Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 July	27 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#Applicability #1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommended that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian painters[edit]

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

Category:Iranian painters can serves this propuse much better and this doesn't seem provide much more information than that. –ebraminio^talk 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. We keep both lists and categories as complementary methods of indexing and navigating. Lists can also always be expanded with annotations (as many entries already are), and we must judge AFD content on its potential, not its current state. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf. Nominator has not provided a valid rationale for deletion. Pburka (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the nominator has provided is largely irrelevant - "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." What is relevant is whether a rationale exists; though that does not seem to be the case here.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of a deletion rationale is a substantive issue, not a procedural one. A subsequent participant in this AFD may offer a deletion argument, but absent that no one's obligated to think one up. And we do speedy keep AFDs if the nomination is sufficiently flawed. postdlf (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I said, so not relevant. The point is: let's keep it about the article, not about the nominator and what red tape he has or has not successfully applied.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid rationale for deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It undeniably provides more information than the category: unless you think dates, historical period, and media are all completely irrelevant to the study of art. I'd be curious to know if the proposer wants rid of List of Flemish painters or if there's something about Iranian artists that makes them peculiarly unsuited to list format. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Iranian painters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've resigned from the request, please close this –ebraminio^talk 16:23, 27 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. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikil Murugan[edit]

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

Just a man with a job (marketing). Notability unclear as most of the content of the article is irrelevant and promo. The Banner talk 22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier speedily removed under A7 under the title Nikkil and then recreated over the redirect. The Banner talk 01:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for being a publicist dealing with and promoting notable others, is not in and of itself a particularly notable field. India Today may applaud his expertise by calling him the best public relations officer in South Indian cinema, but that is not itself a notable accolade. And the Filmibeat citation simply repeats that and shares more about his regular job as a P.R.O. Yes, he does get a lot written about him in multiple reliable sources, but his press coverage is entirely dependent upon what he has done for others as a job. The article is itself quite promotional and lacks neutrality. The A7 speedy was because it was thought the former article did not have a clear assertion of notability, but this one does include sourcing which makes such a claim. However, this AFD is best so as to have others offer input toward the reasonableness of the claim and whether or not it is a notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per nomination and @MichaelQSchmidt:. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches "Nikil Murugan" at News, Books and browser found nothing particularly good and this would be a good case of WP:TNT. SwisterTwister talk 18:04, 28 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 per WP:SK#Applicability #1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommended that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of caricaturists[edit]

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

Category seems more suitable for this and fortunately it is available already: Category:Caricaturists –ebraminio^talk 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. This list also has been annotated with birth/death dates, and so is further proving its own merit. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Postdlf. We don't delete lists simply because they (partially) duplicate categories. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Caricaturists. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've resigned from the request, please close this –ebraminio^talk 16:23, 27 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. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buguroo Offensive Security[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a recreate of an article deleted at AFD in 2014. I went through every source, they are all brief mentions in sources that are not WP:RS, including product listings and announcements for training classes. Didn't find any WP:RS coverage in a search. Vrac (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Buguroff. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and unless the article has noticeable improvement, it should probably stay deleted and maybe go to WP:AFC. My searches found nothing particularly good with this being the best. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 28 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. Animalparty's interpretation of LISTN is broadly accepted, and the consensus to delete (in which BLP considerations play a part as well) is clear. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSD users[edit]

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

Hard to see what function if fills. It will never be exhaustive and falls under WP:Trivia -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as trivia. While many notable people have tried LSD (or have been arrested, or used marijuana, or eaten a corndog...), and some publications have commented on the affects LSD may have had on certain people's careers, the list of any old notable person who has tried LSD at least once in their life is indiscriminate, and I don't think "individual LSD users" is commonly and consistently discussed as a group or set by reliable sources, contra WP:LISTN (note: this and especially this do not appear to be reliable). Selective mention of some very noteworthy figures, whose use of LSD is commonly and consistently mentioned with regards to their persona, may plausibly be mentioned in History of lysergic acid diethylamide (many already are), or similar articles like Altered state of consciousness. But an open-ended list with nothing in common but a recreational choice is not a good list to maintain. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Animalparty. This article feels like a bad idea, an opportunity for trolls and libel. Is it sufficient to include Bill Gates on the list if he "implied" that he used it (WP editor's analysis) in an interview? Vrac (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely per Animalparty's reasoning, above. I really don't see any evidence that this satisfied WP:LISTN. That aside, there's a potential WP:BLP issue; from a BLP standard, I'm not at all certain that we should be deeming someone who has used a drug (often only once) as a "[drug] user" due to the specific connotations of that phrase. And, of course, should this be kept, inclusion in the list is controversial or negative material and demands the more stringent BLP sourcing threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources cited have presented the use of this drug as a noteworthy event in the lives of the people listed here. "List of LSD users" is a Wikipedia shorthand for saying "List of people whose LSD usage was noteworthy for inclusion in reliable sources about them", and if sources find this notable, then it seems reasonable to me that Wikipedia include it. Comparable Wikimedia content includes List of teetotalers, which is about people known for not using a drug, Thalidomide#Notable_people_affected, about people who took that drug, and Category:Cannabis activists.

Lists like this, if deleted from Wikipedia, could have a home on Wikidata. It might even be better there. I wish there were a way to better present lists like this as structured data on Wikidata. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't noteworthiness of LSD use to any particular person, but the concept of the list as a collective, coherent, group per WP:LISTN. The possibilities for creating lists, verified from scattered independent sources, are endless (e.g. List of marijuana users, List of filmmakers who cite Citizen Kane as an inspiration or Lists of people inspired to become lawyers by reading To Kill a Mockingbird). I see nothing wrong with including a few examples of notable LSD users in the articles mentioned above, but we need to have some discretion on stand-alone list topics, with or without BLP consideration. I have no comment on Wikidata, other than by contrast to note that Wikipedia is not a database, nor necessarily a repository for every verifiable factoid. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animalparty

Lists of LSD users have been created and published elsewhere. [1] [2] [3] I think that these sources are good enough to establish that a list of users of this drug already has coverage in pop culture, which is more than most lists on Wikipedia have.

A "List of marijuana" users might be too long - endlessly long lists are not appropriate for Wikipedia. The other two examples you give cannot be verified by reliable sources, or if there are sources which specifically say that those attributes are defining characteristics of a person, then I would support a list. Merely mentioning a piece of art as an inspiration may be too little, but if journalists narrated an especially close connection then that might be appropriate. Sometimes this is described as membership in a certain school or social circle of art.

Some of this is factoid material. Perhaps the article could be renamed and cut to "List of people known for LSD use", which would shorten the list to people who have reputation defining media coverage of their use of this drug. That would eliminate trivial coverage, and keep the list short and more clearly defined. In some of these cases it seems like the drug use was a fundamental characteristic of the person's life story.

Overall - I am not too sure, but there seems like a lot of information compiled from reliable sources here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with moving it to Wikidata, and we might not need to think about use for now. Eventually someone will go ahead and build the type of module you mentioned. Things are moving at a blistering pace over there. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless, unencyclopedic compendium of trivia that holds no independent notability. North of Eden (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia and an unjustified intrusion into the lives of the people mentioned. Some of these admit to using the drug once, and others don't even know whether they took it or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Animalparty, much of this is 'maybe' anyhow.Pincrete (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic list. Carrite (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank Ketkar[edit]

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

No sign of WP:N. ЖunalForYou ^☎️^📝 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to his one show as my searches found no IMDb page or good sources for that matter aside from these links. No independent notability at this time. I would've said move entirely instead of also delete but as I've seen users restart the article again, this makes it vulnerable to BLP issues. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Evidently has various works on credit, despite IMDb not covering him. Meets WP:NACTOR. Have edited article accordingly and will add more as and when I find it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not noteworthy enough and reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What not noteworthy? Plays lead roles in daily soaps and theatre and wins 3 awards for best performances. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lazy AfD this is being. Pinging editors who might not have seen the revised article @Kunalforyou and SwisterTwister:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be sourced up well enough to pass GNG as it sits. Carrite (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As Andy Dingley pointed out, no one has presented an argument that the subject of this article is not notable. The crux of the matter is whether the article's content itself, as it currently stands, is duplicative of, or would be better off in the context of the Yokosuka E5Y article. I see editors stating we should merge and others stating we should keep and expand -- but this is an editorial discussion that does not relate to deletion. I would encourage participants to continue the merge discussion on the appropriate talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kawanishi E5K[edit]

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

The article is inaccurate and very incomplete, apart from the fact that the Kawanishi aircraft were merely variants of the Yokosuka originalsand the Yokosuka E5Y articles covers the subject more accurately and more completely Petebutt (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article uses a reliable source and the type was in service with the Imperial Japanese Navy so is notable enough for an article. It may be that the types are related but that should be a talk page or project discussion not a deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced to a reliable ref, no valid reason given for deletion. If the two articles overlap then this should be described or even merged and redirected, but not deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yokosuka E5Y, per Petebutt. This is a notable aircraft, no one is disputing that. It's interesting locally, as they illustrate the period of Japanese re-arming when they were building airframes but buying engines from Bristol. However we would give our readers a better article and better coverage if we kept coverage of this as a variant within one overall article. From what I can find, this was a licence-building exercise to the same design, had the same navy designation as Type 90-3 and had no significant differences recorded. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yokosuka E5Y. Much of this short article is already covered in target article, and I agree with Andy Dingley that readers are better served by having the topics covered in one place. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While Michig's links establish that the band existed, no evidence is provided of decent coverage per GNG or notability otherwise via BAND. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Movies (band)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. The claims to notability aren't backed up by the sources. Seems promotional, also. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As well as the Allmusic review cited in the article, I also found [4], [5], [6], [7]. Not totally convincing for an article but given the difficulty of searching for the band name not bad, and I suspect that there is more coverage out there. I'm not sure what the nominator thinks this article is promoting - I don't imagine anyone is going to go and buy records from a long-dead band simply because this article exists. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete as although there are a few sources, my searches found nothing else and it's not easy to search considering there's not much information. This has stayed here quietly since April 2008 and, with the new improvement, I would've almost said to draft/userfy, but unless someone wants it, that's a not a good option. Boleyn has had very good noms so I think the "promoting" is due to the unreferenced and extended information and someone may consider the initial creation as a "promotion". SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced the references provided show notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:59, 28 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) 21:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven A. LaChance[edit]

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

This author has put out three books, none of which have received a large enough amount of coverage to where LaChance would merit his own article. The only two somewhat decent sources I've added to the article - the first one is only semi-usable since the article isn't about LaChance himself. Most of the sources out there are ones like this one, where he's quoted but isn't the focus of the article itself. There's some mild coverage for the paranormal group, but it all seems to be local and fairly sparse. I don't really think that he passes notability guidelines as a whole, even if we were to try to add in information about his group. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...yeah, I'm not seeing notability here either. Delete. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two books in libraries, one held in 30, one in 1. No Kirkus reviews. I didn't check Booklist after that. I found a radio show interview [8], and an interview on St Louis' Fox station [9] (less than 3 minutes). I'm just not seeing author notability here. LaMona (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... if Kirkus didn't review him then it's unlikely the others did. Coast to Coast AM is considered WP:FRINGE so it's not usable, although it's wildly popular. Sad thing is, I ended up coming across this since I was looking to buy one of his books, the first one he put out, and then saw that he didn't pass NAUTHOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 21:07, 26 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. If only editors could spend as much time on other subjects as they do on every college's not-yet-played sport seasons. Clear consensus is to keep, since, well, every season in every sport is notable, it seems. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Mississippi State Lady Bulldogs basketball team[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kevin12 x d 02:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? There are dozens and dozens of 2015-16 college basketball team articles already up. Keep. Jhn31 (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team as a reference. This was several months ago. ALL 2015–16 articles are acceptable. Jhn31 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though I don't believe that the mere existence of other 2015-16 articles is enough to justify keeping this, I can't say that this article alone should be deleted. I also don't agree with Jhn31's reasoning that the Illinois discussion applies here as that was for a men's team. There seems to be a consensus that all men's seasons now meet notability thresholds given the high level of national coverage that even small conferences now receive in this day and age. For better or worse, women's basketball does not receive this same level of coverage and notability beyond a very few programs (i.e. UConn) is not guaranteed from season to season. Bad teams, even in big conferences rarely receive significant, independent, non-routine coverage outside of a local level and may not need a season article. That being said, given that every single SEC team has an article from the 2014-15 season and none are being challenged on notability merits, I have no reason to challenge a 2016 SEC season article on such merits. Where the Illinois discussion does apply is that is is clearly no longer too soon for such an article. If this were to be a proxy discussion on notability thresholds for women's team season articles in general, I might vote differently, but clearly the lack of discussion means that this isn't the case, so keep. SCMatt33 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very slippery Wikipedia:Systemic bias slope, differentiating equivalent men's from women's teams in notability. matt91486 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's no real reason to delete this; preseason discussions of rosters and such are already in the media, and it will just be recreated in the next couple of months. matt91486 (talk) 04:45, 28 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) 21:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Presley[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Sources are either not about him (they're about Disneyland and never mention Presley by name) or are not independent (his website, sites selling his music, interviews, etc). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom, whoever is adding refspam from Bangalore isn't helping this article any. Brianhe (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC; lacks significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:14, 27 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. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Gami Cup[edit]

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

No sources, I suspect a WP:HOAX Müdigkeit (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems more like a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Racer-Ωmegα 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any sources that back up the claim that this actually exists...(and WP mirrors do not count)-then I might believe that this weird mix of international teams and national clubs actually plays in a cup.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Müdigkeit: I could not find any sources other than Wikipedia itself, so it is most certainly obvious speculation. Racer-Ωmegα 21:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If not a hoax then there is certainly no evidence of notability sufficient to justify a season article. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 30 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. The AfD for this highly promotional article is notable because the keep voters, unfortunately, do not present a single valid policy-based reason to keep the article. What we have left, then, is a consensus of editors pointing out that there are no reliable sources to prove that the subject is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Nayi Umeed[edit]

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

One eye-donation camp and a candle-light march for earthquake relief. Doesn't pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Last AfD was closed as no consensus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I don't know enough about the subject in question to make a nomination, but I do notice this does not very well meet Wikipedia's standards. The gallery for example does not belong on Wikipedia. If this article is kept, it needs to be moved to Wikicommons. I also notice large parts of the article are not cited, or at least do not use in-line citations. If this article is kept or otherwise not entirely deleted, these issues need to be fixed. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 21:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Organization is obviously notable enough to have article, because there are 100s of such organization pages exists on Wikipedia Category:Non-governmental organisations based in India, Category:Non-profit organisations based in India. We can edit gallery of the article, otherwise I see no reason to delete this article. Last AfD was done just 6 months ago, was gone in favour of the article. --Human3015 knock knock • 02:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OSE and WP:CCC. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and ORG. There are millions of NGOs in India and most of "em are not notable at all. This organization claims to be known for two events where lots of organizations already doing and are non-notable, in fact these two event does not bring this organization under-light or makes it notable. Wikipedia require significance coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note: Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. This article appears to be more of a portfolio than an article as well as possibly copyvio. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 10:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should not be deleted because it is notable for conducting social awareness programmes in colleges of Haryana. It is clear from the sources that it has conducted many such programmes so it should be edited or improved but not deleted because we have many articles on Wikipedia about NGO's working in a particular region and notable in those regions but not even heard of in other regions. Some users seem to don't know "what is notable in Haryana", They tried to delete Sanatan Dharma College for the same notability reasons. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 11:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! including Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, but knowledge comes slowly and not in one day. With time and from his or her mistakes one can learn a lot and should not be blamed like foolish. Wikipedia is governed by certain polices and standards where ones plea is not considered instead bring the sources in light so that it can be considered. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn!!! Keeping your personal philosophies aside, I still don't see how the subject is notable. No evidence is presented here or in article by editing it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organisation is working for the welfare of society since 2013. Many programs and camps organised under this society. In Patna we are running a NO HORN CAMPAIGN with cooperation of patna police . Traffic S.P Pranatosh Kumar Das is with us in this campaign. This organisation is new but it notable in many part of india. So NGO NAYI UMEED article should not be deleted from wikipedia. Abh423 (Talk to me) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Abh423 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: User:Abh423 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Same reply as above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promo advert, trying to raise funds? No coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. There has been some editing during the discussion to address the advertising concerns and it may need more. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perion Network[edit]

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

Essentially an advertisement. Direct promotional language: "The acquisition of MakeMeReach has enabled GrowMobile by Perion to expand its position as the industry’s most complete and comprehensive automated mobile marketing platform" ; "GrowMobile by Perion helps mobile marketers acquire and engage users"

Most of the references are press releases; the others are mentions. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as for Perion Codefuel, press releases are not reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The promotional product blurbs and market-speak needs toning down, at which point this would be a useful and informative page re an important Israeli company. -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. There is not a sufficient amount of material worth keeping. If we remove all the press releases and promotion, there is no article left. CorporateM (Talk) 22:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely needs to remove superlatives and ridiculous claims, but its a publicly traded company, and a fairly big one at that, which I think meets notability. I'll try to edit it back to normal. If no one edits it, then yes, it should be Deleted, but--with edits--it should be Kept. --FeldBum (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if it can be improved but if not, delete as generally my searches found nothing outstanding here, here and here. This doesn't interest me and the possibility of having to translate any Israeli to English is not a task for me (not a speaker). SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has now been rewritten with new references. Nmwalsh (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really confusing. I think you're talking about User:Nmwalsh/Codefuel, as proposed new content for this article, yes? There's also a DRV proposal at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 22, which seems to be essentially a duplicate of this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Habib-Valdhorn, Shiri (2014-05-19). "Perion Networks files to raise NIS 350m on TASE". Globes. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
2. Habib-Valdhorn, Shiri (2015-04-08). "Perion asked to pay $5m more for SweetIM". Globes. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
3. Tsipori, Tali (2012-12-09). "Sweetpacks CEO: Sale to Perion not from lack of faith". Globes. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
  The article notes:
  Perion, formerly Incredimail, grew as a developer of free apps (mostly smileys) for e-mail users. Over time, mostly through acquisitions, the company has expanded its products line in order to become a leader in the Internet consumer field. So far, Perion seems to be headed down the right road, and the acquisition of SweetPacks should boost the company's revenue to over $100 million next year.
4. Butcher, Mike (2012-11-08). "Holy Emoticons Batman! — Perion Network Acquires SweetPacks For $41M". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
5. Butcher, Mike (2013-09-16). "Conduit, Worth $1.4BN, Merges With Email Giant Perion (Worth $153M) To Take Its Place On NASDAQ". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
6. Lunden, Ingrid (2015-02-11). "Perion Buys France's MakeMeReach For Up To $13M To Expand In Social Ads And Europe". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
7. Lunden, Ingrid (2014-06-30). "Perion Buys Grow Mobile For Up To $42M To Build Out Its Marketing Business". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
8. Shamah, David (2014-08-01). "Perion extends Microsoft deal, ups mobile business". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
9. Shamah, David (2015-02-12). "Perion moves closer to mobile ad tech with new acquisition". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
10. Shamah, David (2014-01-03). "Perion celebrates Conduit deal with free stock for all". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
11. Shamah, David (2014-06-30). "Israel's Perion buys US firm for up to $42 million". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
12. Coppola, Gabrielle; Kamau, Edith Waringa (2014-08-12). "Google's Hold on Perion Runs Deep in Stock's 41% Collapse". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
13. Coppola, Gabrielle (2015-01-12). "Perion Sinks Amid Speculation Google to Change Search Policy". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2015-07-26. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Perion to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:45, 26 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) 19:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-promotion PR page; not notable. However, if consensus allows it to be kept, it still needs to be re-written in an WP:NPOV way so it does not come across in its present form of a promotional piece. Kierzek (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "delete" rationale, a "just not notable" vote, is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pity I can't add anything to Cunard's good rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking over Cunard's list of sources, I can't escape the observation that they're all financial news. Stock movements, M&A activity, that sort of thing. All of which gets obligatory coverage in the financial press. I suppose this meets the letter of WP:CORP, but I'd still be much more impressed if there was coverage outside of the financial press. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most media coverage about companies are "Stock movements, M&A activity, that sort of thing" since these are businesses. That's to be expected, and topics that meet this expectation are notable under the definition at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability.
I also don't consider Globes, The Times of Israel, and TechCrunch to be the financial press.
Source #8 ("Perion extends Microsoft deal, ups mobile business") is about a business deal and Perion's mobile business. Is this the kind of article (which is not about stock movements or mergers and acquisitions) you were seeking? Cunard (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you call that specific article out as an example, I'm going to assume that's the one you consider the best source. Looking at it closely, it's obvious that it's just a warmed-over version of Perion's press release, issued the same day that was published. There's a little copyediting, and they added some quotes supplied by Perion's people. The way these things work is a company sends the press release to media outlets a few days before the stated release date, along with a statement, "embargoed until such-and-such date at so-and-so time". The company's PR people then make themselves available to answer questions and provide quotes as individual publications request them.

If you compare them paragraph by paragraph, the similarities become obvious (PR = Press Release, TI = Times of Israel)

PR: TEL AVIV, Israel & SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Perion Network,
PR: Ltd. (NASDAQ: PERI) announced today that it has signed a 3 year
PR: agreement with Bing, extending its existing partnership, starting
PR: January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017.

TI: Israel’s Perion Networks is extending its agreement
TI: with Microsoft’s Bing search service, meaning Bing will keep powering
TI: search in Perion products for desktop and mobile platforms. The deal,
TI: announced Friday, extends the partnership between the two companies at
TI: least through the end of 2017.

PR: Upon mutual agreement, the
PR: agreement may be renewed for 2018 as well. The agreement includes
PR: desktop and tablet distribution with limited exclusivity in the United
PR: States as well as mobile distribution.

TI: With the deal, Perion becomes Bing’s prime — and only — partner for
TI: search on desktops and tablets in the US, as well as mobile
TI: platforms.

PR: In addition to Bing and Google, the Company also has search
PR: distribution partnerships with Ask.com and Yahoo.

TI: Bing isn’t Perion’s only search partner. The company has deals with Yahoo
TI: and Ask.com, and for the past several years has had an arrangement
TI: with Google, as well

PR: In parallel, and in conjunction with the fact that revenues from
PR: Google are no longer material to Perion, the Company decided to
PR: exercise its right to opt-out of its ClientConnect agreement with
PR: Google as of August 31, 2014.

TI: though Perion said it would opt out of that agreement at the end
TI: of August, because “revenues from Google are no longer material to
TI: Perion.”  Last year Perion acquired Israeli company
TI: Conduit’s ClientConnect toolbar business for $660 million.

The bottom line is that this does not meet our definition of a reliable, independent source. It's OK for backing up specific facts, but because it's directly derived from a press release, it is not useful to establish notability. Anybody can type a company's name into a search bar and dig up a pile of pseudo-sources like this. What you need to be doing is applying some thought and discretion to figure out which are significant, independent, sources, and which are just routine press release rehashes. It's not hard. Look for a sentence that smells like a press release and copy-paste it into a search bar. Look at the results. Note that many of them with similar wording have the same publication date. Bingo. Words like "material" are often a tip-off, because that has specific meaning in the finance world.

Now that I've invested the effort to do this analysis, I'm upgrading my vague comment above to a clear delete.

Disclosures: I am a Google employee. In a previous job, I was (marginally) involved with a Conduit joint project. But, I'd never even heard of Perion until this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, It does happen that businesses exist in one's own industry that one has never heard of. But the coverage is out there to show notability, it just is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that they weren't notable because I had never heard of them. I was just trying to frame the scope of any possible COI to my comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of Israel does independent research that goes far beyond that press release. It is unsurprising that some of the facts in the press release are in the news article. But there is plenty of information in the article that is not in the press release:

Perion had been chiefly a consumer-oriented software company. IncrediMail is a free program that provides backgrounds, emoticons, signatures, animations, and more for both POP and web mail accounts, and Smilebox lets users share personal media (photos, videos, music) and content types (greetings, invitations, slideshows, scrapbooks, photo albums, collages and more) via any sharing method (email, print, burn to DVD, post to Facebook, blog, Twitter or SMS). Other products include Photojoy, which converts photos into collages, puzzles and screensavers; Molto, a mobile email app, and instant messaging service SweetIM.

It is unclear how this topic can be non-notable. There are numerous strong sources that establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. North of Eden (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Baldwin (writer)[edit]

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

I started to improve the article and, while it could stay like this with now added sources, I'm not sure if it meets the notability guidelines even in the slightest (unless the awards are somewhat significant). My searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing else aside from some of the current sources and this. The name "Juliarb" may suggest someone connected to the subject started the article and it has not received ample improvement since then until today. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The may be a keeper. I added some sources. He's a little hard to find because name searches lead to Doug Baldwin (American football).E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I do see why SisterTwister found few sources; he was never a major figure, and his work - only marginally notable even then - took place a decade or two ago. I have added a few reliable sources. To me, it looks like he probably slips past WP:CREATIVE as minor actor; minor playwright who got some reviews and attention from RS in his day. Plus sourced prizes for playwrighting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 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 07:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete EMGregory, I see what you mean about "slipping past" - if he's notable, it's by a hair. But I'm not getting to that side of notable. The only non-local recognition was that he was one of ten runners-up in one of ten categories for a fairly small Writer's Digest award. (Although they seem to call them all "First prizes" ;-)). [10] LaMona (talk) 01:19, 19 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) 19:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that he is notable. Once I started to look at newspapers from the 80s, there were plenty of sources, of which I put only a couple onto the page. He was a stage actor in New York and region. Then went out to Hollywood for a few years IMDB here: [11] (I just linked his TV series characters - all minor roles - before settling down in Oregon. May be more notable as a minor actor than as a writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's not easy to list a lot of sources from 80s and 70s, but there is enough info to keep the article.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Indire[edit]

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

Probably non-notable. Only a few passing mentions in Google (incl. 1 book with 1-2 sentences). The article also contains non-neutral phrases and needs more sources (esp. for a BLP article). Notability is not inherited from her husband's political offices (some of the information is already copied in her husband's article). GermanJoe (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only source link seems to be broken unfortunately and is not archived, if anyone fluent in Google Books is able to fix it. GermanJoe (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her main claim to notability is that she was one of 10 women to graduate from high school. the claim is they were the first 10 to do so in Kenya. Even if this is true it is not enough to establish notability. The rest is also all really about her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My grandmother was the first girl to go to her high school. That's very common and not that special. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC) A redirect might also work as a search term, to her husband's article at Filemon F. Indire. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 28 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. Pity the AfD didn't decided whether the medal alone conferred notability: these are important matters. But consensus, buoyed by the sourcing added by Tomsulcer, is to keep. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Heller[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if she's notable (she may be somewhat well known and notable at her field) with my searches finding nothing particularly outstanding here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She appears to be a department chair at SVA [12] but that by itself is not enough for WP:PROF. But my opinion is weak because I'm not sure whether the AIGA Medal might be selective enough to confer notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The AIGA Medal is automatic notability. It is the top award a designer can get, and is only given for lifetime achievement. --Theredproject (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep receiver of the most distinguished award (AIGA medal) in the field of graphic design and visual communication is notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AIGA medal might be prestigious but 23 other individuals won the award in 2014 and we don't have articles on most of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. Articles are often created by individual who took the burden upon themselves. There are millions of notable people in the world who does not have article on Wikpedia and those that have it is by privilege. In fact Wikipedia only have articles on about 0.000001% of the total number of notable people in the world. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 24 people were awarded an AIGA medal in 2014 alone. This is not an exclusive award and if that what others are hanging notability on, it is not enough.--Rpclod (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

40 people were awarded an Oscar in April 2015, so that's an even less exclusive prize... Kraxler (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prominent advertising creative talent compared with David Ogilvy and Bill Bernbach in this account here with much coverage in the NY Times, elsewhere, plus great nonprofit work. In-depth independent reliable sources include this one, this one, this one. Plus she won awards and has had notable achievements and positions in the nonprofit world. Article upgraded as per WP:HEYMANN--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:51, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All or Nothing (band)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Joe Chill, Michig and Becky Sayles. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found in reliable sources beyond what was identified in the first AfD. --Michig (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete as sources have never been as good as they could be (not even minimal significant coverage) and my searches found none. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 28 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) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Vázquez[edit]

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

While I strongly admire her work, I'm not seeing a credible assertion of notability for this writer/activist. Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times reports on her advocacy,[13][14] her papers are archived at Smith College,[15] and her writing is discussed in Finding Out: An Introduction to LGBT Studies. Pburka (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an important leader in the LGBT and Latino/a communities. Sources are good enough. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I don't find the two New York Times mentions noted by Pburka to be compelling, having named papers at a major university seems to me evidence enough that this individual is of sufficient importance to merit encyclopedic coverage. A platform speaker at the 2004 "March for Women's Lives," covered and preserved by C-SPAN is additional evidence that this is an activist of national stature. This being a fairly common Hispanic name makes this a tough one to search. Once I searched for the exact name + "LGBT" it became an easier task. THIS is biographical coverage of presumed reliability from the Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance. HERE is an interview with Dr. Vázquez from the journal Off Our Backs, part of JSTOR. It appears that Vázquez was part of the subject matter of the DISSERTATION For Love and for Justice: Narratives of Lesbian Activism (NYU, 2014). Her national prominence is also emphasized by her participation as part of a 4 person debate on the Changes of the Gay Rights Movement at The New School in 2002 LINK. This list is not exhaustive, and it is sufficient to indicate not just a pass of GNG, but a healthy pass of GNG. Pinging Orangemike to possibly reconsider his nomination in light of the existence of these and other available sources. Carrite (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gang bang pornography#Gangbang 2000. This is her only claim to an achievement and it is a plausible search item. The subject fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG can not be passed solely by in-trade publications. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Johnson[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 17:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. AVN wrote several articles about her ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] & [22]) which cover her in the context of three different events (1. her "Gang Bang 2000" record, 2. being quarantined and testing negative for HIV after working with a performer who tested positive after their shoot, and 3. directing for Elegant Angel). Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Every single one of "Rebecca1990"'s links is to a press release, not an actual reliable source. Press releases do not count towards notability, per WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that they are press releases especially the one where she was quarantined and then tested negative for HIV? It's a bizarre reason to do one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Adult Video News" is not an actual news site, but rather a trade magazine for the porn industry. We wouldn't...or certainly shouldn't, if it is going on...use a Billboard blurb about a band to establish the band's notability. Questionable sources should be avoided when determining notability, as their are not sufficiently independent of the subject. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is both an actual news site and a reliable source and none of the sources I provided are press releases. They have authors. Press releases do not have authors and are labeled as "company news" by AVN. And before you accuse me of being a publicist (like you always do in discussions) for Johnson, let me point out that she retired 13 years ago. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is not sufficiently independent from the subjects they cover, it does not meet the general notability guide; porn actors and porn "news" sites are one large circle jerk (pun intended) of self-promotion. Porn actors are held to the same standard that any other person's Wikipedia bio is held to, so, find solid reliable sources that cover these people, otherwise it heads to deletion. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, do you hold the same opinion about a site like ESPN.com, which reports on the industry that they broadcast? I don't know if I agree with your analysis on Billboard even. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but ESPN has a history of bias accusations, so I'd be leery of relying solely on it for sourcing a story, particularly a contentious one. Another analogy would be to consider NESN and its reporting on the Boston Red Sox and Boston Bruins, who own an 85% and 15% stake in the channel, respectively; too close to the source. If gangbanging her heart out to beat a record or being quarantined for an HIV scare were legitimate public interest stories, then surely one can find some other overage of them other than AVN? Usually when we quibble about thes esorts of links, they are at least to interviews that lend a semblance of notability by discussing the subject herself to a degree of depth, but with this person it's just "person appeared in this film", "person appeared with this porn actor", and so on. Perhaps we need a guideline like WP:GEOSCOPE, we'll call it WP:PORNSCOPE. In a nutshell; if a porn tartlet falls off the bed in the middle of a 10-way midget clown shoot and no reliable source is around to hear, did she make a sound? Tarc (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, a vapid "vote". Tarc (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then Redirect to Gang_bang_pornography#Gangbang_2000 - Without doing a whole lot of research myself, the subject here appears to be most notable for a dubious attempt to break a gang bang record in the past. Guy1890 (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Damnit if only looks could be grant a pass, Anyway Fails Pornbio & GNG - All those cites listed are press releases which in terms of WP are pretty shit!, Since I can't find bugger all If anyone can find something I'd keep but as it stands it'll have to be delete. –Davey2010^Talk 04:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alem Plakalo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 17:59, 26 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) 07:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 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 20:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Marie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Passed on the last AfD on the laurels of "multiple nominations", which has since been removed as a passing criteria. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Keep but definitely needs more reliable sources to add. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — Katerina dunaway (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sofiamar (talk • contribs). [reply]

That is not an actual reason to keep an article. AfDs are not votes; if you make bad arguments, your input will just be ignored when the discussion is closed. Tarc (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. Fails GNG. Only significant coverage comes from Adult Video News. Search for additional RS coverage gets only quotes or passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very accurate statements by Spartaz, Tarc, and Gene93k. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not knocking it but not one editor provided a source in the prev AFD yet it apparently met GNG ... Well all the sources are Press releases so thus GNG isn't met, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica Leoni[edit]

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately, sadly and regretfully fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Lee[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG and the only claim to fame is someone tried to crowd source funding of medical bills - not something that is ever likely to move out of BLP1E territory - if it even reaches that level of significance Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this as a redirect to Jessie Lee Elementary School, but there seems to have been edit warring going on and Rebecca1990 repeatedly created it as the existing article. Whatever is found about her notability, I think the dab (Jessie Lee (disambiguation)) should be moved to Jessie Lee. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet pornbio or WP:N. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's sound analysis and replace per Boleyn's well-taken suggestion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:05, 31 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) Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Français Toronto[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion, as the school does not satisfy WP:GNG, pr WP:ORG with the sources it currently has, and clicking through plenty of Google search results turned up nothing that established notability. I'd also like to, in advance, state that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a guideline, and WP:ORG, plus WP:GNG are what we need to use to establish notability. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has high school component, notability assumed according to WP:COMMONOUTCOMES which means it is not necessary to try to make the subject pass WP:GNG.
Even though schooloutcomes is technically a guideline and technically schools don't have automatic notability, the reality is that high school articles are generally kept on AFD and AFD discussions regarding comprehensive high schools (or multilevel schools including comprehensive high school portions) are pointless. It is much appreciated if people stop nominating most high schools for AFD. It wastes editors' time and energy that could be used for other tasks. Wikipedians have spoken: We want articles about high schools on the English Wikipedia.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Roulmann-Murphy, Marjorie. "Au lycée français de Toronto, le meilleur des deux mondes" (Archive). L'Express. 25 August 2014. - Notability is assumed because it is assumed that sources like these exist. Think about it: LfT is a French international school in a major metropolitan area. Somebody's going to write about it somewhere, whether in Canada or France. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that that article is not affiliated with the school? It is in the "jobs" section of the newspaper, is very promotional, and then has a link "for more info" to the school's managing organization. It could be a promotional piece written by the school, because it sure looks like one. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: The author's name is "Marjorie Roulmann-Murphy" - I searched that name on Google http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/ontario/Radio/Equipe_yapas2matinspareils.shtml and I see an e-mail address for Radio Canada. The same woman wrote another article for L'Express http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualite-economique/toronto-meilleur-en-gestion-qu-au-hockey_1443593.html so she doesn't look like an employee of the school. Also it seems like the portion of the article that is written by the school is in italics at the very end (before the "see more information"). WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I would agree on deleting some very small, poorly cited, secondary schools, this one passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, seems legit enough now that there are sources. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:41, 28 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. To some extent the discussion hinges on the applicability of NLIST, but Toohoo's comment counters that, to the extent that they argue that this topic does not deserve to stand alone as an article, and claims that this fails NOTDIR support that argument. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites using two-factor authentication[edit]

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

Inherently incomplete and ever-changing list. Bikefridaywalter said it quite well, What's the point of this list? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is inherently incomplete and ever-changing. This is a list with a clear, fairly standard inclusion criteria (notable websites and reliable sources which talk about their two-step verification) and which is a notable subject appropriate for a stand-alone list. There are plenty of lists of websites with two-factor verification/authentication out there to establish notability, for example. There's an argument for merging it into two-step authentication, I suppose, but the bigger subject isn't just about websites, and even if it were, the list is sufficiently long that it would merit spinning off anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, and acknowledging this is not a good keep argument in its own right (hence being an aside), it's useful. There's a pretty clear consensus among reliable sources that enabling two-step verification on the websites you use most is beneficial from a security standpoint. That's why so many other publications publish lists like this and articles about individual sites' verification mechanisms. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: The quote in the nomination from Bikefridaywalter was about this version, when it was called two-step verification. That was the version I first saw, too. It was a mess of OR and weak sources and partly redundant to two-step authentication. I removed the garbage, moved the article to be a list, redirected the original title to two-step authentication, and added more reliable sources. It's not an ideal list, but it's an appropriate (i.e. keep-worthy) one that no longer suffers from OR, sourcing, or redundancy problems. I'm not saying that Bikefridaywalter would change his mind, but there's some context, anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to two-factor authentication or multi-factor authentication. This is trivial and fleeting information. Wikipedia is not a user's manual for the Internet. And the list is likely to grow to a ridiculous size as MFA becomes more widespread. When a particular website's use of MFA has been noted by secondary sources, e.g. a news article about Twitter adding it, that may be worth noting, and I would suggest merging only those entries of the list that have such sources. Toohool (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool: When a particular website's use of MFA has been noted by secondary sources, e.g. a news article about Twitter adding it, that may be worth noting - I would agree with a merge if it were only Google, FaceBook, and Dropbox, but there are a whole lot of sites covered by reliable sources. It's pretty easy to find sources for them, since every publication wants to tell its readers how to be safer. There were already several in the list and I just added a bunch more. That there are both news stories about individual services adding it as well as lists of sites that offer it establish notability, so I fail to see what policy-based reason there would be not to keep it. It could indeed be a relatively long list (which isn't a problem as long as we stick to those that are reliably sourced), so why would it be better for it to occupy a big portion of one of those other articles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that information can be cited to a reliable source is not sufficient to justify its inclusion. Wikipedia is a summary, not a compilation of all human knowledge. To have a comprehensive article about multi-factor authentication, we don't have to list every known place it is used. It is probably enough to give just a few examples to show that it has been growing in popularity over time period X, and has been adopted by some of the most popular web sites. Toohool (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article falls squarely into WP:NOT, as has been stated above. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 23:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. —Keφr 08:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Mansour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability tag on this article for 5 years. I see some occasional reference to him in the US Jewish press, but nothing more than a note that he's speaking. No substantial secondary source coverage. Article was deleted in 2007 but recreated at some point after that. Can't speedy because I don't know if the content is the same. agtx 15:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources in article certainly don't establish notability; coverage consists of announcements of speaking engagements. Vrac (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet general or academic-specific notability criteria Avi (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aish HaTorah is a superbly well known platform for lectures, outreach, etc. in the Orthodox Jewish arena and having spoken for this group on numerous occasions, he is notable as a speaker within Orthodox Judaism. In depth coverage is not necessary to establish notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)'[reply]
Aish is unquestionably notable, but not all of its speakers may be. Just being associated with a notable institution is not ipso facto proof of notability. Conflating the person for the institution only works when the metonymy is true (like "R' Avrohom Yehoshua's" or "R' Tzvi Kushelefsky's", when referring to the yeshivos that they head). Please see Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. -- Avi (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Keep But the article needs to be improved. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — Katerina dunaway (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sofiamar (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 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. Davewild (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Rehman[edit]

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

Non-notable figure. provided references are not reliable and independet thus not acceptable. Saqib (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meeting with the President of the United States, or being a correspodent for the various organizations he has worked for, are not enough on their own to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. sami ^talk 00:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Eagle of Georgia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ

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

Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Significant sourcing only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG going away, despite a blizzard of citations that don't actually discuss this "order" in more than a passing mention, if at all. I've nothing against self-proclaimed "nobles" of a non-existent "kingdom" declaring their right to award an honor defunct nearly a thousand years and getting fanboys running monarchist blogs to include capsule descriptions, but it's the moral equivalent of a WP:NFT violation.

This keeps getting recreated (and AfDed) every couple of years in various iterations, and at this point I think salting the name would be appropriate. Ravenswing 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- various discussions were hold when the article was posted. And it was kept as there is no fantasy on the Order having its own article. This is not about giving our own criteria on this order, as User talk:Ravenswing is doing, but about giving encyclopedic content to elements that were not included into Wikipedia and are of proven general interests. The article has shown various references, and Mr. Ravenswing keeps on his steps, trying to get it deleted. That's not the WP:NFT violation, but more precisely the personal opinion of User talk:Ravenswing. In fact, any edtor can see the references that give elements to keep the article in the multiple references and sources part, where books, newspapers, official Chivalric Organisations, and, of course as it couldn't be different, the main page of the House of Bagration, as it is logical for the Order which is awarded by them to be there, provide enough references to endorse to keep the aticle. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice try, but no. Indeed, there are book and newspaper articles cited in the article -- but they do not mention the subject in the "significant detail" that the GNG requires. The Serrano reference doesn't talk about the Order, but about the legend that Christ's tunic was taken to Georgia. The Telegraph article doesn't mention the Order at all, but about the prospects of the monarchy being restored. The second Telegraph article doesn't mention the Order at all, but instead is about the death of the last Romanov to be born in Russia. The Times of London article doesn't mention the Order at all, but instead talks about recognition of the current head of the house. The Burkes Peerage citation doesn't mention the Order at all, but instead concerns the precise title the Bagrations claim.
And so on and so forth. A careful look at this article shows that it's a rambling WP:COATRACK violation, full of facts about two holders who got married and how that purportedly bolstered interest in a constitutional monarchy, about a holder who is allegedly the most trusted man in Georgia, that Prince Jorge was invited to the most recent Spanish coronation, that the Patriarch of Georgia had called for the restoration of the monarchy. These do not pertain to the subject of this article, which is neither the Bagrations, the nation of Georgia, the ambitions of die-hard monarchists, or the blizzard of pretenders name-dropped through this article. That is indeed my personal opinion, but unlike Mr. Romanov's personal opinion, it's founded in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Ravenswing 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The articles you mention are intended to show the notability of the, after your words Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia.. The Royal House is thus, notable enough in Georgia and in the media to have enough fount of honour to keep the article. On the other hand, other and newer sources provide enough evidence to keep the article on wikipedia.

At first, the newly published Armorial of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, newely added as a source to the article, where the Histry of the Order and the biographies of the current knights and ladies are carefully described. Link to the Editor: http://www.romeditors.com/producto/armorial-de-la-orden-del-aguila-de-georgia-y-la-tunica-inconsutil-de-nuestro-senor-jesucristo/. This book has its ISBN number and has been published by an independent Editor (Romeditors).

On the other hand, this book (http://www.librosdeheraldica.com/images/historia%20de%20la%20orden%20del%20aguila.jpg), which I own, published by the Spanish Heraldic Society, where the History of the Order is described by Fernando Agudo and José Maria Montells, two reputated authors on herladry and Orders in Spain, shows more evidence of the notablity of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, what encourages it to be on wikipedia.

Finally, as you quoted some newspapers, I give you again an exlicit article from one of the most read newspapers in Spain, La Razón, where an event of the Order in Valencia is described, quoting the Order as an honourfull decoration (honroso galardón) and as the highest decoration of the Royal House (máxima condecoración de la casa real.). Here you can see the link: http://www.larazon.es/local/comunidad-valenciana/la-casa-real-de-georgia-entrega-sus-condecorac-BH2988047#.Ttt1KwXthLljf7h. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really know how serious this order is, so I'm neutral, but I listed this afd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Deletion notices Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional order issued by a non-royal house. Mukhranian nobles never had such order. Jaqeli 19:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve: It is obvious that the Order of the Eagle exists and whether it is "legitimate" or not is a matter of opinion much like the status of the Order of St. Lazarus (which I personally think is not a valid order). Wikipedia is not a publisher of the truth but of information that can be verified. We know that the House of Mukhrani exists and based on their claim to a throne (regardless of whether one supports the claim or not) they have asserted that the Head of the House is a fount of honour and can legitimately confer honors. The particular one is listed by the ICOC as an "institution of chivalric character"[23], just after the Order of Saint Michael of the Wing. It is also listed on page 1847, Part 7 - Section 3 "Orders founded by royal claimants in exile" of the work World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Guy Stair Sainty. Is it equivalent to the Order of the Garter? No, of course not. However, it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia since it is usually the first place one looks at to find information on a subject. Perhaps a better solution would be to edit the article to provide criticism of the Order and offer an opposing view on the question of validity. --Kimon^talk 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve: If the ultimate order critic Guy Stair Sainty says that it is valid - then it is valid. Sainty would not hesitate to discredit any order he found lacking. Saint Vlad (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve:This article currently acknowledges honestly that the Order has been recognised in varying degrees by different bodies according to different criteria which seems to be fair and open. Consequently, it seems that it is unfair and lacks transparency for some unknown personality within wiki to decide according to his/her own criteria that the article should be deleted. The fact is that the Order exists either as an association, private honour or full Order of Knighthood - and as it does exist there should be an article on it as otherwise we would be pretending that it does not exists. Ollamhnua (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Biblical astronomy. There is a clear consensus to move/rename/merge this to/to/with Biblical astronomy (which in itself appears to be a redirect. I invited participating voters to make sure that this finds the proper spot. With thanks to all participants, including the nominator. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical names of stars[edit]

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

OK. this is an odd one. I deleted this article as a pretty much straight copy of this web page which has a copyright notice on it, but it was then pointed out to me that the web page itself is a transcript of the "Astronomy in the Bible" entry from The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, and is thus out of copyright. My issue is - is this a viable Wikipedia article? Is it a notable topic? And more of an issue, although it's from an encyclopedia, it reads like original research. The original only has a couple of citations (see the web page mentioned above), and the ones added to this article only serve to inform single sentences about a couple of stars, not the subject as a whole. Further, of course, it contains no research done on the subject since 1907, and is therefore over a century out of date. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not really definite information, more like speculation of various people. A more promising possibility would be an article on Astronomy in the Bible, if good sources could be found. I expect they could be. Borock (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Astronomy in the Bible" now redirects to Biblical cosmology. I say change this and start a new article since they are not the same thing. Borock (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Astronomers have written entire books about this such as Maunder's Astronomy of the Bible or Schiaparelli's Astronomy in the Old Testament. See the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia for an extensive encyclopedic treatment. Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely; I'm not saying that the concept is non-notable. There's probably a good article to be written on Biblical astronomy. However, does an article 99.5% copied from a 108-year-old text with practically no evidence to back it up (in other words, original research) make a viable article? My view is that it does not, and we'd be better off starting from scratch. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists- related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (over rdirect) to Biblical astronomy -- In the early days of Wikipedia a lot of articles were taken from out-of-copyright encyclopedias; indeed that was encouraged. That is not a case of WP:OR, it is a transcript of a WP:RS, though an old one. If there has been more recent research on the subject, that should of course be added. If we started again there would be a lot of work to do. BY all measn tag it for improvement, but do not delete it. We have an article on Biblical cosmology, but that is about concepts such as heaven and earth. Biblical astronomy redirects to that, but this AFD article is much more about that subject, and we should rename this article to that title (overwriting the redirect). There is already a "see also" hat-link to the cosmology article in the AFD article. "kosmos" and "astron" are both Greek works. The latter measn "star" the former "order", whence world or universe (probably becauae it was thought to be ordered). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Peterkingiron suggests. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and subsequently rename to Biblical astronomy. It is an interesting topic which certainly deserves coverage on Wikipedia. Merging to Biblical cosmology would not be proper, however, since cosmology is technically separate from astronomy. Therefore, Biblical astronomy should have an article of its own, and this one is a good start, but the title is somewhat inaccurate, as the article discusses not only stars but planets as well. There is also plenty of space for expansion, since, as mentioned by Andrew above me, there have been full books written about the topic of Biblical astronomy. (Rather conveniently, both of the books he listed appear to be in the public domain, so if someone could look over the books and use them to expand the article...) --Biblioworm 19:56, 30 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. Really only editor argues that there is sufficient in-depth sourcing, but there is no consensus (at all) that this is indeed so. Arguments along the lines of "we know it exists but it just hasn't been written about in depth" go to the heart of what GNG requires, but misses the central point of significant discussion, which excludes brief mentions. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cubbies[edit]

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

This informal school playground version of football certainly exists as a concept (I remember playing it at junior school back in the 80s) but it has never been the subject of any coverage by reliable sources and is therefore not notable (impressively, the article seems to have existed without any references at all for over 10 years). I briefly considered merging to Glossary of association football terms, but the countless alternate names for the game would render this pretty much impossible (not to mention the total lack of reliable sources to back it up), so deletion is probably best ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is no more than a neologism, with very few reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - no indication of notability. Giant Snowman 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universally-known form of playground football, clearly notable. @JMHamo and GiantSnowman: I have added numerous references to the article. Number 5 7 18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the offline sources, but the online ones contain only the most cursory mentions of the game, for example the only mention in the Danny Webber article is "As a boy, he grew up playing ‘Wembley doubles’ with his friends in the street, dreaming of the day he would play for club or country at the most iconic stadium of all." There's not even anything to indicate what the game actually is............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the entry in the Football Book here. Here's the explanation in the Imlach book. I'm sure there is more coverage out there, but because "Wembley" (which seems to be the most common term) is widely used for other things, it's quite difficult to identify sources. I did find a relatively detailed explanation of the rules in a fictional novel, but I don't think that would be allowed as a source (although it does help show how well known it is). Number 5 7 08:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, references have been added, but these are just references highlighting mentions of the game by name or variants thereof. I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the game itself. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fenix down: Did you look at the two references directly above? They are not mentions of the game, but an explanation of what it is. Number 5 7 13:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked them. However, having had a read, the first one is a 29-word writeup outlining the game in a side box adjacent to a section on street football in general and the second is at best a paragraph on the version of the game, which does little but explain what it is. I don't think either of them are significant enough to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling to understand how other editors believe something that most people who have played football will have played at some time or other does not pass GNG – this is not a game specific to a single school (like the Eton wall game or the Eton field game) but something that is played almost everywhere under different names. Number 5 7 14:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't matter whether we've all played it, it doesn't matter what you or I know about the version of the game, that is just indicates it exists. What matters is has the variant received significant reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. I don't see anything presented that goes beyond a brief outline of what the game is. To compare to either of the Eton specific games is erroneous. It is their idiosyncrasies which has led to significant coverage outside of primary (i.e. Eton-related) sources. The fact that Cubbies has no clear rule structure, bar the presence of people and a ball makes it much less likely to pass GNG because it is so vague a construct. There is little more to cubbies than just Random kickabout in the park but we don't have that as an article because it just to vague. The fact that it would be almost impossible to pin down a name for this variant is another major alarm bell, that this is simply to nebulous (or at best to freeform) a variant to pin down via GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there are quite clear rules, with a few variations, as outlined in the article. Number 5 7 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there's no hard and fast rule on the number of players, whether its individuals or teams, the length of a game, the number goals to progress. Is headers and volleys a separate game or not? Do you progress to the next round if you score x goals, or do you go in goal yourself? I don't think that the one source you have cited for the "rules" can be used to state bojectively that "these are the rules that are followed in general whenever this game is played. The format section of the article kind of highlights this. Fenix down (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really: The number of players and goals required are the variations mentioned. The game is not timed, so there isn't a length. If you've scored enough goals, you sit out until the next round ("once a player scores, they sit out the rest of that round"). These are all quite clearly stated in the article. Number 5 7 15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really not. Who says you have to score once or twice? How many on team? How many players in total? how long is a game? This is simply not stated clearly in the article, and I fear the reason for this is that it is not stated clearly anywhere. any number of people can play this game for any length of time in any configuration for as many goals as they want. There is no getting away from that fact that this is a name for a glorified kickabout. Regardless of the point of the rules, where is the significant coverage of the game itself such as its wider popularity, its impact on football in general, etc? Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only conclude that you haven't actually read the article. Who says you have to score once or twice? "pre-determined number of goals"; How many on team? "players playing individually or in pairs". how long is a game? "The player failing to score in each round is eliminated until there is a winner." If you want an article on a football variation with no rules, see medieval football. Number 5 7 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's agree to disagree on this, we obviously have very different views about what constitutes vagueness. It's not really the issue though as I have asked several times, where is the significant coverage of the variant? All this article shows is that the game exists, and basically you can have as many people playing for however long you want. Where is the coverage of the impact of this variant? Where is the coverage of how it has influenced the wider game of football? Where is the coverage of any attempt to organise this variant into a level of competition elevating it above an informal kickabout? I just don't see anything approaching that in the article. Fenix down (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix the rules are quite specific. There can be any number of players. Play continues, with players being eliminated one by one until there is one winner. Those are specific rules. Notability does not depend on this game having an impact on the senior game nor on the existence of a formal competition. It has a fixed set of rules that are widely used in informal kickabouts. That is enough. filceolaire (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number please add the reference in the novel that you found - put it in a "In popular culture" section. filceolaire (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given that sources have been found that prove that the game exists and give a very brief outline of what it is (the crucial element missing from what I'd found), is there an article to which a brief description could be merged (I still don't think it merits its own article)? I found Variants of association football, but that consists solely of a wikilinkfarm (or whatever the correct term is) to standalone articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe here? I'm not sure though, but it does have a link to futsal, so why not to other variants? I'm happy with a merge if that's the consensus. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would now be happy to support merging a small amount of reliably sourced content into Glossary of association football terms. As far as I can see this would have to be under the cubbies/cuppies names, as those are the only names which reliable sources specifically attach to this game. The sources in the article for names like "knockout Wembley" are only to pieces which drop the names but don't actually define them, thus we can't reliably source that they relate to the same game and it is OR to assume they do..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've never heard of this, but the article gives a pretty good picture of what it's all about. The references do show that it is recognized, at least. The article is not up to WP ideal standards but I don't think there's anything bad about it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This argument seems to be little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Are you able to provide any sources that discuss the game beyond a basic explanation of rules that would show significant coverage per GNG? Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources that show it exists and is widely known. That is enough to make it notable. It is not something someone made up yesterday. It appears to be true that respectable sources have not paid a lot of attention to this and normally this is, I agree, reason enough to delete an article but I think that including this article does make wikipedia a better encyclopedia so I think it should be kept under WP:IAR. Lets start creating some common outcomes for widespread childrens games. filceolaire (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused by what you are saying, first you use WP:ITEXISTS as an argument for keeping, then explicitly state that there is not very much on the subject in reliable sources. Can you explain how IAR should be used to ignore GNG. I think this sets a worrying precedent. I do not doubt the game exists and have played it myself. What I do doubt is what you note, that there simply are not the sources out there that discuss this variant of football in any real detail. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down I don't just claim it exists; I claim that it is widespread over the world and is played as widely as association football. Being played all over makes it notable even if it doesn't meet GNG. Documenting popular children's games which have been neglected by 'reliable sources' is, I believe, something that will serve wikipedia's readers and make the encyclopedia better and so we should IAR and do it.

On the other hand List of traditional children's games does list a large number of articles about children's games which do seem to pass GNG with little more in the way of sources than those which have now been added to this article. I believe that with these added sources the article can now pass GNG. filceolaire (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenma Shibuya[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR. Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one to first place the notability tag, not because I did not think he was notable, but because I didn't see the evidence yet. The only decent article I can find on the web in Japanese is this: [24]. There does seem to be more in Chinese, however: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. But I don't know Chinese, so I want to wait for input from someone who knows Chinese and can judge whether these are significant RS or not. Michitaro (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unfortunately all of the given sources are reliable. More sources can be found through a baidu news search.--Antigng (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/TNT Current ENWP version only cites from other Chinese wikis like Baidu Baike, but reliable entertainment-press sources are not rare to pass WP:ENT, including on Kano (film) [32][33], this recently aired TV drama [34] and rather promising upcoming coverage with this upcoming movie [35][36][37]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hereby withdraw my nomination to Keep the article since notability has been established. I'm closing this debate to prevent a waste of time of other editors. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:04, 28 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. Davewild (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Horace Neudeck[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable child actor/model whose career ended in 2008. Quis separabit? 23:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose rather than move to one of the linking TV show articles because there's not any good coverage to suggest improvement, he was mainly a child actor and this is vulnerable to BLP issues. SwisterTwister talk 16:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--RioHondo (talk) 03:42, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian cities by GDP (PPP)[edit]

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

This article duplicates that information in List of cities by GDP relating to India. List of cities by GDP provides the same ability to see Indian cities ordered by GDP (see Help:Sorting#Secondary key), but with a choice of GDP surveys, PPP and nominal. And clearly List of cities by GDP provides the ability to see how Indian cities compare with others across the world. Batternut (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Batternut (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to List of cities by GDP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separation still a needed for more detail. UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 06:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for being redundant fork. Also, its just based on a single source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:17, 28 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 Alton Towers. Don't usually close on one !vote but seems the obvious outcome here, No point dragging it on so rediretc it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade (Alton Towers)[edit]

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

This is a mass-produced ride that is not unique or different. Article fails to shown any notability. Astros4477 (Talk) 03:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't separately notable it should be merged or redirected to the article about the model. Peter James (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alton Towers. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:39, 26 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. Davewild (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eminem feuds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eminem feuds

Articles for deletion/List of Eminem feuds (2nd nomination)

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

A trivial list of mostly WP:FANCRUFT. Koala15 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 06:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-encyclopedic content and probably BLP violation. So not relevant. Do we already have a "Wikipedia is not Buzzfeed" essay? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikimandia, Most of this is in the Eminem article so is redundant anyway!, Anyway clearly FANCRUFT & Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horribly written, poorly-sourced gossip with a highly unencyclopedic tone. Any notable content could go on Eminem's main article. Hip-hop beefs surely come under the definition of routine coverage, not real news, i.e. this is trivia. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge back into Eminem. These stupid feuds are what really made him famous. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:17, 30 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.

Note: I strongly disagree with the content of the non-administrative closure, below. I agree that the result of the discussion is keep, but it is not for the reasons given. The consensus of the discussion is explicitly not that the subject passes GNG; the discussion of the sources is quite clear: there is considerable disagreement over how they are to be weighed. In the end, ANYBIO must carry the day: at least one acceptable source verifies the Murrow award, which is significant enough (that it is is not disputed). Drmies (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep (non-admin closure). The consensus is that, while the article may not meet each specification of WP:JOURNALIST, Mackenzie meets WP:GNG. At the end of the day, the Toronto Sun and Etobicoke Guardian articles are independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the article subject - ample evidence that the subject meets GNG. North of Eden (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Mackenzie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting for further consideration following a no-consensus close in February. The core issue is that the article is not based on substantive coverage in properly reliable sources, but is resting entirely on a "local celebrities show off their homes" puff piece in a newspaper's "Homes and Condos" column (#1), a journalism school newsletter (#2) and her own primary source profile on the website of her own employer (#3). While the article asserts an award win that would get her over WP:JOURNALIST if it were properly sourced, as written it's sourced only to that "look at my lovely furniture" advertorial rather than a real news article. As always, a journalist does not get into Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify the fact that she exists — she gets into Wikipedia by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Still a delete unless it can be salvaged with much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to pass notability at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure she meets WP:JOURNALIST, however, she passes WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of an Edward R. Murrow Award, a "significant award". WP:GNG is enhanced by this lengthy article in Inside Toronto, a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person passes WP:ANYBIO on the basis of the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support a claim to passing ANYBIO — not on the basis of an unsourced or "sourced only to the Etobicoke Guardian" (a community weekly that is not widely distributed enough to count toward satisfying GNG) claim. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I hope you're not planning on aggressively rebutting every "keep" comment. That would certainly intimidate other editors who may wish to respond. Other editors should note that the Etobicoke Guardian is published by Metroland Media Group, a reputable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "every" keep comment, but certainly the ones based on invalid reasoning. The Etobicoke Guardian is a limited-circulation community weekly newspaper which does not count toward the meeting of WP:GNG — a source can be "reliable" for the confirmation of facts while failing to be acceptable for the conferral of notability under GNG, and community weeklies of the Etobicoke Guardian ilk fall in that class of sourcing. Regardless of who the publishing company is, a community weekly newspaper can never confer notability on its own, but may only be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after you've already covered off her notability with sufficient sourcing of the Toronto Star/The Globe and Mail/National Post ilk. It cannot bring the notability in and of itself, if it's the best sourcing you can find — it's not that it's an unreliable or entirely disallowed source, it's that it's not widely distributed enough to be a notability-conferring source. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was nominated for deletion in February 2015, and then relisted twice. The result was "no consensus". The same editor who first nominated it for deletion did so again in July 2015. It was then relisted. That make 5 listings in 6 months. WP:RELIST states: "relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice." This seems to be pushing the spirit of the policy. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to continually relisting the original discussion more than twice. It does not preclude initiating a new discussion five or six months after a no-consensus close on the first one, if the substance of the problem still hasn't been dealt with. And, for the record, you were the only person who voted to keep the first time — solely on the basis of being able to add one more inadequate source that still doesn't properly support her notability, because it was fundamentally about her living room furniture rather than her work as a journalist. The lack of consensus landed because nobody else even participated in the discussion at all besides you and me — an increasingly common problem across all of AFD these days — and note that the closer explicitly cited "no prejudice against speedy renomination" in his closure rationale. I notice you left those parts of the story out of your summary above — but if you're going to accuse me of acting improperly in this matter, then you don't get to leave out that much of the context. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of an Edward R. Murrow Award, a "significant award". Excluding sources published by her employer, four other reliable sources have been cited in the article, and each has written detailed articles about this person. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go over this again: #1 = article in the Homes and Condos section about her living room furniture, therefore counting for nothing toward GNG. #2 = journalism school newsletter, counting for nothing toward GNG. #3 = community weekly newspaper, counting for nothing toward GNG. #4 = another journalism school newsletter, counting for nothing toward GNG. #5 = glancing namecheck of her existence in a press release, counting for nothing toward GNG. #6 = primary source. So where are these four reliable sources you speak of? Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have inferred that the Etobicoke Guardian is not a reliable source, yet it has had its own Wikipedia article for 8 years. Why have you not nominated it for deletion? And the Toronto Sun has a daily circulation of over 100,000. Also, please don't be condescending by writing: "let's go over this again". You were the one who nominated this article for deletion a second time; be prepared to state your case respectfully a second time. Administrator Bearcat, this is the second time I've felt the need to comment on your aggressive tone. I find it intimidating; please stop it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a rule that only newspapers with large enough circulations to confer notability under GNG are allowed to have Wikipedia articles about the newspapers — whether the paper is a notable topic is a completely different matter than whether the newspaper has a wide enough circulation to contribute to GNGing a person that the newspaper has covered. If a newspaper of that class could get a person over GNG by itself, we'd have to keep an article about every person who ever coordinated a church bake sale. (That said, the article about the newspaper is completely unsourced and demonstrates no notability of its own — so consider it redirected to its parent company forthwith.)

And I didn't cast aspersions on the Toronto Sun as a publication, either — I pointed out that the citation to the Toronto Sun that you added to this article is not covering Carolyn Mackenzie in the context of her work as a journalist, but in the context of her taste in living room furniture. Being the subject of a "look at my lovely home" advertorial in a newspaper's Homes and Condos section does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the person belongs in an encyclopedia — it wouldn't matter whether it was in the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the New York Times or the Washington Post, it would still be an article about her taste in interior design rather than her work. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does pass WP:JOURNALIST criteria #4c: "has won significant critical attention" for winning the Edward R. Murrow award and sources cited above by user:Magnolia677 verify this, regardless of other topics of the article. Additionally, I would not characterize a university magazine as a journalism school newsletter. A university magazine, such as the one cited in the article, has higher standards of journalism than a newsletter. Techtacular (talk) 13:42, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Engineering Company[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing good to suggest independent notability with the best results of my searches here, here and here. At best, out of the linking articles, I think this could be moved to Lewis H. Nash. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 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, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator. This article would be good on the company's about us | history page, but there is nothing that rises to the level of WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nash Liquid Ring vacuum pump is widely used in industry and there are lots of secondary sources verifying that the Nash Engineering company developed this important item of mechanical engineering equipment. I have added references to support the article Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of searches rapidly established that the Nash Vacuum Pump really was a thing, a significant thing in 20th century industry, a version continues in production. Thanks to User:Waynejayes, it now has some reliable sourcing. More could be done to improve the article, certainly, but that is not a quesiton for AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Kasautii Zindagii Kay[edit]

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

Very badly sourced fancruft Vibhss (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all but the last award appear to be notable, so neither part of this nomination is correct, and there is absolutely no reason to believe the information is unverifiable. This instead seems like a standard WP:SPLIT from the parent TV series article (see contents of Category:Lists of awards by television series), and would at a minimum be merged back there, but seems too large for that. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The references listed in the article are from weebly.com which was claimed as an unreliable source in the talk page of the article Kasamh Se. The source along with the information it provided was removed from the article. (Of course, now all the sources in Kasamh Se are totally reliable. No sources from weebly.com are mentioned in the article) Same should be done to this article. It must be deleted as it is largely based on sources from weebly.com. Vibhss (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have a claim that weebly made up or is the only source that exists for this information, and we do not blank content that is verifiable just because we don't like the sources currently in an article. Doing so is contrary to WP:V as well as editing policy at WP:PRESERVE. I've reverted the content you blanked from this list because it seemed to be done without regard to whether sourcing was possible, and you also blanked most of the list's intro and the awards tally infobox for no reason I can discern. I'm going to chalk this up to unfamiliarity with our policies and practices as I see that you're a brand new editor, but you really need to read through WP:V more carefully before you remove any more content. A better practice for now might be to post a question on the list's talk page asking for guidance as far as what sourcing is appropriate for notable awards and about what actually qualifies as "fancruft" (the fact that a show won an actual, notable award is most certainly not). postdlf (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I am well aware of the wikipedia policies and I AM NOT A BRAND NEW EDITOR. I have been editing wikipedia for last three years. I somehow forgot my last account's password. As I mentioned earlier, most of the refernces in List of accolades received by Kasautii Zindagii Kay are blogs from weebly.com which is unreliable surces. Besides, just go through the references. Some of them just show an error of "temporarily blocked or unavailable". You can't treat that like a reliable source. If you just view the introductory paragraph, you will definitely find that unsourced fancruft. It doesn't even meet the notability guidelines of wikipedia. Besides this, I have not removed everything from the article. It is according to Wikipedia policy that unless you provide a reliable source, once again I am saying a reliable one, any registered editor can remove badly sourced information from the article. It is my deeply humble request to go through the references mentioned in the article, then decide whether you can place them under reliable category or not. Wikipedia does not treat blogs as reliable sources. I really claim that there are no other reliable sources supporting the fancruft info in the article. If you can, then please find them. As I mentioned earlier, in article Kasamh Se, I myself had cited the sources from weebly.com to support the awards info, but some experienced users to name for a few, User:Thomas.W, User:MarnetteD, User:Yamaguchi先生, User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom removed those awards for which I had cited sources from weebly.com claiming them to be unreliable. I even received an administrator warning to stop adding unreliable sources from weebly. Same should be done to this article as most references are from weebly.com. I myself found that weebly offered conflicting information in Indian Telly Awards. For example, all reliable sources mention Ashwini Kalsekar winning the Indian Telly Award for Best Actress in a Negative Role for Kasamh Se in the year 2006 whereas weebly tells that the award was won by Urvashi Dholakia for Kasautii Zindagii Kay. How can an editor tolerate wrongful sources/ unreliable sources in an article related to one of the most popular Indian soap operas like Kasautii Zindagii Kay. I can find myself that you are a great fan of this serial. But that doesn't mean wikipedia will provide wrong/ unsourced/ conflicting facts. Unless you find reliable sources for the article, don't include the information with unreliable sources supporting it by reverting my edits. Once again I declare that this article must be deleted as soon as possible according to wikipedia policies as it is almost entirely based on unreliable sources from weebly. I removed the telly box info because the totaling of awards couldn't be said with surity unless reliable sources had been provided. I have reverted your edits to my previous stored version. Almost no source in the article is reliable. See:WP:RSVibhss (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing "fancruft" in the intro at all; it just seems like a neutral summary of what awards the show has received, which is completely appropriate for a separate list of the show's accolades. And the infobox totaling the awards merely totaled those listed in the article, which is again just a summary of the list's contents. I have a hard time believing that notable wards (i.e., those we have articles about) such as the Asian Television Awards or The Global Indian Film and TV Honours are somehow unverifiable. Such claims come up time and time again in Indian TV AFDs, and it's almost always the result of WP:SYSTEMIC bias and/or people being unfamiliar with how to research the information. It looks like there might be issues with online sources being unstable, but that still leaves libraries. There's also no deadline here or other urgency that would require us to blank the content right this second so visitors to the page can't even tell what needs sourcing, let alone AFD participants who should see what the potential range of information is. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Vibhss: I agree with this removal, btw, as there's not even any context there to identify who conducted these polls or when, which makes that section completely unverifiable. postdlf (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep per user:Postdlf. Being badly sourced is a reason to delete, it's a reason to tag it as needing better sourcing. There is not the slightest reason to believe this show has not received these awards. filceolaire (talk) 16:26, 26 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. Davewild (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Berliner[edit]

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

Kelo was a big case, but I ultimately don't think it is enough to carry Dana Berliner to notability. She gets mentioned in the press occasionally [38], but that's about it for secondary sources.. Agtx (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article demonstrates she is one of the leading people in the field of limits to eminent domain use litigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being counsel in one US Supreme Court case is not sufficient.--Rpclod (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dana Berliner's works have plenty of citations from several peer-rewieved journals (such as Hastings Law Journal, Yale Law Journal, Journal of Labor Research and several others), books printed by both Elsevier and Springer. Her work has been covered by USA mainstream medias such as The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The Washington Post, and several major radio and television broadcasts, since pretty much her beginnings through nowadays. Add to all that the Kelo case, and I can safely argue that her notability is well established as a major authority in the field of eminent domain. There is no need to delete the aforementioned article, just to polish it a little, and improve its sources. Toffanin (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
procedural delay. I have just noticed that the original reporter (@agtx) has removed some content from the wiki article and then nominate it for deletion; even if the removal was legit (it seems so by WP:C policies), this type of behaviour is inappropriate as it makes the article look much weaker than it was before, thus erroneously influencing the users and consequently affecting the decisions made about the AfD. The part removed was essentially a list of secondary sources from respected mainstream publications (by WP:V policies). For now, I assume good faith about the reporter and I formally ask a procedural delay to properly investigate those sources and then have someone "fluent in law" (I'm not) review the entire article. Sorry for the pedantry. Toffanin (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @Toffanin: If you read the edit summary, you'll note that I removed it because it was as copyright violation. Regardless of the nomination, we're obliged to take out directly and obviously infringing content. Agtx (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* I have read your edit summary, that is why I have wrote in my previous comment "even if the removal was legit (it seems so by WP:C policies)". I acknowledge the legitimacy of your edit. The point is that you didn't eliminated a long paragraph, or an entire section ripped off from copyrighted materials, but just a single sentence of mere ~30 words, of which half of them were a list of secondary sources. You did it right after the AfD nomination. On top of that, you didn't followed the rest of the WP:C policies (for example alerting the contributor of the copyright infringement, or tagging the article for investigation before the elimination of the content (see WP:CV101 for reference). That is a little too convenient for my taste. Toffanin (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* All I see in the diffs is the removal of a single, un-referenced sentence, and not even one that would have made a difference to me in evaluating the article. Am I missing something? LaMona (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope LaMona, you're not missing anything. As for Toffanin's implication that I'm up to shady dealings, I assure you that I am not. I chose to AfD this instead of prod it because I wasn't sure whether it would be controversial. Seeing as the article is infrequently edited, a prod would likely have silently gone through with no discussion, which would have been far sneakier but, of course, inappropriate. As far as the single removed sentence, I found the issue after the nomination while doing continuing research on the subject's notability. I did not inform the original contributor about the copyvio because that person hasn't made an edit on Wikipedia since 2007. The "secondary sources" in that sentence were unreferenced, and I am not able to find corroboration for most of them. I figured that the edit summary would be sufficiently clear to explain to any concerned person why I removed the sentence, but perhaps I should also have specifically called it out here. If my transparency was lacking, I apologize. However, I do not appreciate the bad faith implied in your last comment, ("That is a little too convenient..."), and I would ask you to dial it back a little bit. We're all on the same side here. Agtx (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need to consider whether citations of her papers satisfy PROF. This a bit difficult since GScholar incorrectly lists some of her papers several times. As far as I can see "Public Power, Private Gain" has 67 cites (ie 30 + 23 + 6 + 4 + 2 + 2), "Rethinking the Reasonable Belief Defense to Rape" has 65 (ie 62 + 3), "Opening the Floodgates" has 25 (ie 10 + 6 + 5 + 2 + 2) and "Government Theft" has 5. That would be a GScholar h-index of 4. The average for a (full) law professor is 2.8 according to LSE. James500 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High power attorney for the Institute for Justice which is a pioneering law firm spearheading an effort to reform civil forfeiture practices by police. Numerous references possible here. Article needs a makeover.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very few, if any, of those articles are actually about Berliner. They throw in a quote by her, but they aren't about her. agtx 22:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But all of them, taken together, are impressive. The Wikipedia rule is If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, so it is easy to make a case for notability on that basis. Further, the cause of property rights is such an important one, with powerful consequences for all Americans, and since she is a major player in the American legal and political world, it explains why so many newspapers have considered her as an authority on this matter. Not only that, she testified at length before Congress. Further, her report Public Power, Private Gain chronicles numerous instances of abuse of property rights. She received a "Best Lawyers" award in 2009. But the topper is being co-lead counsel in the Kelo v New London landmark case. Machiavelli in his book Discourses on Livy wrote about how lawyers can exert a powerful influence in curbing abuse by officials (then, kings; today, greedy governments), and I believe Alexis de Tocqueville echoed a similar sentiment, and this is what is happening here -- the Institute for Justice is having a powerful impact in fighting abuses through legal channels and publicizing what is going on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per user:Tomwsulcer. filceolaire (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IBID Seems fine as regards to WP:GNG. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:46, 27 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. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Semester in the Life of a Garbage Bag[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK: I am unable to find any non-trivial reviews of the novel. The article has been tagged with {{Notability}} for 5 years and the none of the three references show any notable coverage. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gordon Korman obviously as I wouldn't see any actual need to delete but the best sourcing I found was this, no significant or considerable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria - by a long shot. Unfortunately, many others of this author's books have pages, and I am assuming that few if any of them arise to notability by the criteria listed. I looked at a few, and none had sufficient references: Son_of_Interflux, Don't_Care_High, The_Twinkie_Squad. The latter has been marked for lack of references since 2008. LaMona (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several reviews. The Buffalo Public Library has transcriptions of reviews from Publishers Weekly and Booklist Review. (The book came out in 1987, slightly pre-everything-is-on-the-internet-now.) Then there are non-trivial reviews at AllReaders.com, marveloustales.com, ~~tvtropes.org~~ and scholastic.ca. That should suffice to pass WP:NBOOK. Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tvtropes is a wiki and far from a reliable source. Marveloustales just looks like a blog. The other reviews look good though; thank you for finding them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a strange feeling about tvtropes, better strike it then. Blogs may be accepted for reviews if they are independent, and the review is non-trivial. Anyway, in this case, it's just one more. Kraxler (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews found by Kraxler (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (books).
Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #2 says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Cunard (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've been around this before, but Booklist and PW are, like Kirkus, review journals that review many thousands of books every year. The books are submitted by the publishers and there are long standing relationships with many publishers. This means that they will review every book published by certain established publishers. Reviews are short (PW reviews average around 200 words), and primarily give a synopsis of the book's story. While those reviews are worth mentioning, using them to establish notability is not, IMO, valid. LaMona (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Leroy Bailey[edit]

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

As much information this article has, my searches (News, Books, browser, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing) and the only current sources are interviews with family and friends and the blogspot for the Chicago Artist Archives. The article has existed since July 2008 with basically no improvement and I'm not seeing any anytime soon. As usual, I could've PRODded this but I wanted a consensus to compliment it. It's also worth mentioning User:RayAYang mentioned these issues at the talk page the day of the article's inception and I'm not from Chicago so I'm not sure how much about him is stored away in archives (probably not marginally locally notable). SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything - nada. I tried the Chicago Tribune archive - zip. I found this: [39] which says that he received a Pollock-Krasner Foundation grant, but the foundation's web site has a list of all of its grantees, and he's not listed. Plus that might be a different Bob Bailey. (His web site says he goes by "Bob"). Other than his web site, I can't even verify that he exists. LaMona (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 26 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 the article is promotional (though nominator should be warned: this in itself is not a reason for deletion!) and lacks reliable secondary sources verifying notability. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moxkito[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has quite a bit of links but nothing that catches my attention as solid and my searches found this which was the best result. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not written neutrally and reliable sources does not significantly cover the subject.--JAaron95 ^Talk 16:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't really get it when enock went like its not catchy. This topic has been solved so am wondering why enock nominated it again. Lets focus on other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.169.16 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC) — 41.215.169.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Over 36 references not being enough and catchy is arguable. Feel the hustle of the young kid and what he built. I think enough reference has been cited and with time more will be added. I vote for keep rather than to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincy Adomarko (talk • contribs) 08:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC) — Quincy Adomarko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep [[User:SwisterTwister| Your search was wrong. Moxkito is not a book or anything related to what you searched. Hes a music producer and artiste in Ghana. Check your location and search well. This is the right search line ^[1] Preceding comment added by User:Patrick Asamoah Asadu — Patrick Asamoah Asadu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: The birth name of the subject of this article is "Asadu Felix" or "Felix Asadu" (as mentioned in the sources)

^ Moxkito Search https://www.google.com.gh/search?q=moxkito&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=rie-VfCzB4LTygOe6YnQDg

Delete promo advert, WP:BOMBARDed with primary sources, press releases and trivial mentions Kraxler (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EZ CD Converter[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable software. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this is non-notable without significant supporting reliable sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to ReplayGain (where it is mentioned) as my searches found nothing to suggest good improvement and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Please note that the user who created the article also added the link in ReplayGain. That piece information remains unreferenced, too. I oppose redirect on the grounds that it's a very trivial term, isn't synonymous with ReplayGain, and ReplayGain doesn't even have a section to point a useful redirect to. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 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 the article does not meet the notability guidelines. This does not prevent anyone from creating a redirect as suggested. Davewild (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Friend Scooby Doo![edit]

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

Potentially non-notable app. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion For My Friend Scooby Doo!

I highly disagree with the deletion of the article, because it tells true and uproot facts about the specific topic. Thanks Deftomo2 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Deftomo2 @I dream of horses:[reply]

"But it's true!" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Gparyani (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof whatsoever that this is notable by our standards. Deftomo2, please see WP:NOTABILITY for the relevant guidelines and policies. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. "No proof". Really. Why don't you just download it for yourself and you will find out. @Drmies: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deftomo2 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 26 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it does tell us how notable it can be later on, but we assess our notability based on the present, not the future. Gparyani (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable in the present. Maybe in the future, but certainly not right at this moment. Gparyani (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Scooby-Doo#Video_games. Scooby Doo is notable as a character and a show, but the game does not automatically inherit this notability because it exists. (WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ITEXISTS) I cannot find where this game has actually received coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS, as the only non-WP:PRIMARY sources are ones in various download and forum type sites. The game is new, but the problem with app games (even ones that are officially licensed) is that there are a lot of mobile app games. It's actually fairly rare that they ever gain the coverage necessary to warrant an article and the more time that passes, the less likely it will be that the app will ever gain this coverage. At the same time though, this game is officially licensed and as such, could be listed at Scooby-Doo#Video_games. However I need to stress that this is the only place it should be listed at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Regret to tell Deftomo2 that what you said was not how you argue to keep an article. There are potential sources here and there though, to do it justice: Android Community (reliable?) USA Today (is 1/3 of a list about kids mobile games). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. I don't think Hisashiyarouin's references quite rise to the level of WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 14:39, 28 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) 18:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Tokyogirl's location. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 08:24, 29 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] Moxkito Search https://www.google.com.gh/search?q=moxkito&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=rie-VfCzB4LTygOe6YnQDg

[1]