Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 July	31 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillaryland[edit]

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

Delete Stub Article, neologism, non-nuetral, Not notable. Chrononem ☎ 23:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination fails to list a single reason why this should be deleted. Saying its "not notible" (sic) doesn't make it so; there are enough sources to demonstrate its notability. Being a stub or "non-nuetral" (sic) aren't valid reasons for deletion either. This seems POINTY given the nominator's editing history. Calidum T|C 23:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google Books search shows a least a couple dozen books discussing it. The first one up in the search, from the serious, mainstream Gerth–Van Natta biography of 2007, says "A campaign aide for Bill Clinton created the nickname “Hillaryland” in 1992, and the label appropriately defined an important subculture during the Clinton presidency." Books through to her Secretary of State days continue to mention it; see the Parnes–Allen book and the Ghattas book. An article on it here is merited. Yes, the article is still a stub, and yes it should be improved in terms of explaining the historical significance of this group of aides, but 'needs improvement' does not imply 'needs deleting'. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Muboshgu and his meat-puppets I will wager no editor who looks at this deletion request has ever heard of Hillaryland. Further, I'd suggest that if I hadn't pointed out his meat puppetry to User:Professor_JR the Proposed deletion would have gone through without any of you digging through my edit history and attempting to sabotage it. Anyone who looks at the article will know it's trash. Chrononem ☎ 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it watchlisted for years and contributed to it several times back in 2007–08. If Muboshgu hadn't taken off the prod I would have. If you look at the page info you'll see that 41 different editors have made changes to it. Anyone who's knowledgeable about HRC's career is familiar with the term. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forty one in nine years, why, there's a median of... look at that, zero edits a month. Practically bustling with activity; and only half of them vandalism. Chrononem ☎ 01:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not in a good state, but lack of activity is not a reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google Books search shows quite conclusively that the topic is notable. Frequency of editing, or lack thereof, says nothing about notability. Why, after all, would many people be motivated to edit this article in the last seven years? Things have changed and this article should stay. By the way, I have nothing to do with Muboshgu, and I have heard the term for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – What a ludicrous rationale for deletion. Firstly: stubs don't automatically qualify for deletion because they are stubs. Secondly, I'm not exactly seeing where this article fails WP:NPOV – it seems pretty neutral to me. Lastly: The whole reference section in the article with citations from The New York Times and The Washington Post, to name a couple, negate the nominator's "Not notible" (sic) claim. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hillaryland had its own subculture, based on camaraderie, never leaking information to the press, and having plenty of toys and cookies around for the children of staffers - as Hillary put it, 'While the West Wing had a tendency to leak... Hillaryland never did, and every child who ever visited knew exactly where we stashed the cookies.'"

Yeah, MelbourneStar, the above pasage is about two thirds of the article. It sure ozes neutrality, it's practically Switzerland. Chrononem ☎ 12:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you conveniently missed out the part of that sentence which started with "according to Clinton" – and ended with "As Hillary put it". That's not Wikipedia's view on the matter, that's Clinton's view – big difference. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevent, the article can be broken down into four statements: "Hillaryland is a neologism for 'HRC's advisors'", "These people are HRC's advisors", "They're special because all are women except one gay man and they used to work for the Clintons", and "Hillary thinks they're great". Does not merit an article, is not written from a neutral point of view, describes a neologism, and should be deleted.

It can't be neutral if a quarter of the content is dedicated to praise, even if it's not in Wikipedia's voice.Chrononem ☎ 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now significantly expanded and updated the article. I've taken off the stub marker, I've added some quotes about the significance of Hillaryland in both the White House and the 2008 campaign, I've updated it for a couple of other periods, and I've included the line of criticism that the insularity of Hillaryland was one of the factors in her 2008 campaign failure. I think this should satisfy many, if not all, of the nominator's concerns. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. It's a real thing. It passes the General Notability Guidelines in that it is well covered by reliable sources. Also, the reasons given for the suggested deletion are bizarre, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:NEO's quite the puzzler.

"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

Chrononem ☎ 18:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is about the group of advisors, not the neologism they called themselves. Your rationale makes no sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same with all neologism articles, you're confusing wikipedia and wiktionary. Wikipedia does not have articles about words.Chrononem ☎ 19:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. This article is about a group of people collectively known as "Hillaryland". It is not an article about a word, and it does not belong in the Wiktionary. Perhaps you nominated this for deletion in jest? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding. I will make this very simple for you: Neologism articles are not allowed on wikipedia, the term "Hilleryland" is a neologism. An entry about the term would be on wiktonary; an article about what the term describes would be on wikipedia. Since the term "Hillaryland" is a neologism, the article on wikipedia about what the term describes violates WP:NEO and merits deletion. Chrononem ☎ 04:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the guideline, Chrononem. No where does the guideline say that articles about neologisms "are not allowed on Wikipedia". Although we delete many promotional articles about newer neologisms which have not received significant coverage in reliable sources, this is exactly the opposite: A neologism that goes back at least a quarter of a century, which has received in depth coverage in countless reliable sources, not only of the term and its origin, but also of the real team of people that it describes. Please do not try to delete Watergate as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that you enter "Category:Neologisms" into the search box. You will see that we have hundreds of such articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll up about 7 comments you'll see I've quoted the part of WP:NEO that descibes what kind of neologisms are allowed. I think you'll find that this is not.Chrononem ☎ 12:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been stated, this is not an article on a neologism. It is an article about a group of people. You might have an argument for renaming the article (if a better name could be found, which is unlikely), but certainly there is no conceivable argument for deletion since it easily meets WP:GNG. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable term referring to Hillary's inner circle. Numerous hits in news articles from the major reliable sources that cover U.S. politics. Kudos to Wasted Time R for improving it from its poor state at the time of the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. "Hillaryland" as an article subject met notability criteria when the article was created more than eight years ago (substantial coverage in RS right here [1]) and still does. The interpretation of WP:NEO that I've seen above is far off the mark and verges on obstructive WP:wikilawyering. North of Eden (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' The Reliable Sources in the article clearly establish that this group of advisors is notable and that "Hillaryland" is its common name. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Houston Museum District, where it is already mentioned. After two relistings without additional input, this seems like the appropriate outcome. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Center, Houston[edit]

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

I've had this article sitting in my watchlist for years. I don't quite think this meets the WP:GNG, not to mention it has tone problems and lacks references. Raymie (t • c) 04:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Houston Museum District for now as my searches ultimately found nothing to suggest a separate article, here, here and here. I'm from Texas but not Houston so I'm not entirely familiar with this museum. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:30, 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 redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District. Consensus has been to redirect schools, I can only suggest if anyone has an issue that they go to the WP:AFD talkpage or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES talkpage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limerick Avenue Elementary School[edit]

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

Not notable except for having been visited by Laura Bush and another person, an entertainer. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not enough to establish notability, and in general elementary school are not considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District as per precedent denoted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NorthAmerica. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do not redirect. Unless this school is mentioned in the Los Angeles Unified School District article, there is nothing for the reader to see there. It would be confusing and pointless to have him or her try to find it amidst the welter of words on that page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:58, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostatic psychology[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe theory of psychology. No reliable independent sources could be found discussing this topic. The sources given are books written by the article author himself. Apparently he is the creator of this methodology and appears to be using Wikipedia in attempt to promote it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any reliable sources for this; not notable. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not encyclopedic in format, and there is no sign that any reliable sources exist. Looie496 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh...obvious delete. "Homeostasis is the Foundation of medicine. Health is the embodiment of homeostasis. Homeostatic Psychology enriches the connotation of homeostasis". LMAO! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trisha Paytas. Despite AfD not being a forum for merge-only proposals, the consensus in this short discussion is to merge to Trisha Paytas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Paytas discography[edit]

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

Actually proposing merge with Trisha Paytas, but considering only two editors have contributed to this article, and not many more at the main bio article, I didn't think consensus would easily be gained. Article is unreferenced, none of the releases charted on a national chart, only contains two EP's and a handful of singles. Easily summed up at the main bio article's discography section. Azealia911 _talk 22:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Note Music videos have for some reason been moved from her videography to her discography, but I still take the same stance. Article has gone from having no references to having two unverified instagram links and a unverified youtube channel link. Azealia911 _talk 07:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 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) 17:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trisha Paytas. There is no reason for this to be WP:SPLIT at this time. Random86 (talk) 07:43, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universities medical assessment partnership[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Graeme Bartlett (who removed prod) and Belovedfreak (who tagged this for notability). Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 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) 17:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not see what it wrong with this. If it were a category for the subscribing institutions, I would immediately want to delete it as category clutter, but it is a factual article. I do not understand the merits of the map within the article which seesm to colour in the counties where medical schools are, not the locations of the schools. It is not necessarily the NHS areas for which the relevant teaching hospitals are responsible. They may (but do not necessarily) coincide with county boundaries. The map should accordingly be removed as misleading. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure but maybe keep simply because it seems acceptable - My searches found nothing with the best being this, this and this. I'd like to get some other users' insights before commenting further. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Associated RC10[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable for a separate article and my searches found no outstandingly good sources here and here (these were the best results). None of the linking articles look like a good move target aside from Associated Electrics where it is sparsely mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 16 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) 17:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator fails to state a valid rationale for deletion. It is often shameful to see a nomination without a rationale. Editors need not apparently be reminded that a valid rationale should accompany a nomination. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Akinsehinde[edit]

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

Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ - as no delete rationale is given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: He seems to like any notability. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iady391: Care explain why? Just not notable is not a valid argument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: He does not appear to meet either of the two criteria in this article Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Association_football. One source is dead, and the other is trivial stats. Iady391 | Talk to me here 22:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played for Nigeria, meaning he meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what league though? Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 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 merge to Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable school created by someone clearly affiliated with the subject of the article; probably an intention to promote, but not really promotional. Gparyani (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis. A lot of the content can be stripped out, but some can be merged into the university's article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis, as a unit of the university. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 20:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis § Purdue University programs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 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 speedy close as the article was already deleted again by User:RHaworth. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otilia Bruma[edit]

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

This was speedily deleted twice ([2], [3]), and with good reason: the article's subject is a random would-be starlet, with no plausible claim to notability, as defined by the relevant policies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How rude and disrespectful. Otilia already has an article on the Turkish Wikipedia, and it is allowed for the article to be translated into other languages including English. Leave her alone. Chinesemusicfan (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem rude or disrespectful at all - I read it as an objective viewpoint based on suitability guidelines. Nominator is quite justified in that conclusion as that is what the evidence suggests. Subject doesn't meet WP:MUS. Moot now as decision has been made.Rayman60 (talk) 22:46, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Henderson (teacher)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a high school teacher, whose only substantive claim of encyclopedic notability is his status as a not-yet-elected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia, and nothing else here would have gotten him into Wikipedia before being named a candidate. So while he'll certainly be eligible for recreation in October if he wins his seat, nothing that's been written or sourced here gets him an article today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TEDx speaker, high school teacher, or prospective political candidate are all not enough for notability. They are all things that one could be notable for with enough high-level media coverage, but we don't have that here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination and David Eppstein. Not notable by the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Gómez Bermúdez[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Previously accepted via WP:AfC, so taking here. C 679 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played games in a fully professional league, thus passing WP:NFOOTY.Sulfurboy (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of that? C 679 16:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source showing the division he plays in to be fully professional can be found here.

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The Costa Rican league is not fully-professional. Giant Snowman 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 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. Sulfurboy's comments are erroneous, there is no consensus that any league in Costa Rica is fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a confirmed fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems silly Costa Rica's top division isn't considered fully professional, since they're a top 15 country in soccer and everyone in their premier and second division get a minimum salary (which I would assume to be the definition of fully professional). I just assumed it was one that hadn't been added to the football project page list, since, like it says, it is incomplete. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source substantiating the minimum salary claim? If so, please present it at WT:FPL, that would be a key piece of evidence to help achieve consensus on the league. Fenix down (talk) 16:27, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Harwood (businessman)[edit]

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

Has had to be deleted multiple times via CSD. Continuous adding of non-sourced, puffery material. And added back and removal of main tags by what I suspect is a sockpuppet. I cannot find info to make it pass WP:BIO via 42 as the sources seem to involve the company and not actual substantial coverage of the subject themself. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree the coverage that exists is about the company, not the subject. No problem with the creator submitting a draft for that, since they very obviously have a conflict of interest. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Creator works for him, see talk page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PureWow, his company - which is probably notable, though opinions may differ. There is not enough biographical information for a separate article about him. Both articles were created by the same POV editor, probably Harwood himself. The author and a probable sockpuppet have been blocked. This title has been speedied only once that I can find, so probably no need to salt at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Try as I might, I can find no consensus for deletion having been formed here. The article itself is amply sourced, well-formatted, and quite uncontroversial, so it's not the most precarious BLP in the world. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan Fenwick[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 without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes the general notability guidelines, with many cited sources that provide in-depth coverage of career events. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:11, 30 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. All the sources cited in the article are routine transfer reporting by local newspapers. The long standing consensus at WP:FOOTY is that transfer / match reporting doesn ot count towards establishing GNG. There is nothing of any substance published at any level that would garner significant attention on this player. Fenix down (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not yet notable as a soccer player, but the amount that has been written about him certainly establishes general notability. Articles such as this one are in-depth discussions of the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a 250 word article from a local newspaper about his transfer from one club to another. The sorts of quotes on the player are the sort trotted out at countless press conferences held up and down the country. There's no discussion of the player in any detail, only platitudes from his employers. Not only is that not an in depth article on the player by definition because of its length, it is specifically the sort of routine transfer talk that long standing consensus at WP:FOOTY has agreed does not constitute significant coverage, because the coverage such as that in the sources you have added isn't actually about any achievement. I note in the article, that all the sources are about him basically being released from one club and then signing for another in a lower division. There isn't actually anything in the article or the sources about him playing football. That is precisely why transfer reports do not help establish notability. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football may define notability criteria that apply when a subject does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG), but cannot override the GNG. The sources provide in-depth discussion of the subject's career and expert comments on his overall performance. The article deliberately avoids reports of specific matches. I see no reason why that that very detailed information should be added, but the sources are of course available. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting completely the wrong end of the stick, this is not a discusison about NFOOTY, the established consensus in football player AfDs is that transfer talk, which almost all of the sources you added are, do not count toward GNG because they are routine. to avoid any further confusion, these are the specific issues with each of the sources presented and why they do not help satisfy GNG:

Source 1 is a source from the players school, it is by definition a primary source and therefore does not count towards establishing GNG. Aside from this, the achievements noted are very minor in the grand scheme of things. For further guidance on why this source is not appropriate for notability purposes, please see WP:NHSPHSATH.
Source 2 Is from a sports management company, presumably one that was paid to produce his c.v. This is not a reliable source in any sense of the word.
Source 3 is a 38 word article, of which a grand total of 9 words are about the player. All this states is that he joined a club. I cannot imagine a source that could provide less depth than this on a subject.
Source 4 is a 150 word announcement in a local newspaper that he is on trial at a club playing at such a level that even an official appearance for them would not count towards WP:NFOOTY. There is no depth to this article whatsoever.
Source 5 is a 116 word article consisting essentially of one brief comment on the player from his manager. It's also a comment that essentially says he isn't really that good at football. Hard to see how this counts towards notability when it basically says he's not even that notable at the club for whom he plays.
Source 6 isn't even an article about him, it's about Eastbourne Borough FC. Fenwick gets a very brief mention lasting about 100 words on one substitutes appearance for a non-league side. Again, this is in no way significant coverage, this is the usual post match interview with a manager converted into a brief story in a local newspaper.
SOurce 7 is a 44 word note that states six players were released from their academy. Bayan Fenwick is mentioned by name but nothing else. this is essentially the least depth an article could go into about an individual and still actually make mention of them.
Source 8 is another local newspaper report lasting 147 words. It is insignificant in both length depth and the original audience of the report and essentially says nothing beyond the same platitudes all the other manager comments in previous sources have made.
Source 9 is yet another local newspaper report. Again, this deals with him very briefly (144 words) and again deals with him being on trial, not even being officially signed. The quote from the manager I heard he was available so I wanted to have a look at him sums it all up in terms of the significance of this source.
Source 10 is not even about the player, it is an article on Peacehaven FC. Fenwick's mention lasts all of 14 words.
Source 11 is the definition of routine transfer talk. In this article alone, there are links to four other similar articles on players Torquay had signed.
Source 12 is yet more routine transfer talk that essentially adds nothing that is not mentioned in source 8.

So in summary, yes, people have written about Fenwick, but they have not done so in any detail, he receives passing mentions at best in local newspapers and he has never played football at any significant level. Fenix down (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The effort taken by User:Fenix down is impressive, but the above conclusions are bizarre. All the sources are reliable and independent, local newspapers included. The less-than-positive remarks and use of jargon in no way detract from notability. The whole article, crammed with well-sourced information, has 382 words. Articles that talk entirely about the subject with 150, 116, 147, 144, 250 words are clearly substantial coverage. The essay on Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is amusing but irrelevant. The various sources that describe the subject's career in detail are far from Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage of isolated events. All that counts is that the article passes the simple but powerful test of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent sources, as it does with flying colors. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to refresh your knowledge of WP:ROUTINE, particularly the specific note: Low-impact local events with light media coverage, even if that coverage is from multiple sources, perspectives, and over a period to time, may still be deleted per WP:ROUTINE. The deletion of a A Wikipedia article about a local crime confirmed this view. This is precisely the issue that I have highlighted, the only coverage this player has ever received (regardless of length - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether 100-200 word articles are significant) is in local newspapers with a circulation restricted to an area the size of a small town in the UK. Your comments are also at odds with the remark in WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements... are not sufficient basis for an article. Almost everything cited in the article is an announcement of a transfer, trial at, or release from a club. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is about minor local events, and says they may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. This article is not about a single event, but covers the many events in the subjects's career. Several sources take a single event such as a transfer as a hook, then discuss his career in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and the transfer of a player from one local non-league team to another is exactly that, a low-level local event, hence why it is only covered briefly in low-level, local newspapers. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's time the guidelines to semi professional footballers should be changed on here. If there is significant coverage in reliable sources like this we should include them, regardless if the league isn't fully "professional".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: um that already is the case - GNG 'beats' NFOOTBALL any day of the week i.e. it doesn't matter if you are professional or not; if you have enough coverage, you are notable. The issue here is the lack of coverage as well as the lack of professionalism! Giant Snowman 16:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, but this IMO has enough coverage to meet GNG. I wasn't expecting you to agree with me :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand on your view that he meets GNG now I have provided a detailed analysis of the length and depth of coverage in the sources presented? Fenix down (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'd be wasting my time as it's clear nothing will change your mind, you're the "expert" on footballers along with GS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage, most of what is present is WP:ROUTINE transfer news and simply not in-depth enough. Giant Snowman 16:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that if a subject has mention and some reference in at least a dozen sources it's very often notable, regardless of extensive coverage actually written about it. There's a lot of articles I can think of which have a place on here, despite not having a mass of material written about it. Subjects become notable when at least a dozen publications choose to mention and write at least something on a person or topic. Take Martin Miller (actor, born 1899) for instance. I don't think he has more coverage than Fenwick has in any given source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would note then that your opinion seems to be directly at odds with WP:SIGCOV when almost all of the dozen sources presented mention the player in only a handful of words. Fenix down (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I speak from experience Fenix down at what is generally accepted on here. There's several hundred thousand topics on here which have similar sort of coverage but we include. They become notable people dozens of reliable publications want to mention them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your "experience" is meant to add to this discussion, this is an attempt to have an objective discussion on the significance of the sources, not to decide whether to keep an article based on the "experience" of individual editors. If it were though, I would suggest that such pomposity was perhaps ill-advised when it is clear that your experience in AfD is considerably less than that of other editors. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far too WP:DOGBITESMAN. Nearly any footballer in any club could fall into this. I would say that WP:NCOLLATH helps shed a bit of light on this (even though its not a college football team). Jcmcc (Talk) 23:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcmcc450: The article cites various sources that give in depth coverage, but there are many more. Would removing some of the more routine items and leaving the in-depth coverage make the topic more notable? From a comment by User:Fenix down (above) the problem is the opposite, that there are not enough play-by-play details like "A deflected Fenwick shot on 28 minutes went close but out for a corner...". Either way, Google search results and news results show many sources discussing the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: Hmm.. I don't see anything on first blush, is there a specific source you are referring to? Just for kicks, I tried the same google search on my own name (being a semi-professional League player and USAF airman), and I found lots of what anyone would consider "trivial" news... Jcmcc (Talk) 02:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, you seem to have misunderstood me, play-by-play details are exactly what is not required here. By definition, these would come from a match report about the club, not an article providing significant coverage of the player per se. They would also fall under the banner per my comments above. it would also be helpful rather than just saying "have you googled him?" to point out which otherwise unmentioned sources provide coverage to satisfy GNG, particularly when the first page google news results returns articles, not only clearly are not significant coverage of the player but also are mere mentions of his name in match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Most sources cited by the article name Fenwick in their title: Fenwick is their primary topic. They typically report a minor event, then go on to discuss the subject's soccer ability and career in some depth. The general notability guideline is simple. It does not matter if the subject is "important". If several reliable independent sources discuss it in some depth, as is the case here, it is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fenix down and GiantSnowman. The subject has not yet established notability within his field. This is a clear case of WP:ROUTINE coverage. It is likely that the subject will become notable in future given his current career trajectory. However, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the article should be deleted for now. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage applies to an article about a given event, not to a biography. Where in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does it say a subject must have established notability within his field? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Why would Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage specifically mention obituaries if it only applied to events and not people. Follow the Spirit of the law and stop wikilawyering. It's clear that the subject does meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (sports). The fact remains the subject has done nothing notable, no matter how much the media may pander to sports fanatics. If he were to tragically die tomorrow he would remain an athlete who never played in a professional club and has therefore contributed nothing of note to his profession.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I don't think I am wikilawyering. I did not bring up WP:ROUTINE, but it is a section in Wikipedia:Notability (events), and very clearly talks about individual events such as births, marriages and deaths. These are normal parts of a biography but rarely enough for a stand-alone article. The General Notability Guideline very carefully avoids any mention of "importance", because it is so difficult to get agreement on that. Is a particular garden center or Pathan poet important? The GNG says it is notable if there is enough independent coverage, not if there is not enough coverage. Simple. Introducing the concept of "importance" and judging notability on that basis opens a whole can of worms. Better to let a few harmless and well-sourced articles on minor topics stay in the encyclopedia. There is plenty of room. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOHARM for an outline of why that is not an acceptable reason to keep an article. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is wikilawyering. The reason to keep is that it passes GNG. Saying "the subject is not important so should be deleted" reopens a debate that has been closed long ago. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I thought the standard was that footballers only qualified for articles, if they were regular first team members of a fully professional club. Some one just signed by Torquay United, after a series of trials and non-league roles soes not qualify yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject would not qualify as an "inherently notable footballer", but anyone can qualify under the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline if they have significant coverage by reliable independent sources, as here. Basically GNG trumps FOOTY. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable footballer. Kante4 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recap - The above discussion is largely about whether the subject is "important" as opposed to whether it meets the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (WP:GNG).

The guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football (WP:NFOOTY) has been brought up. The subject has not played in a fully professional league, so would not be considered notable by default. As stated in the guideline, "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline..."
The guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE, aka WP:DOGBITESMAN) has been mentioned more than once. This guideline is about routine coverage of specific events, which typically do not warrant an article of their own. It does not apply to a biography, which would include many such events. "Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article..." That is, in an article about the team or the player.

The General notability guideline avoids any discussion of whether a subject is "important", which is wide open to debate. Instead it says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material..."

The sources used by the article are mostly local newspaper stories that report a career move, then give comments by a team manager and a summary of Fenwick's career to date. The team manager comments as reported by the secondary sources are relevant to indicate motivation for hiring or firing Fenwick. Cited sources, with counts of sentences about the subject, include:

"Torquay United sign former Crystal Palace attacking midfielder". Western Morning News. 2015-07-23. Twelve sentences
"Former Crystal Palace wide man Bayan Fenwick on trial with Boston United". Boston Target. 2015-01-12. Eight sentences
"Boston United give trial to former Crystal Palace and Cardiff City youngster Bayan Fenwick". Boston Standard. 2015-01-12. Six sentences
"Hart hailed for role in Borough's battle to beat drop". The Argus. 2013-03-23. Five sentences
"Bayan Fenwick: Torquay United sign former Cardiff youngster". BBC Sport. 2015-07-23. Five sentences
"TORQUAY UNITED: Midfielder Bayan Fenwick signs as Paul Cox puts finishing touches to squad". Herald Express. 2015-07-23. Five sentences
"Peacehaven sign Fenwick ahead of derby clash with Lewes". Sussex Express. 2015-02-13. Five sentences
"Fenwick out to improve". The Croydon Advertiser. 2012-08-03. Three sentences

The sources, presumably reliable for the information they give and independent of the subject, devote 49 sentences to Fenwick. Obviously there is a lot of duplication. The article includes details from other sources, and boils it all down to 22 sentences. Nothing indicates that Fenwick has achieved anything truly remarkable at this stage of his short career, but there is sufficient coverage to easily pass the General notability guideline. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the majority of the above discussion is about nothing of the sort. It is about whether significant coverage of this player has been generated in reliable sources. My comments specifically relate to how there has been some coverage in local newspaper sources, but that none of it has been significant, either in terms of the events they describe, nor in their length. This is echoed by the sentence count above. Literally a handful of sentences have been written about this individual who has never played for any team above the seventh tier in english football. It is also disingenuous to call this a recap, as it does not discuss any of the arguments above for deletion and is fundamentally unbalanced as a result. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly repeating the same arguments over and over to everyone who disagrees with you is not making your case any stronger Aymatth2. We all read what you had to say earlier. The fact that many experienced wikipedians in this discussion are not buying your GNG rational for the notability of this subject should tell you something.4meter4 (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: With due respect, myself and Andy are far more experienced content producers here with over 120,000 articles between us and we have a very good general idea of notability. Sadly at WP:Football you have a warped idea of what meets notability requirements, which means that many players which do actually have reasonable coverage have to be deleted, even though dozens of people will be searching for them on a daily basis. Now this is a weaker notability article, but the coverage in reliable source IMO is adequate to pass GNG as demonstrated by Aymatth2 above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus that has been achieved at WP:FOOTY may differ from your personal view, but that does not mean it is wrong. The arrogance in basically telling another to pipe down because you have created more articles than him is frankly, breathtaking. I'm really not sure what it adds to the discussion. I think it would be better if the discussion focussed on critique of the existing sources or presentation of additional sources to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should pipe down on the ad hominem comments on calling someone arrogant. If you can't, perhaps you should step away from this and stop WP:BLUDGEONING all those with whom you disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's alright for another editor to use their edit / article count to assert a position of superiority? It's that sort of attitude that discourages people from editing enWiki. I think I made a perfectly fair comment based on what was written and asked for the discussion to focus on the sources presented. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I claim I or Aymatth were "superior"? You are the one acting like you have a superior knowledge of this topic, not me. Aymatth and myself have a massive amount of general article writing experience and expansions on here though and have a good general idea about what is encyclopedic or what isn't. An equivalent on most other subjects with some coverage in that many sources would almost always pass GNG and be kept.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how your comment With due respect, myself and Andy are far more experienced content producers here with over 120,000 articles between us and we have a very good general idea of notability could suggest anything else, but you obviously don't see it that way. Fenix down (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude to others though is sour at the best of times. I remember I once gave you a barnstar for your work on Siberian geo articles. Not a word of thanks or acknowledgement. Not worth thanking somebody obviously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, that's not an attitude I recognise in myself on enWiki, so please feel free to post some examples on my talk page, as I wouldn't want to be thought of that way. I presume you are talking about the editor of the week barnstar from over 18 months ago? I assume you must have missed my thanks for the award both here and on my own talk page. I thought a thank you to all involved would have sufficed, given that WP:RETENTION seemed to be behind most of the effort. I am sorry to have offended you by not calling you out by name. I think I'm going to call a halt to this element of the discussion as recent comments really have nothing to do with any part of the discussion that has taken place. Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not alright to call another editor arrogant: it's that sort of attitude that discourages people from editing enWiki. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's is when they are hectoring other people and trying to use their own perceived position of importance to bully others. Comments like the one he made add nothing to the debate and when written were not intended to add to the debate. I see no reason why they shouldn't be highlighted for what they are. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are also guilty of WP:BLUDGEONing, and no-one else has dropped into incivility except you. You may not like being pulled up for calling editors inappropriate names, but WP:ICANTHEARYOU isn't a very good response. Drop your stick and accept the comments were inappropriate and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON who knows, he might play sometime for a bigger team, but right now he's in the fifth tier and fails WP:NFOOTY and the refs in the article are WP:ROUTINE, and most are not really in-depth about Fenwick. Kraxler (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG — there are enough references in independent, reliable, third-party sources to justify inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SchroCat, it passes GNG, and this business about "fully professional" is splitting hairs. RO ^(talk) 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SchroCat, Passes GNG - clearly notable.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above two !votes by Rationalobserver and Doug Coldwell are the first and only ones at AfD this year (I didn't check further back). Kraxler (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And?? My talk page is watched by nearly 500 people and a lot of people keep tabs on what I edit or speak out against.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain? 203.109.161.2 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SchroCat. I see no justification for this to be deleted. Cassianto ^Talk 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BBC Sport choose to dedicate a whole article to him. I fail to see how that sort of thing isn't significant coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken Dr. Blofeld, the abovementioned BBC page has Fenwick in the headline, and says something about him (WP:ROUTINE transfer talk) but most of the article is about something else: the manager and his views of the team in general. Kraxler (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Footer bores me blue, but as one who keeps a colleaguely eye on the contributions of Dr B, inter alia, I have made it my business to check the NewsBank archive of UK newspapers, and I see Bayan Fenwick is covered by national papers as diverse as The Daily Telegraph and The Sun as well as regional titles. The first article about him that came up in the search runs to 269 words. One quote from it: "Fenwick is an exciting attacking midfielder with the world at his feet. He is best described as a quick, skilful playmaker, who scores goals from midfield. Fenwick is the link between the midfielders and the strikers, is exceptional at beating a man using his explosive pace, and possesses a great range of passing." And as Dr B rightly says, above, the BBC has a page on him. Notable, surely. – Tim riley talk 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also over two dozen hits in HighBeam Research. The sheer number of reputable publications which discuss this footballer make him notable. I care little for lower league footballers as I'm sure a lot here do, but the point is he does meet GNG and there is enough mention of him in countless newspaper sources to be worthy of inclusion. I can't see why anybody would delete this other than some warped idea of notability. I think it's time WP:FOOTY was given a serious revision as no doubt we've lost hundreds of similar bios because of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The highbeam research links don't seem to be additional sources, just the same transfer talk and match reporting mentioned above. I really don't see how you can say an individual is notable as a footballer when they have played a grand total of 90 minutes of football in their entire career and spread over the last three years. this is the crux of the discussion. There are brief reports about trials and transfers and comments from his employers in the local press, but he never actually plays. You can't be a notable footballer by any notability guideline if you don't actually play football. Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what sources say. And there's enough sources to indicate he's notable. And it's not just me or Aymatth who is of that opinion. SchroCat, Cassianto and Tim are prolific featured article contributors who have a good idea about what meets GNG. The sheer number of sources which mention him make him worthy of inclusion. I'm sure in the next few years he'll get more games.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a notable footballer but not play any football as long as you have been discussed in depth by reliable independent sources. Notability is based on how much has been said about a subject, not how "important" or "interesting" it is. That is a fundamental principle. We would allow an article about a knitting pattern or a garden gnome if it has received enough coverage. The coverage may be extremely mundane as long as it is "in depth", which basically means it is enough to build a meaningful article without any original research. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. Standard transfer talk, nothing substantial that tells us anything about his career and all WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 13:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from somebody who has articles deleted like [4], [5] and [6], you're not exactly in a good position to comment on GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those were valid when the original WP:ATH criteria for all athletes was something along the lines of "Had to have competed in a fully-professional level". This meant two pro-fighters fighting each other in a sanctioned boxing match met the criteria. As you can see, I didn't contest either of those AfDs/PROD. So don't try and discredit me for articles made probably 5+ years ago when criterion was massively different. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Dr. Blofeld, the guy has played a total of 90 minutes in 6 games, 5 times coming in as a substitute, and the only time he started a game, he was taken off the field. This flies in the face of all the praise cited above, or is there some cabal going on that prevents England's most talented player from appearing anywhere above the fifth football division and play a single whole game? You're making a laughingstock out of yourself. Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see who's laughing when this is closed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up guys. This is only Wikipedia, and only a minor article. Ebenezer Cobb Morley is probably turning in his grave, wondering if he passes WP:NFOOTY. I think not, but am willing to grant that he passes GNG, which is all that matters. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond always is laughing in the end.

Kraxler (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Andy Daly - Considering the nom seems to have withdrawn and I was going to vote but it seems rather obvious to move to Andy Daly until full independent notability is established (searches here and here) (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Andy Daly Podcast Pilot Project[edit]

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

Cannot find anything that establishes notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Daly. Deb (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy that, should have thoughtTheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 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 Userfy to User:CaraDele/List of Cara Delevingne's modelling appearances. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cara Delevingne's modelling appearances[edit]

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

This list of modelling appearances by Cara Delevingne is not notable. It is sufficient to summarize her work as a model in her biographical article. The Fashion Model Directory, which lists all of her work in the industry, is linked at the bottom of her article for anyone who would like a more detailed overview. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vrac (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Vrac.Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article is started by a User:CaraDele which I presume to be just a SPA-looking fan (because the real Delevingne should be busy touring for Paper Towns) also having a sandbox draft of Delevingne's main article. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Obvs not a dir. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - As atrocious as this is I kinda agree that this shouldn't go to waste, I would strongly suggest tho that CaraDele improves this to the point where it's totally different from what it is now - If it gets shoved back in to article space within a week then this'll be deleted and probably rather quickly so I suggest CD makes this amazing! –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Rubbish computer 01:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like your going to delete it but it took me ages to do all that, could I put it on the main page? CaraDele (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per User:CaraDele's request. Obviously fails policies like WP:NOTDIRECTORY but, equally obviously, was hard work to create. I highly doubt the editor will use it improperly, and I understand Wikipedia isn't a free web host, but this was done in good faith and there's no reason to put the editor's hard work to waste. North of Eden (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per User:CaraDele's request, no reason for the work to go to waste.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Davey2010's reasoning —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copy vio). Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar LaMonaca Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO - despite being part of the Houston Symphony, he appears to have never received any significant coverage. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient evidence of notability independent of H.Symph. Main source is his local paper explaining piano tuning and a mention as a teacher.Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RomanCart Ltd.[edit]

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

All references are not reliable. Reads like publicity material with the aim to advertise the subject. The article puts emphasis on the positive aspects of the subject by using words like "such as", "several", etc. without sufficient examples to prove claim. There is not much context and the article may be purely promotional. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability.Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article only contains unreliable sources, is promotional, and I cannot find other sources that would demonstrate notability. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- primarily an advert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing good aside from a passing mention in a business listing at Books. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dismissed Finnish Missionary Society employee[edit]

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

A fork of Prosecutor v. Ruokanen. Fails WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."

NB: there is an alarming number of forks on Suspicions of pedophilia in the Finnish dormitory in Taichung. Closely related articles have appeared by single-purpose accounts. It is my opinion that the notability is best established on a case per case basis so I'm not nominating others for the time being - but sockpuppet issues can be looked into. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, but I heavily disagree on your case per case basis on nominating. The other forks should have been bundled with this nomination, in my opinion, as they are related to each other, and they have been made by the user accounts almost certainly related to each other. I am extremely concerned on the fact that the over-quotation epidemic on these articles may violate copyright laws. I have tried to exterminate most of the quotes in Suspicions of pedophilia in the Finnish dormitory in Taichung, which may damage value of the books (or other works) in question. I am referring to WP:COPYQUOTE. However, just a few hours ago, some of the material I removed from Suspicions of pedophilia in the Finnish dormitory in Taichung resurfaced in this another fork: The Finnish dormitory in Taichung. At most, the Prosecutor v. Ruokanen and the Suspicions of pedophilia in the Finnish dormitory in Taichung may stay. All other forks should be deleted. Ceosad (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other article forks on the topic. The article seems to have been painstakingly written so that it avoids committing the Finnish crime of kunnianloukkaus, i.e. criminal libel. As our non-Finnish editors are able to write about the issue without that in mind, we should mention the name of the person being discussed. (I will not make that edit, for I might become criminally liable.) At the same time, we should merge this with other articles on the pedophilia scandal in the Taichung dormitory. BTW, we have about the same articles being created at fi-Wikipedia. The dormitory itself might be notable, and as the peophilia scandal attracted national attention the scandal is definitely notable, but a single article should suffice. --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @MPorciusCato and Ceosad: Please note that the related articles have been recently proposed for speedy deletion and blanked by users Kotivalo and Dthomsen8 per WP:G10. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that those articles were created on Finnish Wikipedia too, but I had hoped to somewhat rework and rewrite at least one of them here on English Wikipedia. I would have argued on whether The Finnish dormitory in Taichung or Suspicions of pedophilia in the Finnish dormitory in Taichung should have stayed, but as most of those pages have been blanked as attack pages, I will wait before touching this reeking Taiwanese dunghill, as one of the quotes infamously said on one of the pages. I am not sure of the dormitory's notability on its own. The pedophilia case as a national scandal was notable on its own though. Ceosad (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Kraxler (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary soapbox and an inappropriate article to have about a very minor living person. Meanwhile, somebody should take a look at the huge bloated mess that is The Finnish dormitory in Taichung and reduce it by about 80%. There is way, way too much trivial detail about daily life in the dormitory and such. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Christoph Schnitzler[edit]

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

Advert for non notable individual. Loosing contestant of Got Talent show. Outside his small town he lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Knight award might sound major but the real thing is old award and does not appear to have continued it that form. What he got may be an honorary one from a Hungarian order founded in 2011. There is no independent coverage of Schnitzler getting it. See his other article Mootisave, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mootisave duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 13:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the Notability guideline. Maybe locally known in his hometown/county, but not nation wide. Someone tried to establish an article about the subject five times on the German wikipedia: de:Frank Christoph Schnitzler. Link to the German deletion discussion from 2010: [7]. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 12:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Ben Ben and User: duffbeerforme have a personally problem with the person Frank Christoph Schnitzler and with Mootisave. Ben Ben are from Germany and known Frank Christoph Schnitzler. This is not objectively. Frank Christoph Schnitzler is famous in europe and registered in the international VIAF and in much promi lists in europe. Ben Ben and co. claim: Frank Christoph Schnitzler is not notalble. Why is then Frank Christoph Schnitzler in promi lists in europe? Looks here: Frank Christoph Schnitzler Chrbet360 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar issues as the Mootisave article. Local coverage, passing mentions, announcements by related media. The "Reutlinger Künstler-Lexikon" as a local artist directory with limited editorial oversight cannot establish notability - local persons of interest are listed and described in some local publications, but a local person of interest is not automatically notable on a greater encyclopedic scale. As noted in the mootisave AfD, the awards are all minor. The listed memberships are mostly common or WP:MILL. Looking through the 20 Google News hits: c. 15 are of local/regional newspapers (and most of them only short mentions), c. 5 are brief annoucements and short mentions by related media (mostly RTL). The coverage in Google web hits is similarly distributed. The article itself is puffed up with a lot of minor details and doesn't establish a clear claim of notability either. GermanJoe (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability in the article, just another local attention-seeker, article is a WP:PROMO advert of his activities Kraxler (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Liew[edit]

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

Advert for non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SPA-article with very thin sourcing, and nothing of it establishes notability. Maybe a successful businessman, but that in itself is not "notable". No in-depth coverage via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft/userfy if needed as my searches found nothing particularly good here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4Projects[edit]

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

I can't find anything beyond press releases and local coverage for this company. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - some coverage of this company found [8], [9], [10], but not seeing enough to meet company notability. Would reconsider if more independent, reliable sources found. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- I dounbt that a company with revenue of £5M is large enpough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 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 Nomination withdrawn. I have thought further about this, and decided that whether the theatre does or does not technically satisfy the notability guidelines, the article is doing no harm, and will no doubt be of interest or use to some people, so there is no reason to delete it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaunas Chamber Theatre[edit]

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

Small local theatre with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. No sources at all except a link to the theatre's own web site. (A PROD was removed with the edit summary "This page cannot be deleted because it is about the theatre where I work.") The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources about this theatre, I hope it is enough to keep it on wikipedia at least while we are gathering updated information. By the way, this article was without sources when I started editing it. Less poetree (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those sources is just a mirrored copy of the Wikipedia article, and therefore of no value as a source. The next two are Google books links to two books, one of which has a single one-sentence mention of Stanislovas Rubinovas, the founder of the theatre, while the other has two mentions of him, but what we need to establish notability of the theatre is coverage of the theatre itself, not of people connected to it. One of the books also has just one brief mention of the "Kaunas Youth Chamber Theatre" (Kauno Kamerinis Jaunimo Teatras) which looks to me as though it maybe the same thing as the theatre treated in the Wikipedia article under a slightly different form of the name, but the other does not mention it at all, in either version of the name, in either the English or the Latvian version. The last source is the only one which is substantially concerned with this theatre, but that is merely an announcement that for political reasons the theatre would not be performing at a festival in Saint Petersburg in 2014. In short, none of the sources gives significant coverage of the theatre in a reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Most of the in-depth references are in Lithuanian, or as book snippets in English, but this EN book [11] starts discussing it at the bottom of p. 49 and ends at the top of p. 51. Here are some in-depth articles from mainstream LT media (its LT name is Kauno kamerinis teatras). This one, from Lietuvos rytas, discusses the original director's son's assumption of the role. [12]. (That's just one of the various articles about the theater that are aggregated at Lietuvos rytas at a subpage [13].) This article from Delfi.lt talks about the 2005 name change from Youth Theatre to Chamber Theatre. [14]. Here's another substantial Delfi one [15]. This one is shorter but still contributes to notability [16]. Then there are all the obits for its founder, Stanislovas Rubinovas, in various LT news articles. In Lietuvos rytas, current LT President Dalia Grybauskaitė singled out his directorship of the theater. [17] Also, I see that the LT version of this article cites the Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija. [18]. I can't see it and don't own the volume, but I'm not surprised that this theatre has an entry, given the other sources, and am willing to AGF on it. Novickas (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yarddiant[edit]

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

Standard searches did not reveal any substantial coverage of this company in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kerala Financial Corporationis a government oriented organization of Kerala State, In online documentation of Kerala Financial Corporation the company Yarddiant is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.198.198 (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Being associated with a notable organisation does not make it notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the AFD template is being repeatedly removed from Yarddiant. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user seems to have stopped since that last one and has been issued another warning so let's see how that works. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft/userfy if needed as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - web design company of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Only independent ref provided is an incidental mention on a state document. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corfu City Bus[edit]

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

No indication of importance, non-notable company. Ireneshih (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any reliable, independent sources with any coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable enough, operating a number of bus services on the island. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH.
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cryo Interactive video games. Been up 2/3 weeks and as always redirect is prefferred so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gift (video game)[edit]

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

Can't find any sources on this article to warrant its notability. The only thing that would count was a PC Zone review mentioned on GameRankings. But I can't even find the review due to not owning a copy. But even that might not help. GamerPro64 04:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cryo Interactive video games. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the dev article is always preferred to deletion. Redirects are cheap. As it stands, this article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search (though this IGN article appears to be mocking it). Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:14, 22 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) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cryo Interactive video games - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references with significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Developer/publisher is notable, so a redirect there is reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Thoumire[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable musician Quis separabit? 02:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain but maybe weak keep to keep per sources here, here, here and here. There's seems to be an acceptable amount of coverage and talk about him from encyclopedias, articles and such. @[email protected] and Davey2010: What are your thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the totality of the evidence, no particular change in my position. I stick with delete. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 05:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I dont think sources are all that but thanks for looking. –Davey2010^Talk 07:15, 19 July 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:35, 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) 07:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in sources.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:29, 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 no consensus. The article has changed quite a bit since first being listed here, but I'm hesitant to relist a third time. No prejudice toward a quick renomination, where participants can take a fresh look. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gaskins[edit]

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

I believe this person fails WP:ARTIST. He has published one book but don't think it meets the criteria of a well known or significant piece of work. He is a member of the Cornell faculty but a minor member Gbawden (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Gaskins appears to be a fairly major artist, but the article is currently lacking references to demonstrate this. Perhaps at this stage, it would make more sense to redevelop as an article on his best-known work, the book Good And Bad Hair.--Pharos (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I edited the article to try and improve it, although parts (e.g. the lede) still need work and better citing. There's a couple of substantial news stories about him, various shorter references (he's actually quite widely cited), and a lengthy interview in the academic journal Nka: Journal of Contemporary African Art, which together establish him as a notable person per WP:GNG. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:52, 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) 07:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where are you guys getting your information? He's an associate professor (fails WP:PROF), with no extensive coverage from independent and reliable sources. He's appeared to have written a handful of publications, none of which is cited more than a handful times. Clearly non-notable. The lede states he "explores the intersection of black hair and critical analysis of the portraiture" - HUH? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The AFD has led to serious improvement, sourcing of this article on an artist with a varied career, including a long feature on his photography in a big-city daily [19]. While I do see where Nom was coming from, a more thorought WP:BEFORE would have shown that this artist passes WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that the nominator withdrew in a comment in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish Cyder Farm[edit]

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

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for three years it doesn't appear to pass the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found few news sources that were not blogs or "puff" broadsheets, but I did find some book references, two of which I've added to the article. I've also done a bit of copyediting to reduce the promotional language in the article. I think there is enough to establish notability. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Who is "Geoff"? The signature appears to have been faked, but the history suggests the user is Glane23.--Rpclod (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I is Geoff and Geoff is me. I didn't know that my sig had stopped working until someone else mentioned it today. Now it's fixed. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ive added to the article. Notable as one of only a handfull of whiskey producers in England, which has also won awards. Talskiddy (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 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) 07:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of Geoff's identity, Geoff's changes demonstrate sufficient WP:ORG notability. Good nomination and good response.--Rpclod (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the nominator I am happy to see the article kept after the addition of sources which clearly show some notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Valley (All My Children)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:N. Article is WP:FANCRUFT/WP:LISTCRUFT of fictional places within the universe of a soap opera. No WP:RS for any content in article, and only external link is a dead link to a fansite.

Earlier AFD keep votes do not address WP:GNG and amount to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:OTHERSTUFF. Two book sources linked ([20], [21]) in earlier AFD do not amount to WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy other WP:GNG requirements.

AldezD (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems detailed and referenced to me.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—The article contains only two references, both referring to a crossover with One Life to Live. The bulk of the article is entirely unreferenced WP:IINFO and contains multiple sentence fragments. AldezD (talk) 12:18, 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 09:13, 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) 07:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently sourced, not enough independant coverage in reliable sources, bad article quality, and more than a year old. Müdigkeit (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, no indication anywhere that this is a notable topic, no secondary sources discussing this fictional locality, also the article is very much WP:FANCRUFT Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Pretty clear that this is a hoax (the "Guardian" reference at the bottom doesn't mention the programme either). No point in keeping obvious bollocks around any longer than necessary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clem and Lachlan's Adventures[edit]

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

This smells strongly of fabricated info as my searches including the simplest found absolutely nothing aside from mirrors and maybe it's the country barrier but it's also vague who Clem and Lachlan Meester are (my searches found zero results). Sure it was cancelled but you would at least expect something to confirm its existence including something as recent as 2012 (and even more for a show apparently since 2006). It's also worth noting the author RolyAndMac basically made zero other edits aside from "hey i love dogs" at their userpage. The article has had basically no further edits and I think this explains it well. As the tagger, Calamondin12 is welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certainly a hoax. Never heard of it, never seen it on iView, nothing when you google it with site:au and the DVD is not available at the ABC Shop. The-Pope (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many, many factors point to a hoax:

It would be virtually impossible for a "teen drama" to run for six years and 145 episodes on a major broadcast network like ABC without an enormous online presence (commentary, reviews, fan sites, etc.). As noted above, there are no listings for the DVD as well.
"Right Round," listed as the theme song, was not released until three years after the show's supposed premiere.
The listed dates for the references (pointing to the show's cancellation) are from a time period nowhere near the supposed end of the show. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are cut and paste from another article and totally unrelated to the subject. ([[22]]) Smells like a hoax.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:40, 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. No doubt about it the article's in a shit state but notability is there....Even I've found some results on Google News so notability's definitely there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indrani Iriyagolla[edit]

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

Does not appear to comply with WP:ANYBIO Dan arndt (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources here in Sri Lanka media, important figure in women's rights in Sri Lanka.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Note possible alternate spelling ending in e in stead of a (ie Iriyagolle). There is in-depth coverage here as well as here. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surname was inaccurate and I've moved the page to Indrani Iriyagolle. Possibly a typing error made by the article creator. -- Chamith (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pity that some users blindly show there skills of tagging. subject is a very popular humanitarian activist in Sri Lanka & article can be further improved. DilJco (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable enough though currently the article fails to establish notability. Could be improved by expanding and updating the article. -- Chamith (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (widespread coverage of her death explicitly discusses her importance) and WP:ANYBIO #2; her service in high-level office in Sri Lankan women's organizations certainly made an enduring contribution to women's rights in her homeland. North of Eden (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senaka Dharmatilleke[edit]

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

Article hasn't established notability - doesn't comply with WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE. Dan arndt (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. Was going to nominate it myself, but figured I'd let someone else check it first. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Clearly not notable enough to have an encyclopedic article. Being a Chartered architect is not something uniquely notable. -- Chamith (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Delete, subject is not only a Doctor (title) Chartered architect but also the Chief Architect of upcoming Havelock City. Article will be further enhanced in the future.DilJco (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Provided reference says he is the design coordinator not the chief architecture. And please note that having "doctor" as title is not a qualification to have a Wikipedia article. -- Chamith (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - might I suggest DilJco that if that is the case then the article maybe premature and should be re-created when there is sufficient references to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability in the article, just another architect Kraxler (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable local mall with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are tens of Malls in Gurgaon. Nothing notable about this Mall in media. ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This mall is always in news for wrong reasons - from running prostitution rackets, to pub brawls, rapes and bomb scares. It is quite infamous in NCR. Check these [23]. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:NOTNEWS. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep. There are clear and significance coverage about the mall in reliable sources (see here) no matter for which reason. Since the article and news coverage meets WP:NOTNEWS, it will be considered reliable and is very much acceptable on Wikipedia. This article meets the general notability guidelines, but still it article needs to be improved by adding references and other vital information. As per nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... All news items. I'll repeat, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources out there. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. All articles are news, nothing about the mall itself. Me5000 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The View (U.S. TV series). --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Blicker[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. A NYT filmography is like the bios in Forbes--its not editorial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I could find no evidence of his Notability on a Bing search. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or preferably redirect to The View where he is mentioned as the composer; my searches found nothing particularly good with the best being here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people assassinated by Sri Lankan government forces[edit]

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

i) The topic of this list is inappropriate and violates WP:SALAT & this list is not compatible with WP:NOT.
ii) Many entries in this list is not compatible with WP:SYNTH and this list contains original research.
iii) WP:POVFORK. All content of this list can be found on other lists in Wikipedia.

The armed forces of a country have the right to defend its territory and it is inevitable to prevent the assassinations of militants during a war or insurrection. Due to this reason it is inappropriate to keep a List of people assassinated by X government forces in WP. All the notable assassinations in this list are already included in two other lists, List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War and List of assassinations of the Second JVP Insurrection. Further, there is a special page to cover the attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan forces, which can be used to include any notable assassinations of civilians. Therefore this list is also redundant and only serves the propaganda purposes.

In addition to that many of the entries in the list includes assassinations caused due to sudden provocation of individuals, which cannot be attributed to the entire forces of a country, because those assassinations were not pre-planned and have not provided any military or political advantage to their cause during a war or insurrections. This list also includes original research as it attributes the government forces of Sri Lanka, for the assassination of some highly respected Sri Lankan military officials killed during the Sri Lankan war. --LahiruG^talk 07:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. LahiruG^talk 05:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article complies with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP:RS have been provided. Article is third in a series of Sri Lankan assassinations lists by perpetrators, the other two being List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and List of people assassinated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna. If this list is WP:POVFORK, WP:SALAT, WP:NOT, WP:REDUNDANT and WP:SOAPBOX, so are the other two lists. Nominator claims that this list is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR but then suggests that most of the entries could be included on List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, a contradiction. And "armed forces of a country have the right to defend its territory and it is inevitable to prevent the assassinations of militants during a war or insurrection" and "many of the entries in the list includes assassinations caused due to sudden provocation of individuals, which cannot be attributed to the entire forces of a country, because those assassinations were not pre-planned and have not provided any military or political advantage to their cause during a war or insurrections" - not sure which Wikipedia policies cover this.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:01, 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 03:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article title is not in any sense neutral. The term "assassination" should not be used for people who are taken into custody and died later. The word describes people killed or fatally injured on the spot. Any such list should include only people who are described in the full range of reliable sources as being assassinated. I looked at one article at random, Rohana Wijeweera. There is no consensus that he was killed by the government, let alone that he was assassinated. There are a variety of contradictory explanations for his death. I have no idea what the truth is in this case, but I am certain that a list stating that he was assassinated is a list that should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any definition of assassination which states that the death (or fatal injury) must be on the spot. The circumstances of Rohana Wijeweera's killing are very similar to the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem (a Featured Article). Both were killed by the army whilst in their custody.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 and Obi2canibe: Assassination means the deliberate murder of a very prominent, high-profile person. We've come to think of it as killed/fatally injured "on the spot" because it is almost impossible to kidnap high-profile people and the only chance to kill them is with immediate action (gun or bomb etc). Not all the people on this list meet that definition; some were leaders but others appear to be lower-profile priests, journalists, lawyers etc. Certainly it would seem they were targetted but they weren't necessarily highly prominent before they were killed. It's more appropriate to say they were murdered or killed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification @Wikimandia. The solution then is to rename the article List of people killed by Sri Lankan government forces as you've suggested below. This should address the concerns raised by @Cullen328 and Dan arndt. If the result of this Afd is keep, please start a page move discussion on the article's talk page. I will support the move.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 07:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename List of people killed by Sri Lankan government forces. I went through the first few alphabetically and it seems evident they were killed by government forces, but assassinated is not the correct word, however. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: According to my knowledge, the number of rebels and militants killed by the government forces of Sri Lanka after the deadly JVP insurrections and the civil war is around 50,000. In addition to that many rebels and others were killed by the government forces of Sri Lanka under the British rule during the Great Rebellion of 1817–18, Matale Rebellion and similar conflicts during the colonial rule. The government forces of Sri Lanka also took part in the world wars and killed many enemies during the world wars too. This list contains many names of the enemies/rebels/ militants/ terrorists and therefore it is not practical to keep a list of people killed by country X's government forces in WP as it is the profession and responsibility of the forces of a country, to protect their motherland and its citizens from internal & external attacks during a conflict or war. Therefore it is clear why it is not practical to have this list in WP which violates WP:SALAT. This is pretty much different to having a 'list people killed by law enforcement officers by country X' as law enforcement officers do not engage in wars rather than protecting the civil law and order of a country. Besides that this list is also not compatible with WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH due to the inclusion of controversial killings and killings attributed the non governmental militant groups such as EPDP, TMVP,ENDLF etc. --LahiruG^talk 07:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I guess you made the case for it to stay under the current title. It should be a list only notable people killed by the government, so assassinated is a correct designation, and this list should only contain notable people who have a Wiki profile (or meet GNG to have one). Or, if there are so many people killed by the government who are not notable, then it should be broken down by date in the way that the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this list with its present title is not a solution for its multiple violations of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:SALAT. Most of the people in this list are famous because of their death as they are not very prominent, high-profile people. So according to your definition above, deaths of almost all the people in this list other than the militants of designated terrorist organizations, can not be named as assassinations. Whether it is named as assassinations or as killings, inclusion of controversial killings which are attributed to non governmental organizations such as EPDP, TMVP, ENDLF etc. are a clear violation of NPOV and SYNTH. --LahiruG^talk 09:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it violates any policy. Some of the people indeed appear to have been notable before their deaths. We can call it by either name, but I don't see how it qualifies for deletion. I presented the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States as an example. I would be fine with calling it "List of people killed by Sri Lankan forces" - I really don't see how it would violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:SALAT. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, the example you have presented above is not matching with this case because we are not discussing about the List of people killed by law enforcement officers in Sri Lanka here. If you have given an example like List of people killed by US armed forces or List of people Killed by Japanese armed forces then it could have supported your view. Anyway all those lists fails SALAT as the numbers of people killed by armed forces of a country that have engaged in wars are very high and it is a subject that can not be listed systematically rather than doing it randomly on a non methodical selective basis. Sri Lanka armed forces have engaged in many wars but this list do not includes the killings of the rebellions during the colonial rule or the killings during the world wars they have engaged in. WP:SALAT states that "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." A 'List of People killed by Country X government forces' is a good example for this violation.

Having a list that has many controversial killings which are generally attributed to other parties such as LTTE, TMVP, EPEDP, ENDLF in this list, as committed by the SL gov forces is a clear violation of the neutral point of view of WP.

This list is not compatible with SYNTH, because it attributes the killings of non governmental organisations such as TMVP, EPDP, ENDLF etc. to the SL gov forces due the relationship of those groups to the individual political parties or politicians in Sri Lanka. No RS are provided to support these claims directly. --LahiruG^talk 10:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. As for your argument that this list violates WP:SALAT, the size and scope of the list has been limited to notable assassinations, as the lede states, in accordance with WP:LISTPEOPLE. To suggest that otherwise is like arguing that List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam should be deleted because it might end up containing 28,000 soldiers killed in the civil war with the LTTE, or that List of Sinhalese people should be deleted because it might end up containing 15 million Sinhalese people, or that List of Mahinda College alumni should be deleted because it might end up containing every one of the thousands who attended Mahinda College.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Sri Lankan government doesn't have a monopoly on assassinations carried out in the course of this horrible conflict spanning many decades now, but that is no reason not to list them here, since they are well documented and important for readers researching this topic. -Darouet (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The monopoly argument wasn't valid for massacres of civilians during the Sri Lankan war, as it was decided to delete the List of massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and to keep List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces at the AfD few weeks ago. (Actually the LTTE almost had the monopoly for civilian massacres during the war as it was a key tactic used by them to mark the boundaries of their mono ethnic state, threaten the civilians in other areas and to keep the Human Shield of Tamils for their safety during the war).--LahiruG^talk 10:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An assassination is the deliberate killing of a prominent person, usually for payment or political reasons. One of the fundamental problems with this list is that there is not always clear evidence that the military or security services commanded the murder(s) to be carried out. An example is the death of Nihal Silva, which the article states "Silva was shot to death by Sri Lanka Army soldiers as he ignored warnings and ran a checkpoint on December 3, 1989 in Dehiwela; he possibly did not understand the situation due to inebriation." - this hardly falls under the definition of an assassination. Then there is Denzil Kobbekaduwa, Vijaya Wimalaratne and Mohan Jayamaha, all senior military personnel who according to the list were killed by the army by a land mine. The evidence that this is the case is inconclusive - the single uncollaborated reference attributes the deaths to the Minister of Defence not the army however that appears to be speculation rather than factual based. The list also notes "other sources blame Jayamaha, Kobbekaduwa and Wimalaratne's assassinations on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.". I agree with the nominator that this list contains what are purported to be assassinations however as they were clearly not not pre-planned and did not provided any military or political advantage to their cause then you'd have to seriously question whether they were actually murders rather than assassinations. Dan arndt (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a list of 'assassinations', if it was renamed List of people murdered by Sri Lankan government forces I would be prepared to reconsider my position but as it stands the list is inaccurate. Dan arndt (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Please read WP:ATD-T: "Pages with incorrect names can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves".--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 06:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obi2canibe, I am familar with with WP:PD and I think my comments are fairly clear in that it should be renamed to more accurately reflect the contents of the list. If not then the list should be deleted because it clearly infringes WP:NPOV - through the use of the term 'assassination' when a significant number of articles on the list are clearly murders. Dan arndt (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Continuing this discussion on the definition, my first thought was "intent" especially when looking at those killed by landmines. The government may have placed those mines there but, Jayamaha Kobbekaduwa and Wimalaratne were definitely not the government's intention, and I think that extends to the LTTE victims of the claymore mines too, the government did not actively seek to assassinate them through mines. I think both groups should be removed from the list, not to mention it is bizarre to see the army leadership killed by its own organisation. (Not to say that does not ever happen) Unless there is a verified consensus that the mine was the for someone specifically it should be removed.

Having said that, there are two sides to a war and both commit similar acts, in this case assassinations, and I think there is some validity in the topic this article is trying to portray, but I don't think it has reached a point of neutrality that satisfies all issues. The "X has/hasn't this article, therefore Y should have/not have a similar article" is an issue that has come up many times over these few debates, and this one too, I think what is best for this topic would be a Merge with List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, into List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War where both sides of the conflict are subject to the same definition of "assassination" and no argument can be raised against its existence. Ultimately the people assassinated are the victims, it does not matter which side there were on after they died, they all died in the same war.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Creating a list of people assassinated by Sri Lankan government forces, which is not compatible with SYNTH, NPOV, Listcruft & SALAT is not a reason to merge the List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam with List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was created as a result of a CfD decision to delete the related category and listify, and later another AfD decision was given to keep it in WP as a standalone list. The LTTE is the only terrorist group to assassinate two world leaders, and assassinations of high profile people was a key part of their campaign from the beginning. That list does not include the names of the low profile citizens or the names of the army soldiers killed during the war. Unlike it, the list of people assassinated by Sri Lankan government forces includes many killings which are not compatible with many WP policies mentioned above. It also includes many killings those are related to first and second JVP insurrections which are not related to Sri Lankan civil war. Thanks.--LahiruG^talk 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Obi2canibe. The nominator is pushing POV. Lapmaster (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Obi2canibe. It is well sourced with WP:RS and passesWP:V and WP:NOR. User Blackknight12 raises valid points If consensus can be found later than both List of people assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and this page can be merged into List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328 & Dan arndt. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.SWR2.9 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Wikimandia and rename per user suggestion. Suggested title is neutral and encyclopedic.Kanatonian (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Miss Yugoslavia. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

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

Non-notable and defunct pageant, fails WP:NEVENT Flat Out (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national pageant that functioned during the years of S&M. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically, we have kept articles on the "Serbia and Montenegro" period as separate entities (like Serbia and Montenegro national football team, for example). Of course, the content here could be merged, but the question then becomes, where do we merge it to, Miss Serbia or Miss Montenegro? Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Miss Yugoslavia. Miss Yugoslavia is about the same competition in FR Yugoslavia, while Miss Serbia and Montenegro is about the competition in Serbia and Montenegro. We don't have separate articles for FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro (they were merged a long time ago, because those were just two names of the same country). All those competitions were organized by the same organization (Miss YU) and had contestants from the same territory. Country was simply renamed, and so was the competition, but there is no need to have two articles just because the name changed. Otherwise, the event is notable, and it has a lot of media coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge from Miss Yugoslavia as per Vanjagenije. Additionally, the citation for Miss Yugoslavia shows that MissYU now runs Miss Serbia and Montenegro, proving the two competitions are the same entity. Given that the most recent name was Miss Serbia and Montenegro, that is the appropriate article title. ~ Rob^Talk 23:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khoosab Anjarak[edit]

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

No indication of notability or claim of significance. MopSeeker Fox Three! 02:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a village it's guaranteed automatic notability, but I'll let the next admin close this, so you can hear it from two different ones. See WP:GEOLAND. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Drmies is correct. As per WP:GEOLAND and WP:5PILLARS, all population centers are notable. And what's with this AfDing six minutes after article creation? [24] --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For someone who seeks the mop, this is indeed food for thought, Oakshade--thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a settlement ergo it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep very clearly meets notability standards.Brustopher (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Villages are automatically notable. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:44, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block-style figures[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. While the term "block-style figure" inarguably exists and is used by collectors, I can't find any evidence that this topic has been discussed in reliable sources. The body of the article, which claims that Lego invented the block-style figure, is likely original research. Pburka (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a thing, and it's a widely used "term of the trade", from what my cursory research indicates. But Wikipedia requires that articles be sourced reliably and with independent information. That doesn't seem possible in this case, as I can't find anything that describes "block-style figures" or "block-style action figures" as a topic in and of itself. Wikipedia, after all, isn't a dictionary. North of Eden (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not cite any reliable source to prove the notability. I conducted my own Google search and found no reliable source that significantly discuss the block-style figures. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 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.