Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 July	1 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Against the Current (band)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Sulfurboy. Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NBAND. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They meet NBAND #7.--88.104.133.69 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- — 88.104.133.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment How does it meet #7? A key element of #7 is also that they meet guidelines generally and that it can be verified. Boleyn (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant #4. Sorry.--88.104.133.69 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources Google lists them via knowledge graph at Against The Current Tours via Google They list concert tours on their own website at ATC Official | Tours. On their official site they state have toured in many sovereign countries including but not limited to Thailand,Malaysia,Singapore,Philippines,Japan, and Belgium. They have also had a national tour in the US.--88.104.133.69 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- — 88.104.133.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment The sources I saw at the Google link you provided were adverts or trivial mentions. Having toured several countries is not independently verified, and is not a sign of notability unless it can properly be verified as a national or international tour. Where they performed is relevant to - were they going round local youth clubs, or performing along with many other groups, or was it their own tour of proper venues? Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can independently verify that Against The Current are touring in Taiwan [1]. The concert was selling tickets using the iBon machine in 7-11 convenience stores, and is sold out. Apparently the venue can host 1000 people [2]. Special:Contributions/Peterburk~enwiki Peterburk~enwiki (talk) 9:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- — Peterburk~enwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
TV Appearance. They were featured on TV in Japan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mentioned by major label Warner Music Twitter by Warner Music Warner Music Artist Page

I think that fufils NBand #12 --Iady391 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Peterburk~enwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment Doesn't seem they were the primary subject which is required for 12. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like they were the co-primary subject along with Taka from One Ok Rock--Iady391 (talk) 11:26, 29 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) 23:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about this https://twitter.com/snowbirdmusic/status/627392711646031872 or this http://atcsg.peatix.com Iady391 | Talk to me here 13:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They fulfil NBand # 5 Iady391 | Talk to me here 12:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done with first album Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both GNG and NBAND. Regarding the claim to NBAND #4, this requires "non-trivial coverage" of their international tour - the coverage is actually very trivial. Google shows no significant media coverage of the tour (or band) - just adverts and a few reviews on very minor blogs. Regarding the claim to NBAND #5, the band has not "released two or more albums on a major record label." They have released no albums and four EPs (though none of them were released on the major label because, as the article points out, they were only signed in March). Regarding the claim to NBAND #12, while a TV appearance appears to have happened, the Twitter links don't prove the band to be the "featured subject" or prove the appearance was in a "substantial broadcast segment". The Twitter links alone also fail WP:V. N4 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the current page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iady391/sandbox/ATC which can be reused when their second album is released. Iady391 | Talk to me here 13:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure promotion, there's no claim to notability in the article, just another band, the toures were all opening/accompanying other bigger acts, fails all criteria of WP:NBAND, and Facebook and Twitter is not really the kind of sources accepted here. Kraxler (talk) 19:09, 7 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 00:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Massey Rogers[edit]

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

When searching I was unable to come up with adequate sources to show this persons notability, donating millions doesn't garunee an article.\. I believe she fails GNG, on a second thought added later a redirect to the charity fund might be appropriate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's not much for a more solid article so I think redirect to Jack C. Massey is good with my searches here, here (nothing at News also), here and here showing there's particularly nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Well, I have found many other sources. One needs to know where to look. You would be redacting information about her status as a pioneer female corporate board member, large political donations, philanthropy in Palm Beach, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. It appears that none of what she has done amounts to more than social climbing; lots of people serve on boards, invest, give money, etc., and it's just a way of life. I'd like to have better sourcing per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV before I'd change my first impression. Bearian (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that WP:MILL is merely an essay, and not policy. Edwardx (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:24, 30 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) 23:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SwisterTwister. Notability isn't inherited, and it appears that the only thing she's done of note is donate her (father's?) money to various outfits. @Zigzig20s:: if she is such a pioneer, then you should have placed that information in the page and/or made it more clear. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Primefac: She also served on corporate boards when few women did and has made large political contributions. Also a significant philanthropist in Palm Beach. A mover and shaker of business and Republican politics in the South.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable enough to warrant a page. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a doubt, per Primefac. All coverage is extremely minor and revolves around socialite activities and the value of her house. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly lacks in depth coverage enough to merit an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is an article that simply doesn't need a page, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just found that a building is named in her honor: the Barbara Massey Hall on the campus of Belmont University.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:38, 7 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 Trade (sports)#NHL. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NHL trade deadline[edit]

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

Unnecessary list of "major" trades made in the NHL. This information is already covered in each NHL season's transactions page (ex. 2014–15 NHL transactions). This page should be deleted, or alternatively redirected to Trade_(sports)#NHL_2 which has a general description of the NHL's trade deadline. Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trade (sports). What constitutes a "major" trade is completely subjective, and therefore, it's better that we just have articles for each individual season that list all of the transactions for that season, which we do have. So if we take all of that information out of the NHL trade deadline article, we're left with barely any content, and nothing that can't be summarized in the article that I'm voting to redirect this one to. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trade (sports)#NHL. The list is redundant to each season's transaction page and the rest is redundant to Trade (sports)#NHL, so there's no need for this. However, this is a plausible search term and we should take readers somewhere that has the information they're looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everybody. Each season's notable trades are listed in that season's own season-specific article, so there's no real need for a complete and comprehensive multiyear-spanning list of every player who ever got traded at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect while this article served a purpose when it was created, it's usefulness has greatly waned in the years that followed. Currently there are 32 articles every year that track NHL team transactions, we really don't need another article to collect this information. Deadman137 (talk) 05:00, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Judge (video game)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. First reference is a sound clip of a promotional local radio interview with the creator, second ref is, by admission, a press release. (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the reasons for this deletion discussion. Wikipedia has specific formats for citations of press releases, yet you are saying press releases are not valid for citations. That is a contradiction. The radio interview was with Scott Mendes, the inventor of the game. It was not a paid for promotion. The radio station contacted him to learn more about the game. He was their guest speaker on a daily radio show. That is an independent source that interviewed Scott and talked about his new game. I have added a few more references, two of which are Wikipedia articles confirming that Rodeo Judge is legit. Regardless if these documents stand up to Wikipedia standard of public opinion or not, this game is out there and in the real world history books. Removing it from Wikipedia does not erase that fact. cyberstarboy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are valid citations but not enough for an article to pass WP:N which calls for non trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For obvious reason press releases are not independent. I also don't see how the interview can be said to be independent since it was directly tied to the creator. What you need are things like reviews, critical analysis, etc.--65.94.252.40 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The sources in the article are either unreliable or are not secondary/independent sources. The topic had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 17:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really fails WP:GNG, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:32, 7 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 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 UEFA Europa League[edit]

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

Has been deleted before (I think) as it is WP:TOOSOON and 2017–18 UEFA Champions League was deleted only a few days ago (but this article CSD was declined). Hardly any content. Qed237 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have these articles at my sandbox ready for creation when it is time, but I feel it is too soon. Qed237 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too soon. Giant Snowman 08:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON, nothing to say about this iteration of the competition yet. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 7 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 snow keep. A Cecil AfD was closed as keep only yesterday. Maybe try again in a month. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil (lion)[edit]

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

Minor notoriety, lasting notability clearly not yet known (WP:NOTTEMPORARY) RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of an earlier deletion discussion [3] 78.147.163.113 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lasting notoriety can not be adequately judged in the short term. So your request may be premature. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has possibly become the most famous lion of all time —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever you think about the whole thing, Cecil has already achieved WP notability due to in-depth coverage in reliable sources.Borock (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - passed AfD (and moved) just two days ago. Suggest nominator Withdraw it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have already been through this. Raising this AfD is very possibly disruptive editing. I am considering reporting this to ANI. OP User:RealDealBillMcNeal, please tell us what is different from the previous AfD.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he's become more famous, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baby announcement[edit]

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

Edit: On grounds there have been no significant edits since creation 2008 and currently no sources.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSpeedy procedural keep is indicated since no grounds were stated for deleting the article. See WP:BEFORE. Baby announcements have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and thus satisfy WP:N. An etiquette book, Miss Manners, a Canadian baby book, another book for couples having a baby, a book for expectant mothers. Not the world's most important subject, but seems to have sources to allow writing an encyclopedic article. Edison (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage of birth announcements, especially in regards to cards and other trendy "reveals" —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No references does not equal not notable. A quick Google search would have cleared this up. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fits notability guidelines despite the lack of sources. Chuy1530 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for clean-up. Assuming it gets as least three sources, please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chidera okenwa[edit]

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

Sadly no evidence of notability. She fails WP:NACTOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One link to a blog does not cut it. Does not meet NACTOR and GNG. I could not find anything in my search but am not an expert in Nigerian cinema. As it stands, looks like a promo for a non-notable actor especially as the blog is titled "Meet the OKENWA'S...A family with unimaginable talents and skills". Cowlibob (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously as the article rather states it well and my searches found nothing aside from self-generated links. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 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 speedily deleted by DGG per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Darling (actor)[edit]

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

Article created by likely block-evading sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Should be deleted per WP:G5 based on outcome of current SPI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO by being the recipient of several well-known and significant industry awards that are not scene-related/ensemble categories. Both the Feminist Porn Award and the Transgender Erotica Awards are well-known/significant. They both have enough mainstream media coverage to pass WP:GNG ([4], [5], [6], & [7]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. If an article qualifies for speedy deletion, and is nominated for speedy deletion, there is no point in also creating an "Articles for deletion" nomination which just gives the speedy deletion as the reason: all that does is waste editors' and administrators' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Versace[edit]

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

Article created by likely block-evading sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Should be deleted per WP:G5 depending on outcome of current SPI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG; can't find any in-depth coverage of him —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Should be speedy deleted per WP:G5. Was created by a block evading sock of an indeffed user. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socio-Economic Profiteering[edit]

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

Poorly focused, unsourced essay. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - I was trying to get my head around it while attempting to fix it, but really couldn't get anywhere. ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a description of Price discrimination. --Savonneux (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that not a single book appears to mention the topic indicates that it is non-notable, is composed of original research and that the content in relation to the topic is unverifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novoslovnica[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable constructed language. Unable to find in-depth coverage. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a young language, but it has been marked rather highly by the people had aquainted with it. Most of them prefer Cyrillic, however. Though it has only one scientific publication now and references from the rest of interslavic community, its number will encrease. The project is very unique because of its accepted purposes. EASocialist (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No academic coverage, no secondary sources, one message board with a post on it. There doesn't appear to be any published books on the topic or evidence that it has been adopted by any sort of community. --Savonneux (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it really should be transliterated as Novoslovnitsa (Новословница), but even that has no article coverage. If the issue is that it's a young language, WP:TOOSOON would apply. Удачи. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be today it is too soon of course... In autumn the new articles will appear. EASocialist (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's obvious that this article cannot stay, as it is in violation of practically every policy we have (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NFT, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:SELFCITE, WP:PROMO, etc.). Except for the lack of a single secondary source, even finding primary sources is a problem. A website with a grammar description of the language seems to have vanished, and now grammar tables and the like are hidden in social media like Facebook and VK. Apart from the fact that social media can never be used as sources, the effect is also that this Wikipedia page appears to contain the only grammar overview available on the web. I would find it a pity if it would disappear, therefore I would suggest the author to transfer it to http://wiki.frath.net, a wiki where any conlang can be published. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:16, 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 speedy deleted as A7 & G11 (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Customer Loyalty Programmes[edit]

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

Not notable Surgenski (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:A7 and WP:G11. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:07, 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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanifa Deen[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. I could not find any indepth coverage of her, passing mentions only. Even her own website does not specify what actual awards she has won LibStar (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Deen gets a shout-out here: [8], a radio interview [9], a book review in a small magazine [10], a book review in a big newspaper [11]. Here: [12] is what a simple google news search on her name turned up. Probably enough to keep the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do find evidence of the award and of the short-listed book. The review in The Australian is significant. This is sufficient for notability. The article could use some work. LaMona (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty coverage about her and her books. (On the nominators comment on what award. [13] Her website says she won "New South Wales Literary Award 1996, Ethnic Affairs Commission") duffbeerforme (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Deen

Moran, Rod (6 February 1999), "Answering The Call", The West Australian

Laurie, Victoria (22 May 2003), "'Invisible' Muslims now under siege.", The Australian

Reviews or discussion of Broken Bangles

White, Judith (1 May 1998), "Surviving a fatwa is only part of battle", The Australian

Chimonyo, Janet (16 May 1998), "Symbols of suffering", Sydney Morning Herald

Gonis, Anastasia (23 May 1998), "CULTURE CLASH.Broken Bangles", Herald-Sun

"Breaking Free Of Islamic Tradition", Canberra Times, 21 June 1998

Sprogis, Elivira (4 July 1998), "Within The Bounds", Saturday Magazine - Newcastle Herald

Middleton, Julie (20 June 1999), "Lifting Veil on Muslim Women", Sunday Star-Times

"Voices most of us never hear", The Hindu, 3 October 1999

Reviews or discussion of Caravanserai

Carroll, Steven (28 June 2003), "Review - NON FICTION.", The Age

"Tough times for local Muslims", Canberra Times, 10 May 2003

Review of The Crescent and the Pen: The Strange Journey of Taslima Nasreen

Hussein, Shakira (27 January 2007), "Contrary dissident", The Australian

Reviews of The Jihad Seminar

Capp, Fiona (30 August 2008), "The Jihad Seminar - Pick of the week", The Age

Hussein, Shakira (1 October 2008), "Prejudice beyond belief", The Australian

Sexton, Michael (11 October 2008), "Case for the persecution", Sydney Morning Herald

Reviews of Ali Abdul v The King

Richardson, Owen (23 July 2011), "Stories", The Age

Bramley-Moore, Gillian (30 July 2011), "Non-fiction reviews", The Courier-Mail

Ellwood, Carlene (31 July 2011), "Whited out", STM Entertainment Magazine

See also reviews excerted on her site, linked from here. See also Trove [14].

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Cooper (director)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC as the only secondary sources given are blogs and self-published websites. Most sources are WP:PRIMARY listings. Cooper does not appear to meet any of the shortcut criteria of WP:DIRECTOR. McGeddon (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be high degree subjectivity in your assessments. The secondary sources are not all "blogs," - they are reputable online magazines (Indiewire, the dailygrowl, erasingclouds, various film festivals.) I personally think, and I know my opinion does not count equally because of the inane hierarchy on wikipedia, that this is a hasty and ill-advised proposal conjured up by an overly zealous wikipedian, who has a track history of just deleting articles just for the hell of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He meets these criteria. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks on other users. As you are a key contributor to the article I can understand you will be aggravated that your "work" is being nominated for deletion but it will not help your case and can harm it just state why you believe he meets the criteria. For each criteria, state which ref in the article supports this. Simply stating the article meets it, is not an argument. Cowlibob (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly doesn't meet WP:DIRECTOR, and most of the other sources are self-published (Daily Growl, erasingclouds). One good source from Pop Matters which is really an album review. I couldn't hunt up any better. That said, article has only just been created, so other sources might be found.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not Delete" - Criterion B ("has been part of a significant exhibition") 150 Best most exciting illustrators by Taschen. Criterion C ("has won significant critical attention") Awards for 206 - a film featuring internationally acclaimed film star, David Oyelowo, which won awards at the International Fashion Film Awards. Criterion C ("has won significant critical attention") Awards for various advertisements from 2014: ICAD Awards - Directing, Web Film (Fionn Regan: Bunkhouse Triptych)2014: Kinsale Shark Awards - Bronze ("Cut the Nonsense - Book about Tables", No Nonsense Insurance, Viral Film) 2014: Kinsal Shark Awards - Nominated - International New Directors Award. Criterion C ("has won significant critical attention") Beautiful as you - written by James Cooper - reached number 40 in the Australian charts. The sheer breath of his work in advertising, film, illustration, and music, and its accompanying recognition by awards juries in all those respective fields makes him of note. I am not quite clear on the distinction between blog and news outlet; there seems to be a fairly blurry line there. I am pretty sure you cannot deny that the sourced material in the article happened - its not like all those blogs were fabricated for the purpose of this wikipedia article. While I understand that IMBD is not a "legitimate" for his credits on Freedom, it is really the only possible source that would confirm his work there - it being one of the only bits of his work that has not been critically acclaimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion B is "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"; a 1/150th part of an exhibition does not sound substantial. WP:ANYBIO gives a green light for a subject who has won any "well-known and significant award", but those listed in the article all seem to be redlinks. No source has been provided for the assertion that Cooper co-wrote a top 40 song. WP:BLOGS explains Wikipedia policy on using blogs as sources. --McGeddon (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No source has been provided for the assertion that Cooper co-wrote a top 40 song --- I have posted a source that confirms this assertion. It also does not say the awards need to be known within wikipedia; the are awards that are significant and well-known within the industries in which he was working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Jolla Film Festival is a blue link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.148.26 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - The following sources in the article are not blogs ----- CNN -- The Irish Times, an irish daily broadsheet newspaper -- Screen Directors Guild of Ireland -- Indiewire, a daily news site for the independent film community -- Indaba, an online punlication run by Interactive Africa.
There are a grand total of 25 sources for what is a very brief article, 5 of which are reputable, established news sources, others from festival awards sites, the australian music charts, and some of which are from blogs. Please feel free to review them.
Delete, while the citations show the existence of this director, they do not meet the notability requires as per WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. Of the 24 links (2 point to the same target), the vast majority are either blogs or primary sources, including press releases and bios. Even the CNN link is a pr (the report clearly says "not verified by CNN" at its top), about a non-notable festival. The Urban Film festival citation is about another non-notable festival, and the link doesn't even appear to validate the claim in the article that Cooper's short film was "shortlisted". First, there's not a mention of films being shortlisted; second, in the list of short films I fail to see a film by Cooper. The Irish Times article merely mentions that Cooper entered a film in a contest, hardly notable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look more carefully, you will see that James Cooper's film, starring David Oleyewo, is listed. If a film is listed that means it has been shortlisted . . . You cannot just enter films into a festivals - depending on the festival rules, they are either selected by jury, or one submits and then is selected for viewing by a jury. A lot of films are rejected. The Urban Film Festival is notable.
Also the wikipedia rules state nothing about the secondary sources being unreliable if they are bios. All the secondary sources have to do is back up the claims in the article - if the claims is James Cooper's film was in a festival and the Irish Times presents a preview of the festival in which James Cooper film is listed, then the source has sufficiently backed up the claim. La Jolla Film Festival is notable - the cnn, apparently 'PR" link, explains its importantance in that particular part of the film industry.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The consensus is to keep the article as its subject passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable (or contextually reliable, as indicated by Peterkingiron) sources. North of Eden (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CAFOD[edit]

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

No indication of notability. This Catholic charity has some coverage in the Independent Catholic News, but practically nothing in other publications. Even that coverage largely does not discuss CAFOD itself in any detail. Huon (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Along with Christian Aid and Tearfund, CAFOD is one of a number of Christian charities discussed for GCSE Religious Studies in the UK (see page 12). As such, there are quite a few study books describing its work: [15][16][17]. Alternatively, there is a chapter in this book (p3-6) analysing its activities and also a section in this book (p172-175) detailing its role in East Timor. Fuebaey (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep -- One of the larger UK Aid charities. Since it is the aid organisation of the Cstholic Church, it is inevitable that most of the coverage should be in Catholic media, because that it is where it raises its funds. I would fully echo the references to Christian Aid and Tearfund, which also have a Christian basis. There is an equivalent Muslim charity and of course secular ones like Oxfam. All ought to have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Blackbushe Airport crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and General aviation crashes are very common and considered not notable in most cases. ...William 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than just a "General aviation" crash. Plane involved was a business jet and there are reports of at least four fatalities, making it the deadliest crash in the UK for a number of years - definitely notable. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has now been confirmed by police that four people have been killed. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - It is too early to be able to state definitively that this is a non-notable accident in Wikipedia terms. Knowing the provenance of the aircraft, there is a fair chance that Wikinotable people are involved. Should this be the case, then the case for a stand-alone article is proven. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GeorgeGriffiths (talk · contribs)'s argument -- Pingumeister^(talk) 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - fatal airline crashes, except for small planes in bad weather etc, tend to be notable as there is typically long-term coverage expected when there is an inquiry. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice for renomination in a few weeks/months. Per Mjroots. Aircraft has the same registration as the aircraft of Mohammed bin laden in which he died when it crashed in 1967.[18] Two or three close relatives of Osama Bin Laden ~~may~~ have been killed in the crash.[19] The Saudis have confirmed family members were on board.> ~~The cites aren't the best,~~ but I feel that sometimes articles like this are too quickly taken to AfD without thought. Martin451 00:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. With unconfirmed reports that family of Osama bin Laden are among the fatalities and that the incident is still being investigated by the AAIB the crash is likely to gain more notability. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even before the Bin Laden connection, this would have passed WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable victims (if only by family), extra-ordinary crash - modern biz-jet just falling out of the sky (less than a mile from my cousin's house)!!! Not a common event.--Petebutt (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Olin[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Notability not derived from father Ken Olin. Quis separabit? 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plainly passes the general notability guideline. A quick GNews search reveals well more than the minimum amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, stretching from (as far as I can see) 2009 to present day. There was actually an article about her published literally 13 hours ago here (although, granted, it's of the "whatever happened to..." variety :). Her failure to pass the subject-specific notability guideline for actresses is irrelevant if she passes GNG, and in any event that presumes her notability is entirely based on her career as an actress when she is also apparently a socialite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom almost no independent RS to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Random sampling of independent RS found via simple Google search. MTV.com. New York Magazine. LA Times. People Magazine. I'm curious to know how this fails GNG's simple requirement that a subject be the source of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I suppose the MTV.com source can be discounted as not independent, but the rest have no affiliation with her or the TV shows she has appeared on. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The Google search above does give a couple of pages of hits, but beginning on page 3 they are mostly tangential, non-substantive mentions of her, mostly to do with her friendship with Whitney Port. Of the rest, most are blogs, or aren't independent (e.g. MTV), or again only mention her briefly in relation to something else. Mere mentions do not rise to the criteria of significant coverage. It looks like there is a single good source, the New York Magazine item, which is an in-depth interview. This certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG, her appearance on a reality tv show, and a small role in a single other program don't meet WP:NACTOR. Normally, I'd say this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but most of these cites are from five or more years ago. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus here is clearly in favor of keeping this article, given its significant coverage in WP:RS and accordant passage of WP:GNG. North of Eden (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Islands Tunnel[edit]

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

This is not a notable subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is covered independently in multiple reliable sources, so even though it wasn't built it would seem to satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG, sources in the fr.wikipedia article as well. Vrac (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; has sources; large transportation project proposals are notable. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 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 delete. The page name will be fully protected to prevent recreation. User:Diplomaciacultural has been indefinitely blocked for using a corporate name and for that corporation making legal threats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy[edit]

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

This article has been deleted three times previously, on notability grounds. The current version of the article is very similar to previous versions. A speedy deletion was recently declined, on the basis that this version is not identical to the previous ones; however, I believe the same notability issues apply. This article does not assert the significance of the organization, and I do not see sources here that would clearly meet the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence that anything has changed since previous AfD's ps possible CoI of article creator. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nothing for there to be a different result. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and SALT to prevent page re-creation. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I don't have access to the deleted versions of the articles but maybe Sarek or someone else can point out what significant additions this new version includes.

The difference obvious to me is the news, announced the day before this article was created, that Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was stepping down off the Spanish Council of State to take on a role as an unpaid advisor to the ICD. This news is referenced in the article with three citations to Spanish news articles all published the day before this article was re-created[20][21][22]. All three seem to be versions of the same Europa Press wire article[23]. The text of the Europa Press article (AFAICT, via Google Translate) doesn't do much to advance an argument under WP:ORG, IMHO. It includes little more than the standard blurb about the ICD and it's mission plus a list of other advisors. This seems to be a clear case of WP:INHERITORG — "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it."

The first time we decided to delete this article, I was a little on the fence about the notability determination. Although I don't think we've crossed the threshold, I do think that time and recent events seems have helped the notability case. Ultimately though, I !voted to delete because the pattern of editing convinced me that the article was not capable of being maintained with a NPOV. Major issues included neutrality, deleted criticism, patterns that looked like COI editing by very enthusiastic single purpose accounts, etc. After I !voted to delete last time, my involvement resulted in a series of emailed legal threats. When I blogged about the whole saga (that link may be a good source of background) I got a nasty letter directly from the the ICD's lawyers in Berlin. Only after an enormous headache that ended with me getting pro-bono legal representation through the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic did things resolve themselves in the sense that the ICD and their lawyers simply went away.

The simultaneous creation of new articles in English, French, and Spanish (and German, now deleted?) by yet another new WP:SPA the day after the Zapetero news gives me no confidence that the problematic underlying pattern of editing has changed.

Given the coverage, the ICD certain should be mentioned in the article about Jose Zapatero. In terms of the article in question, I don't see how things have changed. Given the history, salting is probably appropriate so that we can have this conversation before the article is created yet again. —mako ๛ 21:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#G4 is only for "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". In my view, the Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero information was sufficient to disqualify the use of this criteria. I have no particular opinion at this point about whether the article should be kept after discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently identical to the deleted versions (and, as an admin, I can check) for a WP:CSD#G4, but still not notable in itself. It seems that all sources are from the organization itself or from affiliated organizations of questionable notability or reliability. (I could be wrong, there. Perhaps one of the sources in another language is really from an independent source.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What happened to the second nomination? Was the organization spelled differently? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Mako's blog post, it was re-created under "The Institute..." LaMona (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted three times but I don't think there was a second AfD nomination and the third nomination should have been listed as the second. Beteween the first and third, the article was created as The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy but I moved it to Institute for Cultural Diplomacy before it was deleted under WP:CSD#G4 by Arthur Rubin without ever going to AfD. —mako ๛ 19:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the editor that attempted to speedy delete the article. It may be different enough that another AfD is needed, but nothing in the article shows any notability whatsoever; the text may be different but the lack of notability hasn't changed. The article still fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. - Aoidh (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as nom, per Benjamin Mako Hill's detailed analysis. -Pete (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage revolves around Zapatero's appointment, except this HuffPost article. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications. This article is different from the previous articles because it includes significant additional coverage about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, which was published in secondary reliable sources that are independent. This additional information asserts the international significance of the organization, in general, and at the same time establishes notability for the organization, as it now meets the general notability guidelines, and passes the criteria of WP:GNG & WP:ORG.

The clarifications below includes a detailed description of the new significant coverage as well as clarifications regarding issues of deleted criticism, vandalism and patterns that this article is being edited by enthusiastic writers. It is important to point out that the clarifications includes references to articles written by German, Romanian, Italian and Spanish institutions, which stands by the criteria of the general notability guidelines, (“Sources do not have to be available online or written in English”), however in order to make it easier for the discussion, knowledge in these languages or a Google-translation are needed.

A. The first group of additional information includes numerous profile articles having been published about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy by other reliable institutions and media organizations as one can find below.

A1. See an article about the foundations of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy by Die Welt

(Welt.de - Diplomatie-auf-30-Quadratmetern . An interview with the founder of the institute. Retrieved 2003-04-26.)

A2. See a profile article about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy by the Diplomat Magazine

(ICD the cultural organization. An article about the Institute for cultural Diplomacy in the Diplomatic Magazine. Retrieved 2015-01-15.)

A3. See a profile article about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy by the Furtwangen University

(Institute for Cultural Diplomacy Organizational Profile. An organizational profile about the Institute for cultural Diplomacy published by Furtwangen University Retrieved 2015-04-02)

A4. See a profile article about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy by the Berliner Tafel

(Volunteering Power House – the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. An article about the volunteering activity of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy at the Berliner Tafel e.V. Retrieved 2015-03-17)

B. The second difference is that the article includes references to the academic programs in cultural diplomacy, which are offered by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

B1. See here an article about the joint-Master Programs with the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy published by Babes-Bolyai University

(Cultural Diplomacy and International Relations. An article about the joint academic programs offered by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and the Babes-Bolyai University.)

B2. See here an article about the joint-Master Programs with the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy published by Furtwangen University

(International Economics, Business & Cultural Diplomacy (Master) - Studiengänge Overview An article about the joint academic programs offered by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and the Furtwangen University. Retrieved 2015-06-25)

B3. See here an article about the joint-Master Programs with the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy published by Siena University

(Master program in Global Governance and Cultural Diplomacy An article about the joint academic programs offered by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and the Siena University.)

C. The third additional difference is that this article includes information about the establishment of the Berlin branch of the Babes-Bolyai University in partnership and within the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin. This news development was covered in the Romanian press.

C1. See a news article about the opening of the branch written by the Transilvania Reporter

(UBB are campus universitar la Berlin (BBU has a campus in Berlin). An article about branch of the Babes-Bolyai University in partnership and within the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin. Retrieved 2015-03-05)

C2. See a news article about the opening of the branch written by ClubAzi.ro

(Rectorul Ioan-Aurel Pop a inaugurat Campusul Universităţii Babeș-Bolyai de la Berlin (The Rector Ioan Aurel Pop inaugurated the campus of Babes-Bolyai (BBU) in Berlin). An article about branch of the Babes-Bolyai University in partnership and within the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin. Retrieved 2015-03-05)

C3. See a news article about the opening of the branch written by the Ziua de Cluj:

(UBB invadează Germania. A inaugurat un campus la Berlin (UBB invades Germany. It opened a campus in Berlin) An article about branch of the Babes-Bolyai University in partnership and within the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin. Retrieved 2015-03-05)

D. The fourth important new information is the news about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who accepted a full-time paid position in the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy as President of its Advisory Board. This news, which was covered by over 100 Spanish media outlets, includes diverse references in different versions to the activities of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy as well as leading individuals who are involved in the activities of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

D1. See a news article about the new position of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero by the El Confidencial Digital

(Zapatero cobrará por objetivos en la ONG alemana (Zapatero taking charge of the goals of the German NGO) An article about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero becoming the President of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin. Retrieved 2015-07-30)

D2. See a news article about the new position of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero by the ABC :

(El «poder blando» de Zapatero encuentra misión en Alemania (The "soft power" Zapatero is mission in Germany) An article about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero becoming the President of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin. Retrieved 2015-08-01)

D3. See a news article about the new position of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero by the Europa Press

(Zapatero deja temporalmente el Consejo de Estado para presidir el consejo asesor de una fundación alemana (Zapatero leaves temporarily the State Council to chair the advisory board of a German foundation) An article about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero becoming the President of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin. Retrieved 2015-07-28)

These news about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who during the time when he served as Prime Minister of Spain, initiated the creation of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, and who is now joining the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (together with many other prominent figures who have already joined the institute), will influence the activities of the institution and therefore directly influence the development of the field of cultural diplomacy, while making the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy itself a significant player in the development of the field of cultural diplomacy.

It is important that this new position of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero be mentioned in the Wikipedia pages of both José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and cultural diplomacy.

The importance of the field of cultural diplomacy was recently described in an article of the British Council about the soft power, in 2013 where the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy was also mentioned (see page 7 of the article), which can be seen here:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/influence-and-attraction-report.pdf

This article (in page 7) also includes a part where it cites the creation of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin as a testament to growing interest and importance of the study and practice of cultural diplomacy in the world:

“In addition, over the past five years interest in cultural relations and cultural diplomacy has prompted the foundation of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy in Berlin, the development of academic courses across the world, and a steady flow of conferences and events.”

E. Clarifications regarding WP:V, WP:NPOV, deleted criticism, patterns that this article is being edited by enthusiastic writers, and vandalism are provided also here.

E1. The article includes references, which uphold the standards of WP:NPOV, for the following reasons:

E1.1. The references, which were provided and chosen are including an overwhelming magnitude and diversity of media coverage about the same issue.

E1.2. The references that were provided and chosen are articles from diverse mix of reliable institutions that are covering the same issue, and the number of different references provided all together lowers the risk of a lack of neutrality.

E1.3. The references that were provided and chosen are pointing out simple facts without giving opinionated arguments (a fact that lowers the risk of WP:NPOV)

E2. Examples are provided below.

E2.1. For example, there is no dispute that the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy exists and is running conferences as the international conferences held by the institute and these events have been mentioned and described in over 100 press articles, which can be found in the Press Page of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, where the links to the original articles are provided and can be found below:

http://www.cd-n.org/index.php?en_icd-press.

From checking the website of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy it looks like it provides a considerable amount of press coverage which includes links to the original articles themselves.

The Press article about the Armenia Economic Forum is one good example about the fact that the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is running conferences.

See a news article published about the event the ICD will be hosting in Armenia by Panorama.

(Armenia to host international investment forum. An article about the event to be hosted by the ICD in Armenia in October 2015. Retrieved 2015-02-27)

In addition, the ICD YouTube channel includes over 1000 lectures about cultural diplomacy delivered by professionals. In addition one can find several TV reports about the international conferences held by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy here.

E2.2. A second example is that the references in the article include the undisputed fact that the academic programs of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy exist and the published articles of the academic institutions just confirm that they exist.

E2.3. Third example is the undisputed fact that the Berlin branch of the Babes-Bolyai University exists, as it is mentioned in numerous Romanian media outlets.

E2.4. In addition there is no dispute about the news about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.

E.3 Conclusion. Therefore issues of WP:V, WP:NPOV, deleted criticism, patterns that this article is being edited by enthusiastic writers, or vandalism do not apply to this article.Diplomaciacultural (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“Jimbo” Wales. Since 2012, the article of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy was deleted three times already and is now nominated for deletion for the a fourth time.

It would be most helpful in this case to get personal advice from “Jimbo” Wales and other editors on this important issue, so the discussions will be thorough, neutral and constructive.

A message was just left for “Jimbo” Wales.(Diplomaciacultural (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Hopsin[edit]

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

A trivial list, redundant to Hopsin discography. Koala15 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~- Despite being the closer of the previous AFD I can't make any sense of it!, Anyway~~ delete per above - Most songs are either at Hopsin or Hopsin discography. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant with the other two articles as stated above by Davey2010. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Deb per A7. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 15:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIX MEDIA[edit]

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

This article appears like an advertisement. Ayub407 (talk) 13:48, 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 redirect to Mass mobilization. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political mobilization[edit]

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

This article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Mass mobilization. It also looks like a dictionary article, so WP:NOTDIC is an issue. Ceosad (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to mass mobilization per points raised by nom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems justified. I forgot about that while nominating. Ceosad (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mass mobilization. That article is okay, at least about a recognized topic. "Political mobilization" seems to be a more general and vague term, so not exactly the same thing. But redirect is probably more useful to readers than simply delete. Borock (talk) 15:48, 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 both articles speedily deleted as either copyright violations or blatant hoax.

World Humanity Commission[edit]

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

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

These articles appear to be part of an elaborate hoax.

There is no indication that the World Humanity Commission is a legitimate worldwide human rights organization, and it has no verifiable connection to the United Nations.

The United Nations Collaboration for the Economic and Social Development of Africa appears to exist only as an entity on LinkedIn. A search for this entity within the United Nations website gives no results, and a general Google search gives no results other than the organization's own LinkedIn profiles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax, per nom. --Richard Yin (talk) 13:50, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mango B2B[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Sources are primary. The Sun article doesn't appear to exist and the Forbes article doesn't mention this company. Prod removed. Vrac (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy if needed as my searches found nothing good and there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It looks like a NN 2-person business to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 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. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 13:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tako Natsvlishvili[edit]

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

Low notability and no real importance with self-advertising and promotional purposes are seen, thus suggest we delete it. Jaqeli 21:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least redirect to NEXT Model Management. I really don't think it's overpromotional, and if so this can be fixed. Young (but stunnning!) model so this would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She's walked in major shows, and been featured in a lot of Georgian news, particularly talk shows. Unfortunately I can't understand Georgian but it's pretty clear on the shows they are talking about her career. I wouldn't suggest deleting, at least redirect.[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. No need to delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep based on the sources and the nice break-down of her career listed by Мандичка. It all seems to point towards sufficient coverage with enough variety of sources and publications for her to pass general notability. Mabalu (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per sources found, They're not perfect I'll admit but the videos can be used as sources atleast until something better crops up, Personally I think it needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 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 no consensus. Minimal participation since Cunard's improvements, and I'm not gonna relist a fourth time. I won't object to somebody opening up a fresh discussion on this article in the near future. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invoicera[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article with promotional tone with no third party references!!

Comment - I completed the nom for IP 121.244.131.238. ansh 666 23:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Cleaned out all the promo text and added some possible references. Don't see the product passing notability, unless some more suitable refs are found. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 21:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and draft/userfy instead - I say this because I acknowledge the sources but they are not even close for significant notability and further emphasized by my searches as the best thing there were the News links shown above and some press releases. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cozma, Nicole (2012-08-17). "Use Invoicera for free small business invoicing services". CNET. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
2. Weisbein, Jeff (2012-02-14). "Invoicera Review: Making Invoicing Simple". BestTechie. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
3. Long, Jonathan (2015-07-10). "5 Online Invoicing Solutions for Business Owners". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
4. Hendricks, Drew (2015-05-26). "10 Online Invoicing Services for Small-Business Owners". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
5. Cravenho, Andrew (2015-05-07). "5 Invoicing and Accounting Tools for New Entrepreneurs". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Invoicera to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing app of no note. Govindaharihari (talk)

Your "delete" rationale, a "just not notable" vote, is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Weak Delete/Userfy: could be speedy deleted for unambiguous advertising: "Spend time making money, not chasing money!", and/or copyright violation, article is taken straight from here and a few other spots on their website. Vrac (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Coverage still pretty thin for WP:CORPDEPTH. Vrac (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vrac (talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article. The original version by Nuvarande (talk · contribs) was neutrally written; the insertion of spam and copyright violations can be traced to these edits by Veronika Tondon (talk · contribs) in May 2015. Cunard (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vrac (talk · contribs), WP:CORPDEPTH says: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
I've cited multiple independent sources here to establish notability since the Entrepreneur and The Huffington Post articles include Invoicera in lists. But I think the CNET article and BestTechie are fairly substantial coverage. Would you clarify why you think Invoicera does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline? Cunard (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:33, 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 redirect to Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Anything worth merging can be found under the history of the article. Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antares Astronomical Observatory[edit]

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

The observatory exists, but I cannot find anything to denote its notability or significance. A small-time observatory by a small-time university. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana - the Observatory does not appear to be independently notable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana as per above. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:36, 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 Meek Mill#Dream Chasers Records. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Snupe[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a rapper, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as his only releases were mixtapes. This is extremely poorly written, further — I can't, for example, make heads or tails of what the article is even trying to say about why Sean Combs is linked in it. As always, a Wikipedia article is not something that any musician — living or dead, rapper or rocker or country star or whatever — is automatically entitled to have just because he existed; it's something that a musician earns by being the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to verify that they pass one or more of the notability criteria in NMUSIC, but this article fails to provide any evidence that its subject does so. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meek_Mill#Dream_Chasers_Records per the previous discussion, As he's already mentioned there it makes more sense to redirect than delete IMHO –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 Per my comment below about the salting, would you agree? SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister - Unless it's been recreated 3 or times then I don't usually go for Salting but If you and the closing admin prefer salting then I don't mind, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Fails WP:NMUSIC. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt ~~and possibly edit lock if started again~~ as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement and notability here and here. The most notable thing was he got a deal but was killed, there's nothing more to add. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this, it seems sensible enough to salt as there's nothing more to add and if there's ever the marginal chance, it can be unprotected but for the meantime, no. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Johnson[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have made his first grade debut yet, so fails WP:RLN Mattlore (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Several independent and reliable sources describe his activities at Huddersfield Giants, adding up to quite a significant amount of cover. Here are some online examples: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] from the result pages of this search. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Speccy4Eyes: That's all routine coverage and so fails GNG. A subject needs significant coverage where they are actually the subject of the article (not mentioned in passing). I see he was called into a Super League squad, is there any news sources out there reporting that he has actually played for Huddersfield's first-grade team yet? Because if there is then he'll meet WP:RLN (although the article may still be deleted, because WP:RLN is about assumed notability, and GNG actually establishes it). -- Shudde ^talk 02:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Speccy4Eyes has not been able to help me here, and I can't find anything to warrant including this biography under WP:GNG or WP:RLN. May well change in the future, so this could easily be a case of WP:TOOSOON. But at the moment nothing in policy to warrant a keep vote. -- Shudde ^talk 08:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shudde, I am sorry, I didn't realise that you were waiting for me to respond. Johnson was the captain of the England youth team. and has a page dedicated to him on the Giants website here. He has received significanrt coverage, including being the subject, or one of the main subjects, of many media articles. Please see these: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. I hope, after seeing these, that you will reconsider your verdict. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the rationale explained by Shudde above. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but time will tell on that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 7 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. Plenty of shaky arguments on both sides of the fence here, but we're obviously not going to form a consensus for deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to discuss content improvements (and a potential merge?) on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. title misleading, suggests event going to happen. Offensive threats could be part of Psychological operations or based on mere speculation and rumors. Numerous sources say such offensive not possible any time soon (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc @Bender235 and George Ho:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per previous AfD (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mosul (2015)). I do see where the nominator is coming from, but there does seem to be enough coverage about this in reliable sources to merit an article of some sort. If consensus is not to keep this time around, I'd suggest a merge into a timeline article, to be split back out when/if the actual battle commences. ansh 666 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is actual evidence that the thing has already started. Ericl (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has inspired other WP:CRYSTALBALLs such as Ericl (talk · contribs)'s Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer 2015 Invasion of Syria.G8j!qKb (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm lean a little more permissive than I probably should on crystalball grounds when its clear that we will, eventually, have a legitimate article. But I'm not willing to extend that permissiveness to discrete military actions. The difficulties in planning and executing an attack on ISIL positions in Mosul is certainly noteworthy, to the extent that it's discussed in cited sources. A (markedly trimmed) discussion of these logistical difficulties belongs (if its not already there; I'll admit that I didn't look closely) in Military intervention against ISIL. But battles are discrete events; this one hasn't happened yet, and I my reading of our "future events" guidelines just doesn't give me faith that the corresponding article should happen yet, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia has articles about what happened, not what might happen. --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom has added a huge amount of {{citation needed}} templates, possibly to make the article look bad. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case and I know we should assume good faith, but that kind of behavior at the same time as nominating it for deletion seems like a move to get more delete votes. Dustin (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but planned offensives widely discussed in the media and reliably sourced can surely be notable. North of Eden (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substancial media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources in the Planning and delays section. It's not WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is for something like, 2021 NCAA Tennis Championships. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the title is ungainly but don't know if alternatives such as Mosul as a coalition target are any better. Greg Kaye 16:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mosul offensive (2015) Note was linked here from this post, not the second listing. Note similarities in topics and content (in particular first non-lead section). Banak (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. EkoGraf (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change title to Planned battle for Mosul (2015). Although, perhaps, the title proposed may be likely used, we cannot know that any encounter will be given a specific name before the event.

See: Planned Invasion navigation page and pages beginning "Planned ..." Greg Kaye 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: In response to your new title suggestion, how do you know/which source claims offensive for retake requires only one battle? Which source says it will take place in 2015? LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mosul offensive (2015) The article as it is does not seem notable to me. An article on the battle should be created if Mosul is retaken from ISIS, but not before. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per the Planning and delays section, as it is not WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, the current title is kind of weird, and should be moved back to Battle of Mosul (2015). It's like an Operation Overlord in planning, and just because it has been pushed back for at for over 7 months doesn't mean that it won't happen. Also, this event is going to have major implications, and just the preparations and events that have happened so far already make this article notable enough to keep. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: LightandDark2000 is article creator. @LightandDark2000: how do you know/which source claims offensive for retake requires only one battle? Which source says it will take place in 2015? Battles are discrete events and this one hasn't happened yet. LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources saying that the US (not to mention Iraq) planned it for 2015. A few quote US Commanders as saying that it may have to be pushed back to 2016, but those sources are not included. By the way, nearly everything in the article is already sourced (with a few exceptions in the lead and the Background paragraph), usually by the order of one source per small paragraph or event. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The title is backed by several reliable sources. The article needs a requested move rather than an AFD. Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 7 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 John Walsh (filmmaker). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Ministers Global Fellowship documentary[edit]

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

Part of a series of articles being created by this editor for the work of John Walsh (filmmaker), I can find no evidence that this 30-minute doc meets WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

After being deleted, we can redirect to the John Walsh article. Though this 2009 documentary film lacks the coverage or commentary to meet WP:NF and merit a separate article of its own, we can at least send readers to the one location where it might be mentioned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect as suggested. I doubt we need an article about a TV programme that has sunk without a trace after its first broadcast 6 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Somebody can recreate it as a redirect if they want. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide chicken[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's read WP:NOTNEWS to see if it says we shouldn't include new referents:

"As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Therefore, we should include new referents.

"However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:"

We should check each of these to see if they apply.

"Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style."

This does not apply because it's not first-hand news or acting as a primary source.

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."

The other articles in this category, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal-borne_bombs demonstrate the enduring notability of such referents. This is not "routine news reporting" or anything like an announcement, sports, or celebrities.

"Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Clearly does not apply.

"A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."

Clearly does not apply.

Please understand the reasons behind the WP:NOTNEWS guideline and do not believe that it means that Wikipedia has to wait until something is old to include it in the encyclopedia. Chrisrus (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite showing impressive cut-and-paste skills, I don't believe Chrisrus's answer properly "considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Just because some animal-borne bombs are notable doesn't mean they all are. I read about some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat; it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. At most this deserves a mention in one of the myriad other relevant articles on the specific conflict or the subject of animal bombs. But there's no indication it's beyond a simple "gee something strange has happened somewhere just now!" news report, published one day and forgotten the next - if it wasn't for the link to ISIS/ISIL/Daesh it would be a perfect example of the silly season. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- First, please explain what you meant by my "cut-and-paste" skills. How was I supposed to demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this case without quoting directly from the guideline? I didn't just quote it, I also pointed out how each item does not apply so I did more than simply cut-and-paste. Your argument also contains a quotation seemingly cut and pasted. Quoting a relevant rule or guideline is what you are supposed to do in such contexts, so please strike-through that portion of your argument as irrelevant.
- The analogy is not relevant. Animal-borne bomb refers to those with a military purpose, all of which have their own articles on Wikipedia even if they are never used in war, as long as they can be reliably sourced. The fact that you personally know of some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat is not relevant.
- Finally, yes, it does seem a silly thing at first, but ISIS is not silly, no bomb that works is silly, no sign that ISIS is insane, desperate, or out of ways to deliver their bombs is silly. This is not as silly or frivolous as it may seem so it's wrong to delete this article on the grounds that it's silly. Chrisrus (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin bombs don't have a separate article; they're a sentence in Animal-borne bomb attacks (Military dolphin is largely about their use in mine detection). This deserves similar treatment. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't consider quoting a large chunk of guideline and then appending "Clearly does not apply" really contributes to anything. Clearly the original deletion proposal was rather terse, but the relevant section of the guidelines should be obvious. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources is also a factor. The Daily Mail is included in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, and I've no idea about the bona fides of the other sources: one Jordanian, one Afghan, neither with first-hand evidence. None of the source articles seem to be very certain that the suicide chickens even exist. While you insist this is serious business, they're more interested in making puns than establishing the facts. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapninsula, military dolphins which plant mines are in this category, but some clear them and do other things. That's not the situation with chickens.

It was showing that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. This objection is not relevant.

I found many sources for this, but thought these three would be enough. I will add more from different countries. Let me know when you're been convinced so I can stop. Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Animal-borne bomb attacks. Believe it or not, there has been a aurprising amount of such instances (usually donkeys).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the qualifier even the DM put on the story: "although their authenticity could not be verified" - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per E.M.Gregory. Note that the title is misleading – there's no suggestion that such chickens are intentionally killing themselves for the cause. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The DM has an even more unreliable source for its article, The Daily Star. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per E.M. Gregory, seems a potentially valid search term but not worthy of an article itself per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. What information about the subject that is available in WP:RS could be included elsewhere (such as Animal-borne bomb attacks as suggested above). Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you gotta love the idea of a suicide chicken. But, seriously, folks, it may be absurd to strap ammo to a bucket of KFC, but you gotta admit that as a bunch of geniuses are strapping bombs to chickens and mules and whatnot you have to keep that page.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has to actually be a thing before it gets even a redirect. The Daily Mail doesn't care if this is real or not. It's great copy. The other two sources in the article are derivative of the Daily Mail piece (of ...). I would be shocked if there was an independent RS that corroborates this story. It clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, which even redirects need to adhere to. Not that I don't appreciate the humor: "Once the chickens are successfully within striking distance without having aroused suspicion" Come on! A couple of big white things and a remote control strapped to a chicken wouldn't arouse suspicion? And I love the qualifier at the end of the first sentence, the passive "it has been claimed." Solid sourcing there! Chrisrus, I hope you are just objecting for giggles. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason for a redirect, with about 100 monthly views (probably consequential to the Daily coverage). If you're worried about the representation of chickens in Animal-borne bomb attacks please add one sentence to that article and use The Mail's reference. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and I've considered it. Tabloids, apparently the Daily Star in this case, publish weird stuff like this all the time and other sources with nothing else to fill space re-report it. We would only be slightly more or less accurate if we accepted Weekly World News as a source. - Location (talk) 21:43, 7 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 01:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjeet Baral[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Very promotional in tone, edited by single editor from new. Having a range of jobs (itself not uncommon for many medical professionals) or using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia IMHO. kashmiri ^TALK 23:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia" the article never mentions the use of any "new" technique but being the first doctor to introduce a special "diagnosis device" in Nepal for diagnosing an impending heart attack. ^[1] Dr. Baral is known for representing the 2012 London Olympics as team doctor, representing the doctors for the medical commission of Nepal Olympic Committee. ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Dblama ^TALK

Sources in books/journals ^[6] ^[7] ^[8], 9 July 2015 (UTC)

^ "MCG: Non-invasive‚ non-stressful tool to diagnose impending heart attacks".
^ "GAA 2012 Alumni" (PDF).
^ "Pramila fails to make mark at London Olympics".
^ "Nepal Medical Commission".
^ "Health problems in sports".
^ "Health Yellow Pages: Medical Directory of Nepal, Nirantar Prakashan, 2001".
^ "Nepal at the Dawn of the 21st Century: General, Health & Medical Information by Narayan Bahadur Basnet".
^ "Japanese Circulation Journal".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject is an active medical professional, but not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 04:50, 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 08:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo advert, no claim of notability in the article, just another medical practitioner, some sources have trivial mentions of the subject, some are written by him, no in-depth coverage anywhere Kraxler (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rpclod. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sober Nation[edit]

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

Only independent source is about the organization's founder, so it doesn't meet the notability standard for companies. Conifer (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles may use the organization's founder as a jumping off point, but they are still substantially about Sober Nation as well, meriting at least a short stub article such as this one. Macrowriter (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New independent source added from Baltimore City Paper that is about the organization. There are now two independent, serious references to the company. It does meet the notability standard for companies. • Ridleyjr (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cape Cod Times article is entirely about the founder, with only a passing mention of the website itself. The Baltimore City Paper article has a mention of a top-10 list the organization put out. Neither of these are in-depth articles required to attain notability. Conifer (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New independent source added from another addiction recovery group that details what Sober Nation does. That now makes 3 independent sources discussing the company, its founder, and its mission. Those three sources include two serious, credible newspapers and another prominent addiction recovery group. It does meet the notability standard for companies. If it doesn't, please outline what additional citations you would need to see to reach a consensus. • Ridleyjr (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that actually explores the company in-depth is the page from the other addiction group, which is of questionable reliability (it's not a newspaper nor a subject-specific publication). Even if that was considered a substantive reference, there must be significant coverage to pass WP:ORG, not just one source. Conifer (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references provided qualify as reliable sources. I find a few bloggish sites (which only reference Stoddert as the founder and which suggest it is also a clothing company?) but that don't seem to be authoritative or sufficient in number to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this company is regularly listed on university sites as a resource for alcohol and drug treatment. I edited the page to reflect the three examples I could find, though I'm sure there are others I'm missing as well. (alternate account for Ridleyjr) • FlagSkiier (talk) 6:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete promo advert of the website/organization, no in-depth coverage anywhere, the sources are trivial mentions at best, and one is about the alleged founder, but just mentions the name of the org. fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam about a non-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:43, 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 no consensus. –Darkwind (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattvas of the Earth[edit]

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

Not notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, this article started out as pure COPYVIO and now is "rewritten" copyvio as far as I can tell. It's also been tagged as an orphan, not neutral, OR and unbalanced since January. Ogress _smash! 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is still one sided thereby promoting a religious organisation. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepJust received notice about this nomination for deletion. I disagree entirely. I do not have the time to thoroughly refute the contention now but will write more in the next few days. In the next few days I will document that this is an important component of several Nichiren schools and warrants a separate article, not just inclusion in the Lotus Sutra article.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep." The Bodhisattvas of the Earth is an important concept in almost all of the Nichiren schools as well as in various Lotus Sutra-based religions. — Lmkei22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Lmkei22 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep." Secular rationalists are unlikely to be confused.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you clarify what you mean by "Secular rationalists are unlikely to be confused"? I don't understand. Ogress _smash! 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for the clack of clarity. User Catflap08 was worried that the entry didn't critically examine the claims made - and could thereby be viewed as promoting a religious organization. On balance this seems unlikely, IMO. --Davidcpearce (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment En contraire. The concept is stated within named Sutra and not a concept as most sources given is likely to promote a certain religious group. Hence the issue should be explained within the article on Lotus Sutra.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not if the Bodhisattvas of the Earth are worth mentioning, but in what place they should be mentioned. As I said, rather hectically more references were added about Nichiren Schools and other Buddhist schools – fair enough. The Bodhisattvas of the Earth are most closely, if not exclusively, linked to the Lotus Sutra and I believe that this is the place were one should elaborate on the issue – and this can be done in a few sentences. The Lotus Sutra does not only have religious implications, as it also influenced East Asian literature in general, and its content should be discussed and described in the article that already exists. The deletion of the article in question was proposed at a stage when the references given hinted mostly in one direction – that is Soka Gakkai, an it’s exactly issues like this one that are lacking in the article on Soka Gakkai itself. Yes, other Buddhist schools do hold the concept of Bodhisattvas of the Earth dear but since definitions, interpretations and their weighting are diverse they should be elaborated on in the respective article. It’s exactly in those articles were one can mention and elaborate on what weight is given to the idea of "Bodhisattvas of the Earth" within a Buddhist school. One could write an article about the “ceremony in the air”, as it is also mentioned in the Lotus Sutra, but what that ceremony in the air means to different groups should be mentioned in the articles on respective groups. All I would suggest is to delete this present article, mention in a few words the concept within the article on the Lotus Sutra and insert redirects/links to respective “Beliefs and practice” sections within already existing articles. The present article has been pushed by Soka Gakkai adherents and I believe that rather than using Wikipedia as a directory of Soka Gakkai beliefs, the article on named group should be improved. SGI organises anti-nuke exhibitions, fair enough those things are nasty, but should we allow an article on “anti-nuke exhibition” just because SGI engages in it? It boils down to the question of relevance and if found relevant, relevant in which context. .--Catflap08 (talk) 17:26, 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. Merging seems a viable option, but that can be discussed elsewhere. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MV Nimpkish[edit]

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

No indication that this vessel is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does demonstrate at least some notability. Referencing could be much better, but that's no reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see zero evidence of notability. Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a book by Gary and Patricia Bannerman (bibliography in BC Ferries article) which provides sufficient information to establish notability for the ship. I own a copy, but will not have access to it until at least August. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule named ships that are designed to carry passengers are almost always going to be notable. Editors would be well advised to take a deep breath and look carefully BEFORE sending these kinds of articles to AfD. In this case a quick search yielded no shortage of reliable secondary sources dealing with the ship. See (001) (002 (003) (004) (005). Those are just a random sampling from the first page of hits. Conceding that the article needs some work, there is absolutely no doubt that the subject passes GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to N-class ferry. Same for MV Nicola. The ships are notable: as Ad Orientem notes, ships are big things and they do tend to be. However there is very little to say about these three that I think couldn't be said most clearly in one overall article on the class. It's also 40 years since they were built and so I don't expect the class to gain new members. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree notable, but single article covering all three of the the class is better considering the amount of material available - and more convenient for readers. Davidships (talk) 15:53, 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 07:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the delete arguments make a persuasive case that we are not required to keep all railway station articles by any means, and that the articles in question are indeed unsourced, there is still no consensus in this discussion to delete. –Darkwind (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aengnam Station[edit]

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

~~Non-notable railway stations.~~ Unsourced since 2009. Sawol (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are defunct stations on Gyeongjeon Line:

Keep. All railway stations are generally considered to be notable. Always have been. Being defunct is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about unsourced? Sawol (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to find sources, not delete! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who dose find sources? They have been doing that over recent six years and I suspect they will keep on without reliable sources. Sawol (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long standing and wise convention is that all rail stations are considered notable. If this project were flesh out the notability of the tens of thousands of stations throughout the world than there would be a gross amount of time and resources spent that would be better used at creating new articles and editing and improving existing ones, not to mention reducing animosity between editors. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: While all railway stations may be presumed to have notability (as stipulated by WP:NTS and WP:STATION), since none of these articles have no sources whatsoever there is no proof of notability. This nomination explicitly challenges the notability of these articles and it's for those who dissent to come up with sources: "[O]nce an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." (WP:NPOSSIBLE) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these stations, with no surprise sources are proven to exist. Most, if not all the sources are in Korean. For example for Wonbuk Station - written as "원북역" - the Korean Wikipedia article lists many sources (mostly from the 1950s and 1960s). It's impossible for stations to be built and used without various government reports, either budgetary or environmental. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade's reasoning. Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there really are sources as Oakshade points out, please add them (as further reading, as I have done at Wonbuk Station, or better yet, as actual sources). So long as they don't appear in any of these articles there is little proof of sources. I hope this is time better spent as Oakshade put it. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contrary to what some !voters affirm here above, there is no "long-standing and wise convention" that all train stations are notable. The guideline WP:NTS and the essay WP:STATION require expressly that multiple sources are shown. STATION goes even further, it says: "If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Let alone an article. Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, de facto there is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It there is, it runs crash-head-on against both the guideline and the project's own notability essay. I suggest the members of Project Railways either amend their own criteria (and spell out what they're doing) or they drop the convention and abide by their own rules. Kraxler (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the ones I checked (I didn't go through them all) have sourced articles in Ko. I followed Finnusertop's advice to copy the sources from Ko as "further reading", tagging them with the language template. One-sentence stubs that are notable but sources available sources are non-English shouldn't be a problem to be kept simply because English sources are not available.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a valid reason for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, make a list of defunct stations at the Gyeongjeon Line, and redirect all the titles there. Being unsourced is not in itself a reason to delete the pages, but we really do not need all these 10-word stubs. Stations able to support fully-developed articles can be reinstated on a case-by-case basis. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 8 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 01:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative[edit]

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

primary website down, and project almost unreferenced in literature. no usable information exists and article is vague. Ysangkok (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the program was later absorbed into another one called GNEP, it didn't take me long to find sources about the AFCI version of the program. I've added one to the page. PianoDan (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: according to IFNEC, that program was previously the GNEP. So why not just merge AFCI into IFNEC? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. That said, in this case, I wouldn't object to a merge and redirect. PianoDan (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan:. I do not think there are any signs that IFNEC did anything else when using the previous names. We do not have an article for the National Cash Register Corporation, we just have the article on the current company, called NCR Corporation. I also advocate for the redirect. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PianoDan. Merge/redirect can be discussed on relevant talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 17:40, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cotter[edit]

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

This may've been an autobio or a subject close to Steve Cotter (author also started Steve Maxwell which is a little better) but what concerns me more is that there's no obvious improvement with my searches here (this link said Men's Magazine called him one of the world's fittest men") and here (one Men's Health, passing mention), browser found mostly fitness websites and highbeam found this (which Manila Bulleting says he is world renowned). There's also no good target for moving elsewhere as the only other article is Lei tai where he's quoted; I'm sure he's well known in his field but there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. This is essentially an advert and does not meet WP:GNG. The first reference which is the only one that discusses the subject is a subject written advert.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:33, 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 redirect to WVVW-LP. Redirected by article creator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WMBP-LP[edit]

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

Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to meet threshold for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Broadcast_media. Nothing to show a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell from its website, this is not an originating station in its own right — the core condition that a radio station has to meet to satisfy either "established broadcast history" or "unique programming". Rather, it appears to be a pure rebroadcaster of WVVW-LP, with no evidence of any unique programming separate from whatever's beamed in from Parkersburg. A station of that type doesn't get its own independent article; it gets a redirect to its programming source. Redirect to WVVW-LP. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First, this station was signed on a little under 7 days ago. It is not clear what the format will be. Some stations sign on, simulcast, while working out the kinks. Second, the page has 4 sources, pretty good for a brand new station (most have none). I think we are jumping the gun here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went BOLD: I am in too much pain to fight with deletionists this morning, so I redirected WMBP-LP and WVVP-LP to WVVW-LP and merged the information and sources. Thus begins the slippery slope. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The slippery slope"? Dude, take a chill pill. What we have here is four -LP stations with a common website, all 15 to 20 miles apart from each other at most, and one of your four sources was a Facebook post. The likelihood that they're ever going to be anything other than a common simulcast of a single station is pretty low, frankly — but if and when there is actually some RS evidence that they have started to air distinct programming from each other, we can always spin them back out into separate articles again when that time comes. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we start merging station pages together (even if they are rebroadcasters), ones with highly reliable sources, one of them being the official Facebook page of the station (just as good as their own website), that is the beginning of the slippery slope in my opinion. For the record, I had a chill pill prior to my last post. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A radio station's own website is not an independent source that can confer notability, but a primary source. So you may have a point that their own Facebook is "just as good as their own website" — but what you're missing is that when it comes to demonstrating a radio station's notability, the "goodness" of their own website is a big fat zero. It can verify some facts (e.g. looking at the "artists played" scroll in the event of a dispute about their format), but it cannot count toward demonstrating the station's notability. And the consensus of WP:WPRS has always been that pure rebroadcasters get redirected to their programming source, not independent articles about each individual transmitter. This isn't a new consensus that's just emerged recently, or an unconsensual deviation from WP:NMEDIA — it's exactly the way things have always been, and you've previously participated in ensuring that said consensus was followed. So I'm really just not grokking your reaction here — you seem to be taking this way more personally than necessary. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said their website should be used as primary source, just a source. The primaries are the FCC website and Arbitron/Nielsen. The notability comes from NMEDIA and the FCC website.

We can merge articles if there isn't any addition information, something that I whole-heartedly support. But when there is information relating to one station and not the others, a seperate article is and always should be necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:02, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alma L. Lee[edit]

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

I'm not sure this person is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alma lee is the presedent of a union councel that represents over 200,000 employees. I think she is very relevant and notable^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublindietrite12 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://afgenvac.org/?page_id=14

Delete Heads of sub-councils of larger unions are rarely notable. The head of the UAW or such a union is probably going to be notable, the head of the sub-unit for General Motors would not be, same with the sub-unit for VA employees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Finding no indication of significant coverage in [any] independent reliable sources. North of Eden (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail GNG. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 7 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. I don't see a point to relisting this again, but I don't want to commit to a "keep" declaration. Seems worthwhile to continue discussing a possible merge, on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PNGOUT[edit]

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

This is a freeware software utility. This article was tagged with notability concerns in 2011, and in 2014, I redirected it to the author's page after I couldn't establish notability. Today, my redirection was reverted, but I still don't see any coverage in reliable sources for this software. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should merge this into Portable Network Graphics#Optimizing tools; that's what happened to OptiPNG. —SamB (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to author Ken Silverman. Software article of unclear notability lacking significant coverage, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Redirect to author/developer is common for non-notable software, and with the support of an afd finding, the change should be stable.Dialectric (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pngcrush has an article. IrfanView uses PNGOUT. I see many results in Google and Google News searches. I recognize many of the websites. So I assume some of them are WP:RS. Here are some reliable sources:
- Getting the Most Out of PNG. March 7, 2007. By Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror.
- Adding PNGOUT to the Explorer Right Click Context Menu. April 11, 2007. By Scott Hanselman, an author at Wrox Press. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are both personal blogs, and their coverage of PNGOUT is howto and fairly brief. As such, they don't seem to meet the threshold of significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The authors are well-known (in the world of computing), and one has a Wikipedia page. So the blog format is not relevant. As to PNGOUT's importance:

Ken Silverman: "PNGOUT optimizes the size of .PNG files losslessly. It uses the same deflate compressor I wrote for KZIP.EXE (see below). With the right options, it can often beat other programs by 5-10%." From: Ken Silverman's Utility Page.
Laurence Gellert: Compression utility pngout – a free lunch, bytes are on the menu. June 17, 2013. "Pngout compresses PNG files really really well (10-30% savings is typical). ... I use pngout as part of every release that adds or updates png graphics. Pngout squeezes down output from Photoshop, Paint.NET, or other graphics programs. After using this tool for several years I can say it has never corrupted a file or given me problems." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 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. SNOWing Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGhazi[edit]

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

Does not even come close meet WP:GNG. Strongjam (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Little to no RS coverage, even if this counts as a RS, but even if it does almost every other search result I found was a forum or blog (not reliable). Everymorning talk 02:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is a blogging platform, most everything found there is a self-published source. — Strongjam (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that sorse used on the article? AmericanEnki (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Everymorning searched for sources and that was what they found. — Strongjam (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2 Yes, that's correct, Strongjam. Everymorning talk 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~anything of significance, if anything, to the main GamerGate article and redirect there. Artw (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGhazi is a completely seperate movement from GamerGate and therefore reserves its own pageAmericanEnki (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this article, as currently written isn't about GamerGhazi. The two sections in the revision I'm looking at are GamerGate charity drives and the #NotYourShield hashtag which are not of significant relevance to GamerGhazi. Those are aspects of the GamerGate movement. (Discliamer; I've posted on both /r/GamerGhazi and /r/KotakuInAction). Metroid composite (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These issues belong in this article because they were direct responses to accusations be GamerGhazi. Since GamerGhazis is most notable for its accusations against GamerGate, It makes sense to include these issues. AmericanEnki (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination its a dumb stunt page so a straight up delete would be appropriate. Artw (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you consider to be a 'stunt?' Please identify.AmericanEnki (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow/Speedy Delete - not notable, per WP:GNG; concerns of WP:POVFORK. Any aspects which are verifiable, merge to Gamergate controversy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Change to Snow/Speedy - article has become a proxy battleground for POV pushers - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gamergate controversy as it is a possible search term, I suppose. But the current version of the article is an example of tendentious axe-grinding, cited to unreliable blog posts and Wikipedia itself, and has no encyclopedic content worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGhazi is currently at half the relevency as Brianna Wu and she recieves her own page. https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Brianna%20Wu%2C%20GamerGhazi&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4 AmericanEnki (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not analyze Google search trends in order to determine whether or not a topic is notable, AmericanEnki. This is an encyclopedia (not Twitter or Reddit) that covers topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Since you are a very new editor, it is understandable that you are not aware of that. The coverage of this topic in such sources is negligible at best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I seeAmericanEnki (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's halfway to being an attack page, and I can't find any reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable movement/web forum. It gets trivial mentions scattered through questionable sources on Google News, but that's not enough. Like Cullen328 says, I don't think there's any content here that's worth salvaging. I guess it could be redirected, but I probably wouldn't bother. See WP:42 for a quick run-down on our inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you find to be an attack? I will revise? what specific sources do you take issue with? I can revise.AmericanEnki (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the entire article is selected to paint the topic in a negative light, and completely lacks neutrality. The sources are mostly blogs including Reddit. That site is not a reliable source for anything whatsoever, except perhaps its date of founding, headquarters city, and current CEO, for the moment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Ryk cleaned up the worst of it. However, there are some problems you can't fix through editing, and notability is one of them. We need professional journalists to write articles about the topic; forum posts are not sufficient. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit URLS are only supplied to talk about the Reddit Squat (info about reddit site state EX. CEOS, Current mods) or to qoute a controversy that occured within a Reddit thread (Reddit users giving money to Wikipedia contibutor.) Even a broken source is useful twice a day AmericanEnki (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe Redirect to Gamergate controversy if any reliable sources can be found which would justify talking about it there. I'm not able to find anything more than brief mentions in reliable sources and the current article is pretty clearly POV/OR, citing no reliable sources at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is tied to Gamergate, there are no non-attacking RSes here to cover it objectively, and so should be avoided for the time being. That said, if the term does some up in a RSes in a manner to be described fairly, I think a redirect to summarize in the GG situation is appropriate. But not now. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RSes given are mostly direct, primary sources not hit or attack pieces.AmericanEnki (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, wait for more coverage?AmericanEnki (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what the larger travesty is: unsourced GamerGhazi page or the fact that the GamerGate page opens with GamerGhazi POV manifesto. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Gamergate controversy, fails notability guidelines. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Delete The vast majority of the sources used in this article don't even mention gamerghazi. The only sources that do are reddit threads. No coverage received, no need for a redirect. Brustopher (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Delete From beginning to end, everything in this article is "not even wrong" (that is, it is really really wrong). There is no counter movement to GG called Gamerghazi. The only Gamerghazi is a subreddit with a few thousand subscribers. Even Reddit GG headquarters KotakuInAction doesn't have an article. Nothing to merge here, just delete, but enjoy the rewrite I did before it's gone. 98.210.208.21 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Snowball Delete / Are You Fucking Kidding Me Delete lol what even is this some idiot made a wiki page about being mad at a forum on reddit, jfc TiC ^(talk) 03:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try to remain civil. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was entirely uncalled for. --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was up for barely a day with me being the only contributor of content. If the article had been given time to mature instead of being flag 2 hrs after the post then Im sure you would better understand what the article is about. AmericanEnki (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait, what? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Coatrack about Gamergate. It doesn't look like any of the sources currently used mention "gamerghazi" even once. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:POVFORK from Gamergate controversy which is where any WP:DUE mention of countermovements should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:POVFORK of Gamergate controversy. Ghostwheel ʘ 08:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Freyberg-Inan[edit]

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

I'm not really seeing the independent sources on this one. I'm seeing two of the subject's homepages ([43], [44]), two pages that don't mention her at all ([45], [46]), three passing mentions by fora with which she is affiliated ([47], [48], [49]), four pages from vendors hawking her books ([50], [51], [52], [53]) and three of her articles ([54], [55], [56]). So, as far as WP:PROF is concerned, criterion 1 isn't met, and neither are any of the other criteria, as far as I can tell. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both pages you say don't mention her at at all, do in fact mention Annette Freyberg-Inan. Please, check more carefully before proposing a deletion. Check the editors list for the Journal of International Relations and Development http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/about.html#Editors and also the staff, research affiliate for the Political Economy and Transnational Governance (PETGOV) http://aissr.uva.nl/research/programme-groups/content/political-economy-and-transnational-governance/staff/research-affiliate/research-affiliate.html Also the subject's homepage are hosted by institutions: University of Amsterdam and University of Edinburgh. The fora to which she is affiliated are highly regarded in the field of IR/ International Relations. Three 'vendors of her books" happen to be some of the most distinguished university press institutions: Cambridge University Press, the John Hopkins University Press, State University of New York/SUNY Press. Articles are published in peer-refereed journals, once again, a guarantee of their quality by the wider academic community.

So, I do believe the reasons for "deletion" are unfounded.--Doinacaj (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doinacaj. The sources you mention are everything that any normal academic or author would have. A CV on her employers website, articles she has written. Unfortunately normal academics don't get a page on wikipedia - only notable academics. None of these are articles about her by reliable sources which are independent of her. Have a look at WP:PROF. This gives a pretty clear idea of the Wikipedia requirements for us to keep an article. Please address these requirements and explain why this academic meets those requirements or else this article will be deleted. My understanding of those requirements is that homepages don't satisfy those requirements nor do contributions to notable fora nor do peer referenced articles so I'm afraid that your paragraph above will not help convince us to keep this article (Though, if you do find enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:PROF, then those links will all be useful for making the article better).

Sorry if this is not what you want to here but those are the requirements we apply to other academics and we will apply them to this article too. filceolaire (talk) 19:53, 27 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) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doinacaj, I don't know what you see when you look at the two pages listed above as not including information about her, but I, too, get nothing about her on those pages. This could be a search engine geo-loc difference. I also note that 1) you are the creator of this page and 2) this is the only article you have worked on here at WP. Clearly, you have a stake in this article, and I'm sorry that this is not a more positive experience. However, there are policies that must be considered. You might want to spend some time editing articles of interest as you become more familiar with the WP culture. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things you can do here. LaMona (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Her books are given serious reviews in academic journals, that along carries her past WP:AUTHOR. Even a regular google on book title + name shows the reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: - could you list a few of those reviews? Thanks. I found books and articles by her but not about her or her books. LaMona (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches on her name need to be done carefully, what look at first blush like reviews and citation, turned out to be mere book notices on journal website, and that fact that the book is part of a SUNY Press series, making it appear at first blush that she is being widely cited in other academic books on the topic that turn out , in fact, merely to list all titles in the series.
On close examination, I find very little evidence of influence as a scholar, or of production of impactgful work, merely, she publishes and co-authors a lot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches show only passing mentions, not the significant coverage needed to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me}
Delete -- my searches came up dry. Her Google scholar h-index is 9. Article in present shape is really mostly a CV or resume, like, it does not say what she is notable for doing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "MCG: Non-invasive‚ non-stressful tool to diagnose impending heart attacks".

[2] "GAA 2012 Alumni" (PDF).

[3] "Pramila fails to make mark at London Olympics".

[4] "Nepal Medical Commission".

[5] "Health problems in sports".

[6] "Health Yellow Pages: Medical Directory of Nepal, Nirantar Prakashan, 2001".

[7] "Nepal at the Dawn of the 21st Century: General, Health & Medical Information by Narayan Bahadur Basnet".

[8] "Japanese Circulation Journal".

[9] ttp://afgenvac.org/?page_id=14

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]