberOne Just removed the AfD notification (diff) and removed the content that you added in the main article. I reinstated the AfD notification on the article and restored the content at FC Astana, just thought you should know. Qed237 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Article creator, User:ChelseaFunNumberOne, removed the AfD notice, before I restored it, but without any reason provided. Thought it would be best to inform here. Qed237 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fewer than 10 seasons, not sufficient for a standalone list. – Pee Jay 17:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (WP:NPASR. The nominator fails to state a valid rationale for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Rodgers[edit]

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

Notability Wikimostafa (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mel Thompson / AfD and Philosophers Behaving Badly / AfD, which all form a related group and may go the same way. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not be deleted. Of course Nigel Rodgers is notable.Esmatly (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course" – Why? I've never heard of him (possibly of the Pipedown Club, via something on Radio 4). There is nothing in this article to convey notability. Having written and published a few books doesn't do it, only if critical attention is paid to them. So far this article isn't demonstrating it. So if it's going to stay, some independent comment needs to be found from somewhere, and I can't see it.

Maybe Philosophers Behaving Badly is notable, having apparently been reviewed by the Times Ed (but this is unsourced), but that alone wouldn't quite convey author notability.

Why does he have an article on the Farsi wikipedia? Is there some connection with Iran worth exploring? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His co-authored book Philosophers Behaving Badly seems notable: I added ref to THE, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophers Behaving Badly. In theory that makes Rodgers notable, but I'd still like to see a bit more on him, and the article badly needs tidying up. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dear Andy, the reason he has a Farsi entry is that his book Philosophers Behaving Badly has been translated into Farsi. The user who started this discussion is also Iranian. Previously, other Iranian users have did this as well. I don't know why they do not like PBB and entries associated with that! Esmatly (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:NPASR). The nominator failed to state the reasons why the page should be deleted. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Thompson[edit]

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

Notability Wikimostafa (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is notable and should not be deleted. Esmatly (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wikimostafa Can you expand a little on your reasons for bringing this for AFD and particularly on the results you got on WP:BEFORE, I ask because it's a pretty impressive of books. claims and usually for a an author of multiple books it is fairly easy to find book reviews that validate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musicale[edit]

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

Believe they fail WP:BAND - all they seem to be notable for is covering Disney songs. Unsourced and the generic name makes it hard to find sources Gbawden (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish notability when I WP:PRODed this last month. Prod was rejected due to operator error on my part. ~Kvng (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the reasoning above, Sadads (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus Muoka[edit]

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

Not notability beyond The Lord's Chosen Charismatic Revival Movement which already has an article. Bazj (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. @Bazj: what do you mean by Not notability beyond The Lord's Chosen Charismatic Revival Movement? When I easily found [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32],[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] to mention few. I recommend a speedy keep of this debate since the subject notability has been established. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean exactly that. The article states he's pastor of a church. It makes no further claims than that. The church has an article. This article is a case of WP:BLP1E at best. If there's more to be said about HIM, add it to the article. If not then it needs to be deleted, or at least redirected to the church's article. Bazj (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does WP:BLP1E applies here? He is a founder and general overseer of a notable church in Nigeria and the article make it clear. In addition to that, I had provided evidence of his notability and the sources provided above has nothing to do with the said revival. The article is a stub and will surely be expanded and being a stub itself is not a valid reason for deletion. To be honest and factual, you really need to familiarize yourself with WP:BLP1E. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest and factual, you really need to add the material to the article, not the AfD. You removed the speedy, You asked for the AfD. Don't complain about getting what you asked for. Bazj (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of sources in the article is not really the problem. The function of sources is to establish a subject notability as well as to validate a claim in an article. The article is a stub in its current state and the source in the article links to The Sun Newspaper which does not only establish the subject notability but validated the fact that the subject of the article is a founder and general overseer of a notable church in Nigeria. I'm ready to include the sources per WP:SEP, if the page creator expand the page. I'm sure you will not implies that I should begin to expand the page. Contrary to your claim I never asked for WP:AfD, I only implies that I have no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if its notability is in doubt because A7 does not applies to articles with assertion of notability but you decided to bring it here on a rationale that its a WP:BLP1E without even considering WP:BEFORE. This nomination is ridiculous, you really need to close it to avoid public spanking. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikicology, if have some knowledge of Muoka, please add it to article with sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will not implies (sic) that I should begin to expand the page - why not? You've looked up the sources. You seem to care about this article. Who else?
you really need to close it - why? It's a discussion. You have one opinion, I have another. I'm sure other editors also have opinions which deserve to be heard.
...to avoid public spanking - Please keep the discussion civil and don't make threats. Bazj (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bazj, baby, settle down, this is an AFD, not a war.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the most cursory news google search turns up a plethora of sources, both enthusiastically pro- and stridently anti- Muoka. Clearly a controversial, influential figure in Nigeria. Lousy article, but that's a reason to improve it or tag it, not to delete it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bazj: the article has been improved, kindly remove the AfD tag thanks. Happy Editing! OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 22:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source requirements of WP:GNG have been meet. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His movement (accordingly to its article) had 300,000 branches worldwide; if it were 300,000 members, it would still be significant. With membership on that scale, we should certainly have an article on the founder. My concern is that the articler has little more content than that on the movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/snow delete. This has some clear promotional material, likely because it is also WP:COPYVIO. Even without that, I cannot see anything that would show that this self-published book would otherwise pass WP:NBOOK. If anyone can find enough evidence to counteract and wants this to go through a full week of AfD I might re-open this, but offhand I can't see this closing any other way even if we gave it more time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic 40 - A Collection of Micro Stories[edit]

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

Newly released book. Supported only by 8 regurgitations of the same press release. No significant sources . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11, G12) - "Summary" is a copy/paste from the goodreads book info [49]. The article makes no claim of encyclopedic notability, it's a promotional book announcement by the author. Sources are self-published, press-releases or trivial catalogue entries. No significant independent coverage found. GermanJoe (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fountainhead School. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Diwekar Kabra[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidences of notable person - She and her husband Vardan Kabra are one of the subjects for the book Stay Hungry Stay Foolish which is written by Rashmi Bansal. Same has been mentioned here. And here is the extract from the book which talks about Vardan and Ankita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikandaramla (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to show notability. Her role in business has gained notice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:- Promotional article with no evidence of passing WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot see how she is the subject of the aforementioned non-notable book which is likely to be a subject of AfD soon. besides, being mention in a book is not enough to meet our primary notability criteria or WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is very much notable, 300,000+ copies are now sold and in addition to this it has been translated into eight different languages. Also, the source for being in the news is provided. IIM Ahmedabad is known to produce India's finest CEOs and executives and if you get the admission here (which is the toughest thing for a student in India) then sure you are a notable person. Please read the whole book before making comments or at least understand what IIM A is. Here is the list of IIM A alumni. As far the ranking is concerned, IIM-A is the only Indian institute listed by The Economist in its 2012 Full-time B-school ranking, at #56 which can be verified on its article.Sikandaramla (talk)
- The claims about that book, in our article on it, are uncited. However, since it apparently "features the stories of 25 MBAs", Kabra can hardly be the subject of it. Admission to a notable institution - one which admits nearly 500 students per year - does not confer notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article looks like a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be self promotional article. Only one secondary reference given which turns out to be an interview of the subject. The author is SPA. Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and add some relevant text from here to the school where she is principal, Fountainhead School. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some coverage of the film, but there's disagreement whether the coverage is sufficient to confer notability, or not. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya[edit]

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

Nothing on Google that would be an acceptable source. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like your typical Bollywood film. I added a few sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's not a Bollywood film, it's a Punjabi-language film. One could possibly call it Pollywood, but not Bollywood. Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this page has been moved around repeatedly. AfD template was removed. It's now at Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya, which had already been protected due to persistent vandalism. Not quite sure what is going on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I restored the AFD tag but for some reason this still links to some other page. Wgolf (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Times of India sourcing shows that this is notable enough. (Hopefully someone can resolve ~~the naming issue conflicts~~ the duplicate article issue (see: Ainvayi Ainvayi) with this article in the meantime...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Times of India item is not actually about the film and was published a month before the film's release; it's just a tiny announcement that a reality-show contestant would be making her Punjabi debut in it. Does not demonstrate the notability of the film. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's looking more borderline after reviewing. The Times of India ref contains more than you say – it's about the actress, but does summarize the plot of the movie (but is a "plot [summary] without critical commentary", so maybe doesn't help). The Deccan Herald ref is pretty much just about the actress, so that doesn't count. The Bollywood Life article doesn't seem to help either. The Tribune ref is a straight review (but I think it's more than a capsule review). This one is admittedly marginal, but I still feel like it squeaks by as "Keep". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be argumentative, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. The Times of India is just a press-release pre-announcement of the film's opening one month later. It has no author, was obviously submitted by the film company (or the reality-show star's manager), and no one at The Times of India had even seen the film. How can that possibly be counted towards notability? It is not independent of the subject, is not significant coverage, does not establish any notability of the film at all, and preceded the film's release. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per notability demonstrated by new references added. Also restored AFD template. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After researching it, it seems to me the film has very little notability, and the title and even imagery is a blatant attempt to capitalize on the immense popularity of the 2010 song "Ainvayi Ainvayi". See the production company (if one can call it that) website: [50], and the FB page: [51]. This wiki article has no content except the cast list, there is only one review in a reliable source, and it has no IMDB listing. All of the three refs besides the single review are merely announcements, and two of those are only passing mentions. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Yep: this copycat-ism is blatant: The constantly repeated lyrics to "Ainvayi Ainvayi" are "ainvayi ainvayi lut gaya": [52], [53]. No wonder Deepcruze kept moving the article names back and forth and kept coopting the title and the song article -- his edit history indicates that he is a Punjabi trying to promote the film (which is why he also removed the AfD tag from the article). Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya

Keep per having coverage enough to meet WP:NF, no matter the inspiration behind it being made. Heck, almost all Indian films market their music in advance of film release, and it's not a concern if the film promotes a song or a song promotes the film. The concern is whether or not it has enough coverage enough as a film to meet inclusion criteria... and this one does. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for MichaelQSchmidt: The song is not from this film, it's from a very successful 2010 Bollywood film, Band Baaja Baaraat. This non-notable 2015 film is just a tiny Punjabi indie film trying to ride the song's coattails by titling itself after it and using title prominently to evoke memories of it. Softlavender (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Softlavender, your history lesson/assertion is all well and good, but coverage is coverage... and that's how we can close with a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Horgan[edit]

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

It's not clear that this person meets WP:NACTOR. She's had a number of rôles, and several of them have been mentioned in the press. Few of them appear to be significant. The COI does not help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest independent notability and it doesn't seem there's a good move target for elsewhere and not to mention, this is vulnerable to BLP issues. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I've found indicates independent notability, and her appearance in The Libertine (2004 film) seems to have been as an extra, not an actor. I can't comment on the others in her filmography, but it does seem this may also have been the case at least for The Romantics (film). The COI and BLP issues are there, but frankly a moot point if she doesn't fulfil WP:NACTOR. If the consensus ends up as Keep then I suggest we address them. The Dancing Badger (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable British actress with numerous (positive) reviews of her London stage performances such as Metro News and The Guardian and The Independent and The Independent again and The Telegraph. She appears in a photo here. A reviewer described her performance as 'superb' and a reviewer in The Guardian described her as playing the beautiful Elodie (Cara Horgan)....". These reviews are enough in themselves, without her filmography (which needs references but is likely to be the case) accordingly she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC) In addition, there is an extended interview with Horgan in Exeunt magazine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NACTOR # 1. She had multiple roles in film and on stage, many of them were significant enough to be reviewed in the press, as shown above, there are also many sources in the article, and there is absolutely no BLP concern here. COI alone is not a reason to delete anything, also we don't know whether the article was written by the subject or by some fan who took hthe subject's name as a user name. Kraxler (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

APTelecom[edit]

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

Article is very promotional in nature, and no secondary sources are cited. Research does not turn up anything that suggests WP:CORPDEPTH. Agtx (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with preferrably no draft/userfy unless needed considering there's not much significantly good to the article - In addition to the mostly press releases as sources, my searches found more and no actual good coverage here, here and here. There isn't even anything to clean it to a locally notable company. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the current article is cited exclusively to primary sources and press releases is sufficient, such that even if they are notable, WP:TNT would apply. Once the press releases and primary sources were removed, there would be no article left. CorporateM (Talk) 07:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

Delete: Olympic Council of Asia and Southeast Asian Games Federation has no source about 2019 Southeast Asian Games in website OCA here and SEAGF here. WP:TOOSOON! Boyconga278 (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is the "this articles entry" on 2019 Southeast Asian Games red? Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 06:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with TBA (to be announced) status on host and venues, until it was positively stated in OCA and SEA Games official sites. The article was started when Brunei officially and positively accepted their turn to host SEA Games 2019 in 2012, but during SEA Games 2015 in Singapore they turn it down, with possible replacement hosts are the Philippines or Thailand. Maybe Philippines' interest could be placed as "possible host" or "interest to host" section. I think we do not need to delete it since it only four years from now, the wikipedia article thus might help to keep reader in track on what happened on host country turn/selection, cancelation and replacement. The same case has happened in 2018 Asian Games, when Vietnam back down as host, and Indonesia step in. Gunkarta talk 10:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There seems to be sufficient content and sources to pass WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although OCA didn't confirm YET the hosting of the Philippines. The Philippines accepted the rights to host the game. Here are the news articles from the Philippines (POC confirmed it during their SEA Games Federation executive meeting in Singapore in June) confirming it:

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/520994/sports/othersports/phl-to-host-2019-sea-games-after-brunei-vietnam-decline

-this article mentioned that a formal invitation must be issued by the federation in which the country must accept but the Philippines is guaranteed to host the edition

http://www.rappler.com/sports/philippines/99035-philippines-host-2019-sea-games

-this article pointed out the planned venues for the 2019 sea games. It mentioned the MOA and Philippine arena

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/sports/07/10/15/philippines-host-2019-sea-games

-this article explicitly stated that the country will host the 2019,a 46 seconds video is included here citing the POC that the Philippines will host the 2019 edition

I believe these are enough to confirm that the PHL will host the game in 2019 although formal announcement must be made by OCA DVO (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Not WP:TOOEARLY, Philippines have been confirmed as the host for 2019 events. To Boyconga278, your reason is very weak as you also have ever reverting my edit without telling any reason for the revert. C'mon, we are Vietnamese, but why you didn't reply to my message? Quoc Tru (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 draftify. Clearly a case of the creator moving it before its due time. I have moved it back to Draft:Sidney Offit (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Offit[edit]

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

Not Notable. References are to blogs and other sites somehow linked to the subject of the article. No in-depth coverage of this man in WP:Reliable sources. Perhaps mentioned only in passing in relation to other topics, like the George Polk Awards. Not Notable as an academic, either. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Offit seems to have stood next to notable folk in his life but failed to be notable himself. I am not averse to giving this the benefit of the doubt by returning it to the Draft: namespace, from where it escaped without review. Reviews pick most of the shortfalls up. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article still has AfC tags on it even though it is in the mainspace, if it is kept please either move it back to a draft page or remove the tags. Thanks! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Villagran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a voice-over actress with no strong claim of notability under WP:NACTOR. While the article asserts a couple of new roles which make it just different enough from the original version that I don't consider it speediable A7, her notability hasn't gotten any stronger or been reliably sourced any better; this is resting entirely on directories and an Amazon.com sales profile for a book. Although I've done some copyediting on it, in its original form it had a very advertorial tone and style which strongly suggested a conflict of interest — a concern reaffirmed by the fact that when the creator uploaded the article's photograph, they gave the image source as "my photograph/ Previously published: on all my social media. Facebook, twitter, tumbler, my website." Wikipedia is not a place where people are entitled to post promotional public relations profiles of themselves just because they exist — to earn an article on here, a person must be reliably sourceable as passing one or more of our notability criteria. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. AadaamS (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means - Mostly a behind the scenes as sound engineer and my searches found noting to suggest improvement or good notability here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skintern[edit]

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

As I said at DYK, "Without exception (that I can see) the sources introduce the term as a novelty it doesn't expect readers to understand -- it's either in quotes, or introduced by such phrases as 'Someone has even coined a word for the phenomenon: skintern'. That's the sure sign of a neologism. When it attains the status of gofer -- so that it's used in passing without special introduction -- it won't be a neologism anymore." EEng (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the requirements of WP:GNG have been met, and the concerns raised in WP:NOTNEO have been addressed—specifically, the article cites reliable secondary sources that discuss the term, rather than simply citing articles that merely use the term. Thus, there is no original research problem, and the sources that talk about the term itself are sufficient to meet the notability, verifiability, and reliable source requirements, placing the article in the WP:WORDISSUBJECT subsection of the policy, rather than WP:NOTNEO. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- what sources would those be? Of the many sources in the article, could you just list (say) three which don't themselves treat it as a neologism? EEng (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and I don't really have the time (or energy) to dig through the 13 sources to find what you're asking for (additionally, your question is not exactly clear, as I do not know what you mean exactly by "treat it as a neologism"—how does one differentiate between an article discussing a neologism and an article discussing a word that is not a neologism?). Ultimately, you are asking a question that has no bearing on the policy at issue; thus, digging through the sources seems like a bit of a waste of time. The question relevant to the policy(ies) at hand is not, "Do the sources treat it as a neologism?" The question is, "Are there secondary sources that discuss the term, rather than merely use the term?" And the answer to the second question is clearly yes: [54] [55] [56] [57]. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by "treat it as a neologism" is what I said in my OP: the sources all "introduce the term as a novelty it doesn't expect readers to understand -- it's either in quotes, or introduced by such phrases as 'Someone has even coined a word for the phenomenon: skintern'. That's the sure sign of a neologism." Here's the entirety of the appearances of skintern in your four sources:

"Don’t Be a Skintern. What Not to Wear to Your Summer Internship.": "It’s that time of year, folks. Winter coats are being stored away, blossoms are dappling the trees, and before long, the annual summer parade of skinterns will begin. Skintern is a term I first heard from a male colleague who..."
[58]: "In Washington, D.C., where they've never quite forgotten Monica Lewinsky, a name has evolved for the scantily-clad summer staff: 'skinterns.' "
[59]: 13 uses of skintern, every one of them in quotation marks
Summer often means casual work attire, but don’t be a flip-flopper or a ‘skintern’: "What constitutes appropriate work clothes has opened the door for people to tweet about the summer influx of 'skinterns,' a reference to young women in skimpy attire."

In other words all of these sources themselves treat skintern as a neologism. In addition, none of these are about the term, as NOTNEO requires: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." EEng (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting WP:NOTNEO. It is irrelevant whether a source treats the word as a word it does not expect readers to understand. And we are citing what reliable secondary sources say about the term; simply because the sources also go on to use the term does not mean that we cannot use other parts of those sources where the authors talk about the term itself. The requirement of the policy is not that we must find articles, the main purpose of which is to talk about the term. The requirement is simply that the sources used must talk about the term itself, rather than using the term and having editors use original research to define the term based on how the source has used it. No original research is occurring here; the article uses the sources' discussions about the term to explain it. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where do any of these sources talk about the term itself? EEng (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Skintern is a term I first heard from a male colleague who disapproved of the yearly ritual of scantily-clad young women showing up to do summer internships at our company." (2) "In Washington, D.C. ... a name has evolved for the scantily-clad summer staff: 'skinterns.'" (3) "Almost immediately on beginning my internship in a Senator’s office, I learned the DC slang for a female intern showing too much skin: “skintern.”" (4) "“skinterns,” a reference to young women in skimpy attire." None of those examples are mere uses of the word; they are discussions about what the word means. They may not be lengthy discussions, but that is not the issue. It is clear that in all four instances, the source is talking about the term itself. WP:NOTNEO was written to protect against editors finding sources that used the term and then using original research to define the term based on the context that the source used the term. In these four instances, the sources are giving the definition of the term and explaining how the term was created. A discussion about the origins and definition of a word is inherently a discussion about the word, rather than mere use of the word. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One-sentence passing mentions aren't in any sense discussions. EEng (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion, but it certainly isn't based in any policy or guideline. The concern here is not that of WP:CORPDEPTH, where notability is at issue. The concern with that part of WP:NOTNEO is verifiability, and something can be verified with a single sentence. You are confusing notability with verifiability, and principles from one cannot necessarily be applied to the other. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. This is an AfD discussion, and the decision turns (as it almost always does) on notability. The key passage from NOTNEO is this: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. That's the problem here. Passing mentions don't lend notability to a new word any more than they do to anything else. EEng (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; that is the key passage from WP:NOTNEO, but you're reading it out of context. If you look at the very next sentence, it's clear the sentence you cited is referring to verifiability: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." The original research policy is concerned with verifiability, not notability. Your interpretation is clearly wrong, because even the sentence that you referred to cites the policy about using secondary sources, which, again, is a verifiability issue, not a notability one. I don't understand why you would refer only to the first sentence and ignore the sentence that follows it, when the following sentence so easily clarifies the context of first sentence. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as article creator. A term in use for a decade cannot by any reasonable stretch of logic be considered a neologism as it isn't new anymore ("Paleologism"). In addition, the article is not so much about the word but the phenomenon it denotes. To nominate it for deletion on the former basis is to demonstrate that one has about as much understanding of what an article is supposed to be about as a utensil does of the food it carries. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been perceived and analysed as a phenomenon by several journalists and described in prestigious publications. It meets WP:GNG. There are lots of Wikipedia articles on terms that many people will not understand, and nowhere in the thousands of pages of policy is that grounds for deletion. Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable phenomenon. WP:GNG have been met--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Begrudging keep. This article is too long and has far too many quotes, but the fact that it could get that way just reinforces the argument in favor of keeping and cleaning it up. The fact that the term and concept have any currency is terrible, but even sexist, classist, judgmental, moralizing male-gazery can be notable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO does not preclude all articles about words that happen to be labelled as neologisms — it specifically allows for neologisms that can be properly sourced as having currency in usage. The difference is not the age of the word itself, but how reliably sourceable it is or isn't. For example, we have an article about selfie, a term which is no older than this one is, and nobody would seriously suggest that we should delete that as its notability as a concept is properly supported by RS coverage. The same applies here: the term and its context is properly documented by RS. More references would certainly help, but enough are already present. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond firearms[edit]

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

The list contains trivial information about which firearms appear in James Bond films and games. Moreover, it is unsourced original research. It will not be possible to source this information until the director of a James Bond film does an interview about guns which is unlikely. I mentioned the possibility of deletion on the talk page 1.5 years ago and the only response I received (from User:AadaamS) was one of support. Connor Behan (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's not a suitable topic for a list article as per WP:SAL. I fail to see how a list of props in James Bond films is worthy of a standalone article and how it isn't film trivia. AadaamS (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dispatch with extreme prejudice. This belongs in the Internet Movie Firearms Database, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SAL. While there will be some readers who are interested in this they have the IMFB mentioned by Clarityfiend as well as the James Bond wikia which has almost exactly the same article here. I can't tell which came first as I couldn't find a history tab at their site. MarnetteD|Talk 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the nominator is 100% correct. This is unsourced fancruft. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this article in Guns & Ammo, but I don't think a single listicle is really enough to demonstrate notability. Plus, this does look like fancruft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4 - unchanged from previously deleted version. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mashar Hamsa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable. One of the sources is a blog. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawnm

Douglas D. Taylor[edit]

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

Article is made up of primary sources, press releases, a self-authored paper, etc. I do not see any acceptable sources in the current article and the alleged controversy cited to "Retraction Watch" appears to be in violation of BLP, which requires stronger sources for such criticisms. The article also contains bold claims like discovering "tumor-secreted exosomes", which is what the company's press releases claims, but a quick Google search suggests this is most probably not true, or if it is, it was not significant enough for anyone to report on it. If there are any in-depth profiles on this BLP, they are not included in the article and do not come up in search results. CorporateM (Talk) 04:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To report on the subject neutrally, we need to include the negative material (the retraction and the predatory journal editing), since those are very salient for an academic. But such negative material in a BLP requires a higher standard of sourcing and notability that doesn't seem to be present here. One can make a case that his citation counts are good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but they're not backed up by good secondary sourcing about the subject, and his use of predatory journals calls the validity of his citation counts into question. The better solution is just to delete the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reference in the book Dialysis: History, Development and Promise that shows that Taylor has recieved coverage in reliable sources. His work has been inpactful and cited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be very surprising if an academic of Douglas Taylor's standing and achievements (full professorship, chair, many highly cited publications, key position with several companies) did not satisfy WP:N. I would note that the nominating editor has been edit-warring to keep verifiable and reliably sourced information about the subject off of Wikipedia. Lights N (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert and the MarketWatch cite. This person has done pioneering research work noted in two separate reliable sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that the controversial aspects only add to the notability. Whether these revelations cancel out any or all of his achievements should be left to the reader, not for us in determining notability. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn This source provided during the AfD discussion appears to include a claim to notability, as the first to observe Exosomes. The OR/SYNTH/UNDUE issues are not for AFD. A 2-3 paragraph stub should do the trick though. CorporateM (Talk) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The papers discussed ave many hundreds of citations each, which is enough to meet WP:PROF.

whether he extent is valid is not a factor in his notability. We are not assigning scientific merithere , just recognizing ntoability, whichis adifferent concept. A person can be very highly notable for prominent errors. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily's Entourage[edit]

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

charity of only trivial importance. The press is just PR and human interest tabloid material. I started removing some promotional excess, and then realized there was nothing substantial. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Human interest stories about critical medical research are not "tabloid fodder" and I think that's an insulting characterization of them. The organization has raised over $1 million dollars, participated in cutting edge research, and received honors from the White House for its innovation (recently added refs: [60] [61]). note: I went to high school with the Founder of this organization but otherwise am not involved Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm torn between there needing to be an article about her and an article about the organization she has founded, but I don't think we need both. However, the White House award puts them squarely in the "Notable" range. The article could lose some of its non-RS sources and still be viable. Without the White House recognition this would be much weaker and would be only of local interest. LaMona (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organization has raised a large sum of money and received significant coverage by reliable sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the list on thee White house website,[62] I think being given this "honor", specifically designed for ordinary people of minor importance as good pr examples for government programs. There are 100 categories, with 10 to 15 people in each so far. Some of the categories are not just significant program like "ACA Champions of Change", but "Affordable Care Act Outreach to the AAPI Community" ; also "Veterans Advancing Clean Energy And Climate Security". "Civic Hacking and Open Government", "Youth Greening Schools", "Climate Faith Leaders". Looking at the lists, possibly a very few of them might be notable.

Further as for "raised a large sum of money" -- even were that a standard, it's about $1 million. For a health care charity, that's utterly trivial. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Howard (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written like a campaign brochure and resting entirely on primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person notable only as a city councillor and an as yet unelected candidate for mayor. As always, Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL to city councillors outside the narrow range of major, internationally famous global cities, nor to candidates for office who don't already have another valid claim of notability besides that — so his chances of qualifying for an article on here would depend on being sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but that hasn't been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In almost no cases are city council members default notable. We need adequate sourcing which this article lacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I must agree with the gist of Bearcat's analysis, but ... he might be notable, because it could be argued that Charlotte, North Carolina is itself so important internationally. Charlotte is the largest population city in the geographically largest state east of the Mississippi, is the second-largest city in the Southern United States, and HQ of BofA. My only three or four visits there was to the airport, so I'm no expert. He is a city-wide official. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a local politican, it takes reliable source coverage of their political career, not just an unsourced or primary sourced assertion that they exist, to get them into Wikipedia. If this were properly sourced, by all means it could be kept on WP:GNG grounds — but NPOL's provision for city councillors is entirely dependent on the quality of sourcing present in the article as written, and makes no provision for anyone to keep a badly sourced campaign brochure. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; though the article needs editing and revamping with other sources. Charlotte is more than 800,000 and hosted the national convention in 2012; isn't that somewhat "international"? Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only a few of the very largest cities are notable enough to make a presumption that their city council members are notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's what WP:POLOUTCOMES says: City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London. How many "internationally famous metropolitan areas" can one country, even a large and populous one, reasonably be said to have? The examples listed suggest the bar was meant to be set rather high. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanth Nair[edit]

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

Was previously at PROD but the tag was removed with no reason left behind. The article does not show why this person is notable. Ana r chyte 02:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mid-ranking civil servant not notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has attained lot of media attention after the launch of a food programme in Calicut city. His social networking pages are followed by thousands and are discussed widely in vernacular media. So considering that the subject is a possible search item, I suggest to keep the article at least for the time being Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:27, 9 July 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, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability from Operation Sulaimani. AadaamS (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Prasanth Nait is famous in his own right. If you see Malayalam media of the last two weeks you can find at least a dozen articles on his popularity especially in the social media. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olin And The Moon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Magnolia677 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD nomination wasn't showing so I fixed it. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - My searches found nothing aside from various links here including a LA Weekly despite that they've released a few albums. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best coverage I could find was this, this, and this. Unless something more substantial can be found, I don't feel an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally this would be relisted for a second time for further debate, but seeing how this article had a previous "keep" AfD and has not garnered any attention on this second one with already one relist (14 days of potential discussion), a no-consensus close is in order. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Yoga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not certain if there's enough independence for this article than either Morya (Theosophy) or some other article. People should review this version but that's almost entirely based on primary source material and is excessive detail on their beliefs to me. However, in terms of independent sources, both Drayer's Nicholas and Helena Roerich: The Spiritual Journey of Two Great Artists and Peacemakers and Dector's Nicholas Roerich - The Life And Art Of A Russian Master focus more on the artwork than the yoga teachings. Most of the other sources I can find are basically like this piece on Dennis Kucinich, just short mentions. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vignesh Kumar[edit]

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

The article makes many claims about the subject, few of which are sourced. The only references are a self-written piece for an online art gallery, and one substantial piece in a newspaper. The subject therefore fails WP:BASIC, and WP:ARTIST. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article looks more like a resume. Only 1 reference given. Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's an autobiography, which doesn't help. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing even in the slightest good. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as unambiguous copyright infringement per the evidence below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurial Decision-making[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This concept itself has been studied quite a bit: [63] (96 citations), [64] (269 citations), [65] (1803 citations), [66] (21 citations), and a book, but this is a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Delete per WP:TNT (or stubify). Esquivalience ^t 02:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might qualify for speedy as a copyright violation. At least one section is taken verbatim from a published source [67], and the editor has apparently done this in other articles, with multiple copyright violation concerns. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7: No claim towards notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Enemy[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable musician. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-can't find notability either. Wgolf (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia M. Green[edit]

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

Not Notable. Simply a faculty member at a university who has done enough to get tenure, and that's about it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I think this page was hastily flagged. During the 45 seconds while I was converting links to citations, this page was tagged. Please take a breath and slow down! Meanwhile, regarding notability, as seen by the additional citations added, the subject is a well cited (hits on Google Scholar: 793, 547, 236, 236, 197...), well discussed (supplying much early work on language and the law), and well respected scholar (she wrote one of the key textbooks in the discipline of pragmatics). LingLass (talk)

@I dream of horses:

Keep Her work has been inpactful enough to get mention in various sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The high citation counts on Google scholar are enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, and the book reviews are enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. I'd suggest trimming back the "publications" section and calling it "selected publications" instead, but that sort of cleanup is not really an AfD concern. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fenway Park#New Fenway Park. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Fenway Park[edit]

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

Content forking. Prod contested by IP. All of the content here is covered in greater detail in one paragraph in Fenway Park. As a proposed park, it never got off the drawing board. It is not encyclopedic enough to merit an entire article that consists of one line and five external links of questionable utility. MSJapan (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more than enough material to expand it, but I also would not object to a redirect, as it would preserve the article's history. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only content is that it was proposed and abandoned.. That can easily be covered at the Fenway article. Unlikely search term so redirect is not needed. Spanneraol (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park. Fenway Park is one of the most visible icons in American (sports) culture. It makes sense that our readers, and quite few of them, would be looking for "New Fenway Park". However, I am not convinced that this alone warrants a separate article. This seems to be a failed proposal. I cannot justify Wikipedia collecting failed proposals, no matter how many reliable sources cover it. So, while it is reasonable to believe that readers would be searching for "New Fenway Park", I believe simply redirecting readers to the (relatively substantial) section in the main Fenway Park article would be more profitable, for us and them. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there were something really substantial that could be written and sourced about it, to the point that it was actually carrying WP:UNDUE weight in the main article, then it would certainly merit its own spinoff article. But if all we can write is two sentences asserting that it was proposed but then cancelled, the end, then that's just not an article we need to retain. Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park; no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody's willing to put the effort into writing an article that's worth something. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I don't give a tinker's damn about the article's history (what makes preserving it a virtue?), but it'd be a valid redirect, and as others have said, the pertinent content would take all of about two sentences in the main article to capture. Ravenswing 11:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Seems like a valid search term but for now can be addressed within the Fenway Park article. Rlendog (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; Fenway Park#New Fenway Park is better-written and -referenced. No need to delete the history, which is harmless. —Cryptic 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park. A proposed replacement stadium for Fenway Park that never left the drawing board. The attempted effort can probably best be handled with a brief sentence or two at the main Fenway Park article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park, I agree this would be the best move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a WP:BLP1E issue. This means that the recreation of the article is possible if new relevant sources appear that confer notability independently from the recent affair. The "keep" opinions are weakly argued because most do not address the BLP1E issue, but rather relatively unimportant procedural concerns, and must therefore be given less weight in assessing consensus. Sandstein 17:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because of this Reddit post, 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}}.

Re-proposing for AfD in light of recent events. Recently Ellen Pao has resigned as Reddit's CEO and was replaced by Steve Huffman - the article has had details merged to Reddit § Commercial activity and the AMA section and the controversy section. Content on the handover and catalyst for it also belongs on the Steve Huffman page more than here, as the CEO is higher profile and has inherited his predecessor's issues. Issues with the way that the Reddit administrators were non-communicative to the volunteer moderators more belongs on the page about Pao or Reddit#controversies - Taylor's firing was the catalyst, but there were longstanding issues with volunteers having their software break.

Reasons for deletion:

Fails BLP1E as the commercial activity on Reddit, celebrity interviews and advice for journalists are all the same company.
The firing of Pao is bigger news than Taylor's dismissal. Future notability for Taylor is not a factor to consider per CRYSTAL - the events this month have shown that other figures factor more notably in the current issue than Taylor herself. Per COATRACK the Taylor article doesn't go into depth about Pao's leadership or Huffman's takeover.
Content has already been merged to Reddit and details on controversies can be added to Ellen Pao and Steve Huffman as they are more notable figures with articles that can easily be expanded. Content that is only tangentially related to Taylor is a better fit for the reddit article itself.

There is no material left on the page to merge elsewhere.

Some details on Taylor, such as her alma mater, might not be interesting to readers in 10 years, and so fails the RECENTISM test as including too much undue material of temporary interest as related to current events that may not be interesting to readers in future(Not a newspaper).
Previous AfD had extensive stealth canvassing as some users noted in the AfD.
Previous edits to the article include BLP violations and violations of off-site harassment policy. Keeping the content on this article serves little public interest under the current circumstances (with the CEO changing hands being bigger news) and the risk of addition of BLP violations is not justified when content on the CEO changing hands and Taylor's dismissal is covered in further depth elsewhere.
Note to closing administrator - Due to the risk of stealth canvassing, admin should discount !votes that have no justification, or come from users with less than 10 edits. Merge votes are invalid as no content is on the page to be merged - these should be counted as delete.

-- Callinus (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I chose Merge because both this article and Reddit are very fluid at the moment, and there is no predicting the status of these articles by the time this AFD closes. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This discussion probably won't lead to a consensus - the last one was closed as no consensus. Let someone tip the scale first before renominating - AfD is not an overnight cleanup service, so article issues belong on the talk page. I don't see how the subject's alma mater counts as "recentism". Esquivalience ^t 02:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquivalience: what do you mean tip the scale? I've performed a merger of most of the article contents. See @DHeyward:'s quote

"merge" implies some information is in the article that isn't in the other articles

in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Victoria Taylor. You really also should adress the fact that Pao has quit following most of the keep and merge votes in the original AfD, and the fact that substantial sections of the article have been merged. "article issues belong on the talk page" - the issues in question are DUE and BLP1E - substantial detail has been merged to the reddit article and the BLP1E issue remains. -- Callinus (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you should wait for a few months so that a deletion discussion doesn't result in no consensus, or gain consensus for a merge and redirect (unless you want to go for a silence and consensus, which is a long shot) on the talk page if there's a pressing reason to - AfD does not stand for articles for discussion; the talk page is much more versatile and suitable for your concern. Esquivalience ^t 02:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquivalience: what part of the article is not already merged to Reddit § IAmA and AMA and Reddit § Commercial activity ? Which part of the material that I added to the article, then merged elsewhere needs discussion on talk? -- Callinus (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IAR, WP:BOLD/SOFIXIT I went ahead and merged the material that I myself added to the article - there's no requirement for consensus to remove the material that I myself added and nobody modified, the material I added has been merged. -- Callinus (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You already did the merging; if you want to do the redirecting, I'm just suggesting that you wait so that the scale is tipped (i.e. towards a definite outcome) or discuss on the talk page. Esquivalience ^t 02:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Victoria Taylor and sent an email to the admin who closed the first AfD notifying them of BLP violations and linking to off-site harassment that strongly violates important policies. That's the big issue that's changed and why the article needs re-nominating. -- Callinus (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: You say the last AfD failed due to canvassing? If that's the case, the only difference now is that a few days have passed. Reddit users are too stubborn to let that stop them. Ordinarily, I would wait a month. However, two months may be better in this case since a flurry of edits will happen when the Ellen Pao article becomes open again. Also, even though you worked on this article extensively, I'm alarmed that you have turned to purging the article that you now want deleted. For example, instead of copying my sentence about two analyses to the reddit article, you moved it. This will certainly belong in Victoria's article if it survives. Also for a biographical statement that is not suitable for merging, you removed the source but not the statement. Why do this? The only reason I can think of is that making the article look poorly sourced helps the deletion request. Connor Behan (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not speedyI think this will need a discussion, not a speedy keep. A non-consensus close can be renominated almost immediately, tho it is not necessarily a good idea. Whether the potential for vandalism justifies a deletion can be argued either way. We do have various ways of protecting articles. For that matter, we also can semi-protect an afd discussion, tho I am a little reluctant to do it in advance of disruption. But if any other admin think it appropriate, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ The "no consensus" is seriously flawed as there is clear consensus for all the merge criteria. It was a lazy analysis that didn't discount SPA IPs nor did it analyze which points had clear consensus. Really, the argument was about how much of the current article is replicated in the other articles. This made the logic that "delete/merge/redirect" were separate arguments a specious claim. The only question was whether there needed to be a merge or a straight redirect. There was a clear consensus that the "keep" criteria failed and merge was the very minimum by a 2 to 1 margin. I am considering contesting the flawed close. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This ridiculously quick renomination after the last AfD ended in 'no consensus' feels a bit like sour grapes. The fact to the matter is that Victoria Taylor's dismissal affected millions of people when most of reddit's most popular forums were shut down in protest of her dismissal and how it had been made. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — 90.44.86.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into Reddit - If Victoria was not notable enough for an article before she was fired, simply being fired from a job doesn't make her so. The circumstances of her firing are certainly interesting enough for inclusion in the Reddit article, but not notable enough for an article of their own, especially under the guise of a BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Milty (talk • contribs)
Merge or Delete or Redirect - nothing independent here. This BLP is for one event: her firing. It's arguably only negative and even "No consensus" should close with delete based on that alone. Merge was the consensus from the last AfD but closer did not evaluate it properly. Overwhelming number of Delete/Merge/Redirect comments swamped the page. Those are all requests that the article be stripped of content. The only decision was whether article history should remain or whether it should be deleted or redirect. In that case, consensus was to Merge since that is action that fits the comments. --DHeyward (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that this article is indeed notable per Wikipedia policy. I won't hide the fact that I myself am a redditor, but I feel as if my rationale is valid. She is notable for what happened to her; and her long standing work for the reddit community that is just now being recognized as her absence is felt. I feel like we could indeed make this BLP about more than her firing from reddit; and it well should be! We just need to be BOLD in doing so, and actually research more about her. There's plenty notable about her seeing as how she's spent lots of time with celebrities and such in her capacity at reddit. We just need to make it more about the good things she did, not the bad things that happened to her. Now whether or not we can actually be neutral about that and guarantee this will be a quality article is another thing; and I'm all for semi-protection or even full protection of the article at least until reddit cools down about this event. I'm all for everything we can do per wikipedia policy to ensure this is a quality article. Melody Concerto^talk 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Gamaliel (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply to her article due to BLP1E's criteria 3. Her role in the overall story is substantial and well documented particularly given the massive media coverage mentioning her by name like this Mother Jones article that even uses her name in its article URL. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC) — 90.44.86.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She had no documented role in any of it which means criteria 3 is satisfied. We don't even know what she has done to that led to her dismissal. Boston Bombing victims, for example, played a role but it's passive and a single event so unless something else happens, it fits BLP1E and we don't have articles on the bombing victims unless something else makes them notable. This controversy has already moved on because the focus is on Reddit, not Taylor. --DHeyward (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC, 9 Hours ago with her name prominently in the article title: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/14/details-emerge-about-victoria-taylors-reddit-dismissal.html do you have a more convincing argument? 90.44.86.196 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares how many times her name is thrown out in a single event? She is a passive pawn in the history of reddit, not a significant individual. You still haven't come up with anything that she's done that precipitated the event other than a name for who was fired. That article you cite that has her name in title isn't about her, it's about the executives above her. Notice the pictures and the quotes. Hmmm. None about her. The clue is the lack of detail about her and all the speculation about those with power and why those with power did something. Nothing to do with her specifically, though. --DHeyward (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ridiculously significant coverage the story of her firing and the role she played in the subsequent meltdown of reddit it is quite obvious that her notability is not temporary, anytime there's going to be a significant shakeup/kerfuffle at reddit her name will come up. Given that is true then it is logical that there should be an article about her, she as a subject is now of encyclopedic merit. I read in your comments this tendency to discount her role in this and minimize the impact she had in essentially shutting down reddit but that is a false view. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What role did she play in shutting down reddit? She didn't say or do anything. Are you saying she coordinated the shutdown? Are you saying she led the call for the reassignment of the founder and also the CEO? Source? For similar treatment see Meredith Kercher (that is notable for passive role in an event, she is the namesake of the event, not biography) and Amanda Knox (active role, has a biography) - the active participants such as the founder that fired her and the CEO that resigned, have biographies. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well that Steve Huffman has just three short paragraphs on him with only 8 references, despite being a co-founder of the company and the current CEO. One would think that discussion of controversy is more applicable on the page of the CEOs or co-founders rather than former mid level employees (who had no control over the site's messaging to users, unlike CEOs and co-founders ("Popcorn tastes good")). -- Callinus (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable only for one event. She is already out of the news and will soon be forgotten. There is no reason for her to be in an encyclopedia. Comet1440 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP above mentions, she's not out of the news yet. I'm actually wondering if this deletion request itself will make the news in some way. Connor Behan (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (changed from Keep in previous AFD) - I participated in the first AFD where I argued to Keep this article. Looking at it again, I may have been a bit hasty: outside of the news coverage related to the recent controversy, there's very little specifically about Taylor in reliable sources. I think now she's basically a non-notable person who was briefly caught up in a public controversy, but isn't worthy of a Wikipedia biography in her own right. There's no need to merge, as the information about her firing is adequately covered in other articles. Robofish (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Sorry, but Reddit is not that big a deal in most people's lives; my mother wouldn't know what it was. If newspapers are still discussing this in 5 years' time, we can revisit an article then. In the meantime, what possible benefit can the existence of this article have on the sum of the world's knowledge? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the others stating WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, she is only known for that one Reddit event. And it wasn't that big of an event, it has pretty much disappeared from the news by now. Other mentions of her in news sources before that event were typical of the job position she held, it's not like her former co-workers of the same level also have articles. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just found out that there isn't even an article about the event itself, is Taylor really more notable than the whole Reddit-CEO issue (which her coincidental involvement in is the only reason there is an article of her in the first place)? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article will become more relevant and better references as the event unfolds. -- Dandv 04:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The event is over. How much more "unfolding" could it do? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 06:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the deletes have it. The reason I wish this would stay up is that this isn't a briefly infamous person who slept with a politician or made an offensive tweet or what have you. Taylor's one event was being fired after being loved by the Internet. Perhaps this will inspire further stories, but as Ritchie333 says, I'll check back in 5 years. Connor Behan (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"after being loved by the Internet" - for about 24 hours before online conversations shifted to the core issues with Reddit, like the role of the CEOs and co-founders, and the site's vexed relationship with objectionable speech and advertisers. The BLP violations on the page means it is not purely positive - BLP articles are vulnerable to vandalism and abuse, and there's really no reason to open this woman up to defamation accusations over the next 10 years when her role in the CEO being replaced with the site's co-founder won't be the biggest part of the story in 10 years. -- Callinus (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Taylor is still in the news. The Daily Mail just published this story a few hours ago featuring more of Ms. Taylor's part in these developments and also additional video of her talking about her role and Gender parity at reddit back in 2013. It is obvious that there will be documentaries made about reddit and in those documentaries when they cover reddit's history Victoria Taylor will be mentioned. Again, she is notable now and and article about her has encyclopedic merit. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Daily Mail article has very poor fact checking. Connor Behan (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the BBC Academy video to the BLP article weeks ago - The Daily Mail is copying and pasting from the Wikipedia article (WP:CITOGENISIS/Churnalism). The DM article is from 7 July - this was before the Ohanian/Yishan revelations on 12 July, meaning that Taylor is no longer the driving force in the story, but rather, it's about Ohanian, Pao, Yishan and Huffman. Note that Bethanye Blount does not have a BLP page, despite being a former chief engineer (another mid level employee) -- Callinus (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is partially remarkable is Taylor is getting to be notable enough that The Daily Mail is actually paying someone for candid photos of her out in public. 90.44.86.196 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'd like to start by saying I was the nominator of the previous AfD, and my rationale from the last discussion still stands. I switched to "merge" at the last discussion because there was a lot of content that was added after I nominated which focused on Reddit, but since much of the content I thought could be merged has already been added to the Reddit article by Callinus (thanks!), this article can be deleted. The topic falls under WP:BLP1E, which is a Wikipedia policy that exists to preserve the privacy of real-life, living, low-profile individuals who are only notable for one event. Taylor qualifies as a low-profile individual in all prongs of the essay WP:LOWPROFILE: the overwhelming majority of media appearances and promotional activities consisted of Taylor acting as a "mouthpiece" or a spokesperson for Reddit, not herself, and she doesn't purport herself to be a figure of eminence. With regards to the third criterion of BLP1E, her role in the event can be summed up adequately at the Reddit article—she played no other role other than getting dismissed (it is the reaction of the Reddit community to her dismissal that is notable, not Taylor). And finally, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Being in the news or being covered by newspapers in relation to one event does not necessarily make a living person suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with other delete reasons cited above. Entry is not encyclopedic. Notypos (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Spencer-Churchill, Marquess of Blandford[edit]

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

A guy born in 1992 with no evidence of any independent notability. Notability is not inherited. Belonging to a notable family does not confer automatic notability. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would think that someone who owned Blenheim Palace, one of the most visited stately homes in the UK where Winston Churchill was born, would be bound to have been noticed in reliable sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally we do keep articles on the heirs to British peerages, as when they inherit they will be entitled to articles by virtue of their position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been true in the past, but peers are no longer automatically entitled to seats in the House of Lords so they will not automatically be entitled to Wikipedia articles by virtue of their position. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before and general opinion has been that it would be illogical to break the series of articles on hereditary peers just because they no longer sit in Parliament. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heirs to British peerages are notable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per long-standing consensus, cited above, and then there's this, this and this. Kraxler (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TEFview[edit]

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

Very specialised computer program. No attempt to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing good aside from primary links and this probably being the best result. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TablEdit Tablature Editor[edit]

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

Very specialised computer program. No attempt to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to delete it. The program is not as well known as others like GuitarPro, but it still deserves a mention. Andy Johnston (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing particularly significant with this probably being the best result here. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find anything to indicate notability. It gets a mention in a couple of music books, but nothing significant. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.NotGames.NotGTAV

[2] "Making EDI Pay Off: The Averitt Express Experience". Production and inventory management journal. pp. 6–11.

[3] "Making EDI pay off: The Averitt Express experience". (Preview page of the first listed source). proquest.com.

[4] "Executive's Guide to the Wireless Workforce". p. 153.

[5] "Transportation & Distribution". pp. 27–28.

[6] "Going Canadian: Averitt deal opens avenues to the north". Nashville Business Journal.

[7] "Plunkett's Transportation, Supply Chain & Logistics Industry Almanac 2009".

[8] "12 Street Artists From Brooklyn Celebrate The DIY Culture Of Berlin". The Huffington Post.

[9] "Six Brooklyn artists to exhibit at fifth Contemporary Art Fair NYC". brooklyneagle.com.

[10] "Brooklyn Performance Artists To Make Giant Hamster Wheel Their Home". cbslocal.com.

[11] "Re-Emerging Older Professional Artists from Brooklyn Display Work at Carter Burden Gallery". Bed-Stuy, New York Patch.

[12] "Artists from Brooklyn and Dallas descend on 500X Gallery near Fair Park". Center Stage.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]