Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 June 17 June >

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bantams Banter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bantams Banter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The SPI into the last afd was closed recently resulting in almost half the participants, including all but two of those arguing that the article should be kept, being blocked for sockpuppetry. Following a brief discussion with the closing admin of the last afd, I am renominating this so that we can a clean result. The underlying notability concerns do not appear to have been addressed in the interim. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no material change to level of sources provided to support GNG, my opinion from the earlier discussion still stands. To deal with the sources explicitly (copying from the previous discussion where relevant:
  1. - This is a local newspaper report. As such I think this carries a lot less weight than a national paper.
  2. - This is blog interview. I don't see anything to indicate it is a suitable source for notability, particularly given that it is a blog specifically about Bradford City as noted here so its not really notable that a fan blog would have an interview with another couple of fans who run a podcast.
  3. - This is an in depth interview, but again is a blog post. I'm not sure the extent to which this a reliable source again as it appears that it is a blog that focuses an awful lot of Bradford City (as is obvious when you look at the blog's front page), so again, unsurprising that it would feature interviews with other people who are fans of Bradford City.
  4. - This I would class as a primary source as it is Bradford City FC reporting on the existence of a podcast specifically set up by fans of the club, with this article on a charity drive specifically linked to the football club itself and its charity endeavours.
  5. - This isn't about the podcast at all, but about the first MoTD from Salford. The podcast and its hosts are mentioned in two sentences. This is not significant coverage, and was conceded as such in the original discussion.
  6. - This, although it appears on the BBC website, is actually coverage from its regional Look North programme. Additionally, as a very short piece running to less than two minutes, I do not think that this amounts to significant coverage of the podcast or its hosts.
  7. - This is a 3.5 minute bit on football focus. One appearance on national television like this does not confer notability. The reason they are on football focus is because of Bradford City's cup run, not because of anything the podcast itself has achieved.
  8. - This is a podcast with Alan Davies. One ITV podcast (which I doubt would have happened without the association with a much more notable individual) is not sufficient national media exposure to satisfy GNG. It may be linked to Bantam's Banter but the source specifically refers to it as "Alan Davies Brazilian Banter". It seems clear to me that this is an Alan Davies vehicle based on Bantams Banter, not the podcast in question under a different guise. Notability is not inherited.
  9. - This could be used to support GNG with other sources, but is not particularly long in itself. Again, per source 7, the reason for this interview, as noted in the intro to it which says Bradford City war die Sensation der Pokalsaison, is because of Bradford's cup run, not because of anything significant done by the podcast or its hosts.
  10. - The final source, A History of Bradford City AFC in Objects, is also not what I would term a reliable source for notability purposes. I do not wish to slight the publication by claiming that Bantamspast Publishing is a vanity press, but it seems pretty clear that this is a book published by an outlet with a specific interest in publishing works on Bradford City and does not suggest quality, reliablility or neutrality.
Finally, a comment was made in the initial discussion that the podcast was notable per WP:WEBCRIT as it had won an award. I do not see anything to support the notion that the Football Blogging Awards can be described objectively as a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization, they have been held three times. Perhaps in time this will become a notable and established awards ceremony, but at the moment I don't think it is. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relegate this ... er, Delete: Thanks for Fenix for the analysis, which means the rest of us don't have to haul as much freight. This podcast needs to pass the GNG, and that's just not there: not multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and which discuss the subject in significant detail. There, that clear enough for any SPAs likely to barge in? I'm seeing sources that don't actually talk about the subject, and ones off of the team website, and casual mentions, and mentions of the podcasters as opposed to the subject, and blogposts, and allegations from a book from this "Bantamspast Publishing" (for which I couldn't find ANY information, even off of the UK Google). Rather much for supporters of a third-tier soccer team. Nha Trang Allons! 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per noted and expansive failure to meet WP:GNG; thanks again to Fenix. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The amount of keep votes interested and almost causes a seizure so I thought I'd comment. My searches found nothing aside from some of the current links or related but no solid significant and independent coverage to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fenix's analysis of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 21 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rita M. Johnson[edit]

Rita M. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry was set up 2010. According to Wikipedia guidelines on Biographies of Living People starting April 3, 2010, a "...proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies was established, requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject." This entry was flagged for fixing in June 2009, which means it was made before March 2010. It now adheres to past and current Wikipedia Guidelines. It cites verifiable and verifiably 3rd party sources (Wired, Harvard Business Review, Publishers Weekly, LA Weekly, Billboard, Kirkus). It is no longer a Stub nor an Orphan. The person theorized about file sharing, exchanging digital data via the Internet. Her concepts pre-date peer-to-peer file sharing and downloading by 2 years and influenced her specific field and society. This is supported by case studies from HBR and business magazines and newspapers like Forbes and the WSJ about the loss of revenue from the film and music industries. She is also a relative of a verifiable intellectual. I did not know I could contribute here since I proposed undeleting the entry. But an administrator JohnCD contacted me directly and told me I can.Simile (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The only RS on the page are in sections that are not about her -- one is about a relative WP:NOTINHERIT, and one is studies of the music industry turndown. I found one article she wrote in 1997 in Adweek (magazine not in the list on the page), but no others. She is listed in IMDB (not a reliable source as assistant music director on one film, and music director on another. I found no sources about her. LaMona (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to WP:GNGSources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. She does meet WP:NOTINHERIT Keep She once worked with someone famous --the directors and actors on the films she worked on. This also supports WP:NOTINHERIT Keep his brother is a notable athlete. – Family Tree, 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) in this case the relative is a notable author and intellectual [1] and this also supports WP:NOTINHERIT Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. – Adrian Listmaker, 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC). The famous people she has worked with include Ryan O'Neal (starred in a Stanley Kubrick Film), Sean Hayes (starred in a TV show that played in North America and around the world).Simile (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simile: you have misunderstood WP:NOTINHERITED - it is part of an essay called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so the heading "Notability is inherited", and arguments like "Keep - She once worked with someone famous" and "Keep - his brother is a notable athlete" are presented there as examples of arguments that should not be used. The point is that notability is not inherited, so that her relative's book, or the fact that she once worked for a music label one of whose artists appeared in a film with Johnny Depp, have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether she is notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage that would estalbish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 22 June 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 Diary of a Chav. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trainers V. Tiaras[edit]

Trainers V. Tiaras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Unable to find a single reliable third-party source. --Non-Dropframe talk 23:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I was able to find one review on a blog; the other sources seemed promotional or simple dust-jacket description. Book also has a very low ranking on Amazon. Pax Verbum 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC) See my comment below. Changing from delete to redirect. Pax Verbum 05:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm finding quite a few reviews under the various titles, but I think that it may be better to have a series page than an individual page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with that. As a series, I think it might be able to stand, although I still need to do some more research. Pax Verbum 17:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article was redirected by its creator, Kandiwell (talk · contribs). I've undone that for now. ansh666 22:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diary of a Chav. While there are enough reviews for the first book to stand on its own, there aren't really enough for the other books to have entries and I'd much rather have one entry for the series as opposed to individual entries since that'd be more informational. I've created an entry so this can redirect there. ~~
  • Comment/suggestion - Sorry I haven't added my two pence worth but I wasn't finished with writing it; I was tired and was going to add more stuff to it yesterday but 'cause it was nice and sunny I didn't want the hassle of using either my iPad or iPhone trying to type and have the sun's reflection on the screen annoying me like hell (hence why I wasn't really on much yesterday) but if Trainers V. Tiaras does have to go OK; but I like the idea of redirecting it to Diary of a Chav (was not aware of the page 'til about 5 minutes ago) and building it on that like a section for Trainers V. Tiaras, Slinging the Bling, Too Cool for School, Ibiza Nights, Fame and Fortune and Keeping it Real 'cause to people who aren't from the UK might want to know how the series went and I know all six books like the back of my hand I could add an all in depth synopsis of each book 's plot etc. Would you guys like that? Kandiwell 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diary of a Chav, agree better for a strong series article, also great to see agreement from enthusiastic article creator. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 19 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia Standard Time[edit]

Somalia Standard Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm dubious that this time zone exists. Google returns fewer than 10 results, and I don't think any of them are reliable sources. Most sources state that Somalia uses Eastern Africa Time. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Page is redundant, this page covers the timezone that covers Somalia, and there are, as the requestor mentioned, virtually no results on Google. Qasaur (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I forgot to link to this discussion in the nomination. The article creator has suggested "Mogadishu Time" as an alternative title, but I think that that is just a colloquialism for "the time in Mogadishu", not the name of a time zone. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no prejudice against recreation if more RSs identified. Regretfully, EAT does appear to be the standard. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:28, 22 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astralingua[edit]

Astralingua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the criteria of WP:BAND: references are home pages of individuals, a user-published review, a dead link, and a catalog. A search doesn't turn up much else in WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My first searches found nothing as well and looking at the article it's obvious why. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources at all. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 22 June 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) –Davey2010Talk 01:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Emmanuel de Croÿ[edit]

Anne Emmanuel de Croÿ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable soldier. Quis separabit? 21:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a flag rank officer and a member of the National Constituent Assembly of 1789 and the Assembly of Notables. The bias here is that there seem to be few English language sources. EricSerge (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he was a reigning duke within the Holy Roman Empire; head of the still extant, mediatized House of Croÿ, one of Belgium's three historically most powerful families (along with the Croÿs' patrilineal kinsmen, the Prince-Dukes d'Arenberg and the Princes de Ligne); a high-ranking military officer in the service of the ancien régime who survived the French Revolution; and a multi-national fixture of the courts of Paris, Vienna and Brussels, husband of a princess of a family of equally high rank, trans-national wealth and allegiance during the era when nationalism emerged as the defining force of Europe. A cursory scan confirms that he is the subject of published biographtical information, e.g. in the Dutch Nobility's official supplement of 1855. More info on his role and deeds in European history during a time of critical change is likely to be found with more in depth research of the memoirs and scholarly studies of his era and locale. FactStraight (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't speak to WP:SOLDIER, but he meets WP:NPOL twice over as a sovereign prince and a member of a national legislature.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He clearly meets the notability guidelines for soldiers. I think this article could be expanded with more details. We would also be helped with an article on the place he was prince of that is now in France as a principality. His domain after 1797 also might be worth having a seperate article on as a princely domain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 21 June 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 per WP:SNOW. A pretty obvious hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur: The Movie[edit]

Arthur: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any verification of this upcoming movie in reliable sources. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 21:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kidvid crufter hoax; undoubtedly this would have multiple source and Facebook mentions, but here it's just the usual 'paste the cast list in, title it '...The Movie and move on' nonsense passed over multiple times and always deleted. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted a couple of links on the talk page about a movie that this article might be referring to. However, those aren't reliable sources and I've been unable to find anything else, so I say Delete as non-notable at best. Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, that's harsh. Completely accurate, but harsh. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this is real. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An upcoming animated. An upcoming animated corpse? Not verified, fantasy. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the completely unverifiable film here, the original article had two sequels ready to go. Pure fantasy. I'm forecasting heavy snow. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:38, 17 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos J. Puig[edit]

Carlos J. Puig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO - sources do not establish notability, spammy too though better than it was. ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. I checked, using Bing.com. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this biography of a physician operating in one of the most commercialized areas of medicine. I see plenty of unreliable promotional sources saying that he is wonderful and quite a few unreliable sources saying that he is terrible. But no reliable sources demonstrating notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as the work of SEOMozinator (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing. —teb728 t c 10:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per above. Entry is more of an ad than content. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding relevant sources. Sources cited in the article are mostly not independant, and at least one doesn't say what the article says it says. A google search turns up review websites and ads, a news search turns up unrelated stuff about a baseball player and one press release on this guy, a scholar search should (haven't tried it yet) turn up his papers that he's authored but I doubt anything on him personally, and a book search turns up books he's been a contributing author to, and a court case where he was the defendant; nothing about him. If he's some sort of pioneer in hair restoration or leader in the field I'm just not finding the sources. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The organization he heads does not meet the criteria to make him notable as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of individual match awards in the Australian Football League. MBisanz talk 02:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dyer–Lou Richards Trophy[edit]

Jack Dyer–Lou Richards Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is proposed to blank and redirect all of these nominated articles to List of individual match awards in the Australian Football League. The target article is a new article which I specifically compiled for the purposes of this suite of blank-and-redirects. The change was originally proposed at the Australian rules football WikiProject without opposition here but the changes were later reverted by another editor.

These awards and trophies all fail to meet WP:NOTABILITY. The awarding of these trophies is usually a one-line comment near the end of routine coverage of the games in which they are awarded, and most other references are promotional for upcoming games – which is not adequate to demonstrate the notability of a subject. There are also news articles published which quite fairly describes the lack of notability these trophies are afforded in football circles: [1] – and although it is not really admissible as Wikipedia evidence, the general tone of opinion on blog and forum sites also demonstrates lack of notability. The bottom line is that the existence of these trophies/awards and a description of who or what they honour is useful in the context of describing the AFL holistically (hence the blank-and-redirect strategy); but the winners of the trophies, results of the games and recipients of the medals are not historically significant to the level required for Wikipedia, and therefore it is inappropriate for them to have their own articles.

I am nominating all of the following articles for this reason:

Aspirex (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contend that despite the range of importances, all fail to meet the basic level of notability that would drive Wikipedia to maintain a list of its winners. I approach this with the view that any individual accolade which would not be listed in appraisal-upon-retirement of a 100-200 game player is a fringe award which should not have its entire winners' history recorded at a level beyond a fan driven wiki like Blueseum or Demonwiki. Josh Carr's retirement doesn't mention his Badcoe: [2]; Brendon Lade's retirement appraisal mentions his Rising Star nomination but not his Badcoe [3]; not mentioned for David Rodan when he was delisted [4]. If these sorts of references deemed the award worthy of mention, that would sway my opinion about its notability. Aspirex (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the Badcoe Medal is indeed listed in the appraisal of Chad Cornes on his induction into the South Australian Football Hall of Fame StAnselm (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I still think it makes more sense to leave the AfD bundled for the moment, because I expect most other editors will be prepared to make an all-or-nothing call on them and it will be a much more efficient way of gaining consensus than going through twelve separate similar AfDs. If I'm wrong on that prediction, then I'll spin the controversial ones out of the bundle and give them their own discussions. Aspirex (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - not seeing the significant, in-depth (non-routine) coverage for these. No objection to a redirect, if desired. Neutralitytalk 22:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator/speedy keep(non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo Supermarkets[edit]

Pueblo Supermarkets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, so far as I can see no reliable sources about them exist. I've searched "Pueblo Supermarkets", which yields thing about random other supermarkets, and "Pueblo Inc", which yields their official site, and random, unrelated things about Pueblo in general. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I'm not sure if Mi Pueblo Supermarkets is the same organisation or not- if it is, then it may pass. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: That's where I might have a problem...for some reason, it seems that Puerto Rican, Dominican and Bolivian companies do not seem fond of using the internet....but I'm gonna work on it tonight. 4 now I have to leave to teach a class at my church's vacation camp. Antonio Marker Martin (aqui, aqui 23:46, 16 June, 2015 (UTC)
  • Just F-my-I, is there any reason for advocating a "Speedy Keep" (which is really only for serious abuse of process or a blocked nom) other than that you don't agree with the nomination? Nha Trang Allons! 15:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NorthAmerica. Nha Trang Allons! 15:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is quite notable in Puerto Rican culture, it's akin to the local Safeway (which doesn't have presence in Puerto Rico). The reason you can't find reliable sources is because you are searching in English. Try searching in Spanish for "Supermercados Pueblo". Here are several sources: from El Vocero [8] [9], Primera Hora [10] and WAPA-TV [11] (I could go on and on if you want [12] [13] [14] [15]). Here's a real location in Google Maps: [16] I can assure you that if for some reason this is deleted or merged it will be restored under WP:DRV. Furthermore, WP:AUD covers Pueblo's notability under the following guideline: "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." And to finalize this AFD, from El Nuevo Día (translated): "15 years ago, Pueblo, Grande, and Amigo were the undisputed leaders of the supermarket industry in the country. Grande does not exist today, while Pueblo and Amigo changed hands and are no longer the dominant players of yesteryear." [17] l2google bruh. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I genuinely looked for sources, obviously not very well, or lots of the results were blocked/filtered maybe? It wasn't obvious from the few sources I found that it was basically the biggest supermarket in Pueblo, glad to see the article is being improved. Withdrawing nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Cleland Tiffin[edit]

Ralph Cleland Tiffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be presumed notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletefails GNG --ℕ ℱ 19:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this page has been in existence for some time with absolutely no issues. Msnicki (talk) I respectfully request that you remove this deletion notice. momononu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momononu (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Would you like to set forth a rationale to Keep that's actually founded in appropriate policy? Nha Trang Allons! 16:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional independent references added which hopefully resolve any concerns. Momononu (talk)

  • Delete: So far, I'm seeing nothing. Yeah, there are links to abstracts of books he's written. Yeah, there are quotes from the subject (which explicitly don't qualify to support the notability of the subject). There's a dead link. There's a general book review blog with a four-sentence review of one his books. There's a press release bio, with text that's mirrored in the article. What there isn't -- and what the SPA advocating Keep hasn't provided -- are multiple, reliable, published third party sources which discuss the subject in significant detail, as the GNG requires. Nha Trang Allons! 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speaking as a descendant of Charlemagne, Cleopatra and Pocahontas, I want to point out that notability is not inherited. Also, the sourcing just isn't there, not on the page, and not when I search, with or without middle name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the supposed book link is instead a link to book chapter NOT written by him, nor is any other chapter in the book. I did find a handful of books in the British Library catalog. (Unlike in the US, the BL gets a "legal deposit" copy of every book published in the UK.) Here's one from 2014 [18]. The other books were published by Thorogood. Both seem to specialize in business books. However, a couple of professional books do not GNG make. I'm not finding notability here. LaMona (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Whitehouse[edit]

Michael Whitehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An alleged online celebrity, but almost all the sources listed are not reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm using this correctly. I created the entry on Michael Whitehouse and was going to make a few other ones about other online horror writers who I think are noteworthy, but obviously won't if this is an issue. Bear with me. I'm new to all of this. I have no problem with the post being deleted if it's seen as not being notable. All I can say in support of the article remaining is that his work has been read by millions of people. If you scroll to the bottom of this page you'll see that his story Bedtime was read over a million times, another half a million times on this page. Videos have been made about his work generating hundreds of thousands of views[2][3][4].

His work has also been translated into Portugese[5] and German[6]. A video game based on one of his stories was made and garnered strong reviews[7] and played by internet celebrites such as Markiplier[8]. Lastly, he also has a published book which has been a top ten Amazon bestseller garnering over 130 reviews across the US[9] and UK[10] websites, and 158 reviews on Good Reads[11] which is substantially more than some established writers' books who are included on Wikipedia such as Dean Koontz[12].

No problem if none of this makes him notable, just love some of these writers and felt they had a large enough following to be deemed notable when individuals such as James Rolfe, while having a much bigger following, are included in wikipedia as notable people. I can understand deleting such an article if it was some unknown individual, but personally I think having millions of readers makes you a notable writer.

In any case, if this article gets deleted I'll be sure to scrap the other ones I've been working on. Love Wikipedia and would hate to detract from it in any way, just wanted to add useful information. Sorry if this has caused any issues. PhantomTeller (talk)

References

  1. ^ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maaz
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Veh9Uyo62fM
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijJ8ldd8uKE
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b44NwWbG_Ks
  5. ^ http://creepypastabrazil.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/bedtime-i-pt1.html
  6. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F0FLRGoKcA
  7. ^ http://gamejolt.com/games/adventure/it-moves/26114/
  8. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdQwUza7jzI
  9. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Hill-Michael-Whitehouse-ebook/dp/B00D6QFZNC
  10. ^ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hill-Michael-Whitehouse-ebook/dp/B00D6QFZNC
  11. ^ http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18669188-on-a-hill?from_search=true&search_exp_group=group_a&search_version=ab_testing
  12. ^ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whispers-Dean-Koontz-ebook/dp/B00AFYE1SI/ref=sr_1_32?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1434539455&sr=1-32&keywords=dean+koontz
  • Delete fails GNG --ℕ ℱ 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tales sound like fun and I like the idea that people are doing DIY story-telling. However, the books are essentially self-published e-books. They appear in Amazon, and the publisher is Whitehouse's own publishing house. Should he get picked up by a "real publisher" then it would make sense to consider an article about him. Also, should such an article be written, it must not sound like a fan letter, and there need to be third-party reliable sources. PhantomTeller, for any articles that you have in progress, you might want to consider taking them through articles for creation where you will get advice on what a well-crafted article needs. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a single reliable source exists. We don't build biographies based solely on Good Reads, YouTube, and fan fiction. Perhaps a redirect might work. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 23 June 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. Strongest policy-and-guideline rationales given: non-notable neologism (WP:NEO); original research/synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) slakr\ talk / 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transracial identity[edit]

Transracial identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism, possibly part of the continuing attempts to get "Transracial" into Wikipedia despite there being no scientific or reliable basis for it, AfD instead of PROD due to creating user being long-term, if occasional. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is supported by eight WP:RS, including two scholarly journals, that cite expert and academic commentary and studies on the controversial concept of transracial identity. BlueSalix (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that many of those "reliable sources" even put the word "Transracial" in scare quotes should tell you most of what you need to know. This is a neologism. It hasn't been defined. There is practically no scientific definition or investigation of it. There hasn't even a Wikipedia article on the "condition" until now, which probably tells you all you need to know. We don't invent things based on a single case. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TTBOMK, we don't exclude controversial or emergent concepts from WP because of the fact they're controversial or emergent. And the fact there is "practically no scientific investigation of it" is fairly irrelevant. There is "practically no scientific investigation of it" on the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia (Tenchu: Stealth Assassins, Rémy Chevrin, Cutts baronets, etc.). The article meets our WP:NOTABILITY standards for breadth and depth of coverage in RS. BlueSalix (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't exclude controversial or emergent concepts from WP because of the fact they're controversial or emergent." We do if they're concepts that aren't backed up by any reliable sources apart from a word being used by popular media. Even your two "serious" sources are talking about children brought up by people from different ethnic background and are socialized into that background, not someone who chooses a racial identity different from their real one. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's patently incorrect. The article has been expanded. You AfD'ed it within 13 minutes of its creation so I can understand how you've made this mistake. No problem. BlueSalix (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that Wikipedia has had no article on this "thing" since it was founded in 2003 is that (a) it doesn't exist, or (b) assuming good faith, it's a neologism that has appeared in the last week. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "thing" was "founded in 2003"? I'm not really following you. Sorry. BlueSalix (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is a concept that was made up this week, Black Kite. I'm sure that if I looked hard, I could find the term in academic literature but it likely means something similar to multiracial, rather than trying to pass as a different race. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. This is both a hoax (currently promoted by 4chan) to ridicule Dolezal and/or transgendered people by making a false analogy between transgender and a seemingly bizarre case involving one woman, and a fork of the many, many other articles dealing with the Dolezal case, passing (racial identity) and related concepts. There is no real concept called "transracial identity", no people who identify themselves as such, no medical condition, no organizations advocating this supposed identity etc. Everything supposedly covered by the concept is already covered in passing (racial identity). Note that this is also the third "transracial" article subject to an ongoing AfD and suspected of being a hoax. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Associate professor of history and assistant dean of Interdisciplinary Studies and International Programs at North Carolina State University Blair L.M. Kelley clearly articulates on the Washington Post why transracial "is not passing", and identifies persons such as icons like writer Charles Chesnutt, feminist leader Mary Church Terrell, Mordecai Johnson — the first African American president of Howard University, Dolezal’s alma mater — and NAACP leader Walter White to be more related to the concept of transracial. So please do not allege that the Wikipedia entry for passing is redundant to this page. XavierItzm (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather unsurprisingly that article does nothing of the sort. -- haminoon (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few straight quotes from the Washington Post, so people can assess the truth of Haminoon's comment:
"Whatever Rachel Dolezal is doing, let’s not call it ‘passing’"
"What, then, of Dolezal? In a bizarre sense, she almost seems to have patterned herself after black icons like writer Charles W. Chesnutt, feminist leader Mary Church Terrell, Mordecai Johnson — the first African American president of Howard University, Dolezal’s alma mater — and NAACP leader Walter White. All lighter-complected African Americans who could have passed, but chose not to, and were admired for their commitment to black uplift."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/16/whatever-rachel-dolezal-is-doing-lets-not-call-it-passing/ - XavierItzm (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article meets WP:NOTABILITY and it is supported by numerous WP:RS. Subjects with much less WP:RS abound in Wikipedia and there is no reason to censor out this subject. XavierItzm (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just a bunch of original research, forking of other articles and basically a hoax. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might be a thing one day, but not right now. We can't build an article about a neologism based on Rachel Dolezal (which is pretty much what the article is). The rest is just OR padding. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to state that this is just Dolezal. You have a straigh-up quote from a NYU professor whose reseach area is "race and ethnicity, especially racial classification" addressing the issue of transracial: "identifying more with a race other than their own", for instance. XavierItzm (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why has Wikipedia not had an article on this alleged thing from 2003 to date? In nearly 5,000,000 articles, no-one thought to write an article about this clearly "notable" issue? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP articles are created by users, like you and me, not by some mysterious force. We haven't had an article on the 19th century Romanian poet Barbu Solacolu until today, that doesn't mean Barbu isn't a real person. BlueSalix (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this thing existed, it would be as notable as transgenderism. The chance of an article not existing about it, should it really exist, is zero. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I think you aren't entirely clear on how Wikipedia works. There is no basis in our crtierion for article creation by which "we can't create an article about this on WP because there isn't an article about this on WP." BlueSalix (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but considering that you are the editor who created an article about a topic that is a WP:HOAX, and whose content consists of forking of other articles and a bunch of original research/synthesis, I think you aren't entirely clear on how Wikipedia works. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CIVIL before choosing to continue participating in this discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say the same to you. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is basically a hoax/meme and propogated by right wingers trying to mock transgender people. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wikimandia - whatever is occurring off-WP I'm unaware of, however, I'm certain my edit history will affirm that I'm hardly a "right-winger." I've been instrumental in AfD'ing right-wing hoaxes on WP, such as here [[19]] and other places. Please treat this article on its own merits, not what you automatically assume to be part of a separate, off-Wiki campaign/conspiracy. BlueSalix (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A project which purports to be a legitimate encyclopedia should not give airtime to right-wing racist neologisms. This does not exist as a thing itself, only as a transient meme/pejorative. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc - did you actually read the article you voted "Delete" on? Your comment suggests you did not. BlueSalix (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did; a lot of hot air about something that does not exist. You don't need to troll everyone who votes in a way that disagrees with your opinion on the matter, kiddo; see WP:BLUDGEON. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason for you to use diminuitives like "kiddo" to describe a fellow WP editor. There is absolutely no reason to call someone promoting a conversation in a discussion page a "troll" for doing so. Please police your behavior here. The sheer vitriol some people seem to believe is acceptable to inject into this AfD is astonishing. BlueSalix (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have thought of that before making snide commentaries (e.g. "did you even read...") of your own; when you treat others with disrespect, then cries of being disrespected in turn ring hollow. Garbage in, garbage out. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking someone if they read the article is not disrespectful. Using diminuitives and slurs and saying my opinion is "garbage" is. Please stop attacking me. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I said I found it to be disrespectful, then it was. You aren't the judge of me and what I find irksome. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is a place for dialog, not denouncements. I'm sorry you've chosen to participate in the conversation in this way. As you've noted, however, there's nothing I can do to stop you from behaving in this way if that's the way you choose to present yourself. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame that you lack the ability to recognize your own contribution to the vitriolic tenor of this discussion. C'est la vie. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A neologism, exclusively related to Rachel Dolezal. Despite attempts to pad the article with synthetic connections to reliably-sourced yet unrelated concepts discussed by academics, there is no actual concept called "transracial identity". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LuckyLouie, while I disagree, thank you for taking the time to read the article and treat it on its own merits, for posting a calm comment, for AGF, and for not denouncing me as part of an off-WP conspiracy. BlueSalix (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Look at the first line of the first paragraph: "Began with Rachel Donezal." More of an attempt to milk the news, if not play lulz. The other option would be to Redirect to transracial which is a disambiguation that ought not have this as a daughter. Attested usages of "transracial" are for societies, ideologies, and economics. As an identity, "transracial" is non-racial, since race itself is not a genetically valid concept nor one currently accepted by the professional organization of Anthropology in the US. (I.e. it ain't a division of "peoples," and it ain't genetic. It is real, however.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the first line is "Transracial is the state of one's racial identity or expression not matching one's natural skin color. Though described by some sources as "the latest addition to the rapidly changing American lexicon," there have been questions as to its legitimacy." BlueSalix (talk)
Ohnoitsjamie First, thank you for addressing your comment civilly. This is a fascinating discussion and I'm glad to have people on the other side of the fence who choose to engage in it in a civil way. Second, WP:NEO says that the term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles. I think you'll agree, reviewing the article, that the burden of use has been met and exceeded. BlueSalix (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned primarily in the context of a single recent event meets the definition of a neologism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all meet objective standards of WP:RS -- KMGH-TV has said transracial is "the latest addition to the rapidly changing American lexicon," "Ann Morning, a sociologist at New York University, has stated that people can be transracial", "Peter Gale, a senior lecturer in race and ethnicity at the University of South Australia, told The Sydney Morning Herald that "it was possible for a person to identify as another race." Gale said race was a social construct," etc. BlueSalix (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would cite something a bit more authoritative than a local news affiliate, we could talk. That race is a social construct doesn't yet mean "transracial identity" is a concept we should encyclopedize. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - the article (a) cites Dr Ann Morrow, associate professor at New York University [[20]] and, Dr David Goldberg, race policy analyst at the University of California at Irvine, [[21]] directly addressing (not tangentially as some have accused) the term "transracial," among others, (b) demonstrates that the term was used prior to this month, in reviews of the transracial novel "Your Face in Mine." The KMGH quote (and those from Yahoo News, Time Magazine, etc.) simply reinforces the status of the term in the cultural zeitgeist which is used to establish WP:NOTABILITY. In any case, even though we disagree, thank you for accepting the GF in which the article was created and not dehumanizing me with terms like "garbage," "troll," and "kiddo" as others have felt necessary to do when weighing-in on this AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality - how many additional sources do you believe it would need to be sufficiently supported? There are other sources I omitted due to brevity but I can add in if there's a consensus that additional sources will bring this article up to speed. If the opinion is that this article can never be included in WP, no matter how many sources there are, that's an interpretation of WP:IGNORE with which I passionately disagree, but will certainly accept. BlueSalix (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't seem to drop the sledgehammer and walk away, I see? I have seen this sort of thing in countless AfDs, where the aggrieved page creator/contributor has a kitten and harangues every editor who weighs in with an opinion contrary to their own, and you know what happens? It winds up being a Streisand effect, where even more editors will come to opine delete. You've had your say, repeatedly, now let the community have theirs. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc - I politely asked Neutrality a question for my own clarification. He replied. I thanked him. That's how dialog and discussion works. In this short discussion you've called me "garbage" and "kiddo," among other names. That's not the way to dialog. I've left a disengagement template on your Talk page. I respectfully suggest we both choose not to interact with each other moving forward if descriptors like this are the only means we have to engage with each other. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are low-quality. The vast majority relate to the recent controversy. The rest are primarily WP:SYNTHESIS (the part about the unrelated novel at the end is particularly egregious - it takes one phrase from a book review out of context and draws a connection to an unrelated tempest-in-a-teapot. I cannot conceive of any way this is independently notable. This merits a redirect at most. I will not comment further because it is clear I cannot change your mind. Neutralitytalk 20:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Neutrality. Thanks for responding to my question and for the clarification! BlueSalix (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above--OR, derived from all-too quick responses to the news cycle, etc. Might as well start an article on "incognegro" and cite the Nightly Show. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - while I disagree with your characterization that KMGH-TV, Journal of Social Work, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. are of the same level of RS as the Nightly Show, I respect that we will agree to disagree. Thanks for your !vote. BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thanks for your comment. But there are some misunderstandings here. The point is, how reliable is what is cited in for instance the Sydney Morning Herald? And then we find that Peter Gale is hardly saying what this article proposes as "transracial identity"--to go from race as a social construct to transracial identity is possible, but why don't we wait until Peter Gale publishes that book? And no, I don't accept KMGH's dictum on the American lexicon; that's not their job anyway. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the RS of the Sydney Morning Herald is now suspect, we have a lot of articles on WP that will need a serious re-work. BlueSalix (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might not be the right time for this article but it's a valid sociological subject and I imagine with additional academic work being published, this article will eventually have sources that will satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, that is the best comment I've seen yet. I think you point out something important. I think that the way that transracial is being used popularly at this moment is the same as passing. I'm not an expert on the sociology of race but in sociology there are concepts like Transexual, Transfeminism, Transgender and Transnational. I think when the article on transracial will be written, it will be about either a) transcending race or b) having multiple racial identity, c) both or d) some meaning that is defined in the future. While scholarship doesn't usually follow current events, I'm sure this Rachel Dolezal instance of racial passing will prompt future studies and reflections on the meaning of racial identity. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz - thanks much. The article was a GF attempt at encapsulating the various academic opinions that have been fronted about the topic of Transracial, as well as discussion in the zeitgeist conerning it. While I'm aware there is a parallel, off-Wiki, conversation about this occurring by right-wing extremists, the article was separate, intended to stand on its own merits, and provide a well-sourced alternative to the inevitable POV article that would have occupied this space by limiting sources to scholarly journals and mainstream media, which it did. (I was probably naive for not realizing, in advance, that many people would automatically assume that this article was indeed said POV pusher.) While maintaining my "Keep" !vote, I agree with you that the source availability will probably grow beyond the substantial level it is already at. BlueSalix (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSalix, I can see it was in good faith. While I think one of the main contributors to this topic area was a troll (and since has been blocked), I can see that there is a sincere effort to provide information on this subject, however ill-defined it is at this moment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Liz, I very appreciate your comments. It means a lot after having had several other editors pile the invectives on me here. BlueSalix (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know whether it is a hoax or not, but the article is an original synthesis and perhaps more importantly, it is a duplicate of our article Passing (sociology) and uses a perfectly good word ("transracial") to mean something different from what it has historically meant. (See this article's talk page where I discuss "transracial adoption" and "transracial identification - which has nothing to do with changing one's gender identity.) (By the way, I take it there are other articles about this new meaning of "transracial" that are also up for AfD; wherever they are, this comment counts for all of them.) Neutron (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguably a hoax, and if it's not, then it's a matter of extremely marginal identification. Anecdotally, false reporting to troll transgender people produces the most coverage for this term, followed by coverage of apparent frauds like Dolezal, with any genuine cases being in vanishingly tiny numbers. So I argue an article is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the term. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a possible near-medical/psychological term, we need better sources than the ones provided (a few media ones), making it somewhere between a neologism and hoax. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Delete for neologism and recentism issues. This isn't an outright hoax, but it doesn't yet seem to be a notable concept - it's an article based off one temporary news story about one individual. I thought about proposing a merge to Passing (racial identity), but they're not the same thing - that article's about people from one racial group who are able to live as and be accepted as another, while this is about the psychological condition of a person believing they are a different race to what they are. That's a far less common phenomenon, and it would seem not yet a notable one, though it could become notable in future. Robofish (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robofish, thanks for your very well thought-out and enunciated comments. I definitely see where you're coming from. BlueSalix (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the excellent comments by Robofish and Liz, I am revisiting my "Keep" !vote and am fine with deletion pending future recreation in a few days or weeks when usage of the term has become more established. I've copied the contents of the article to my sandbox in the interim and would welcome community editing to improve it there. BlueSalix (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A psychological or psychiatric phenomenon does not become recognized in scholarly literature in a matter of days. This supposed phenomenon, based on a one-on-the-planet case, has not been demonstrated by anyone serious to be a real phenomenon (distinct from passing (racial identity) which is a behaviour rather than a condition). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly literature is not a prerequisite for coverage in WP. If a new star is discovered we can take quotes from qualified persons reported in RS to create an article on it - as we have done in this article with the NYU, UCI and other quotes (why are they "not serious"?) - we don't have to wait six months for it to appear in a peer-reviewed journal.
That point aside, I generally would just ask people to exhibit a little more sensitivity in how they couch their comments in this thread. I don't talk about my personal experiences on WP, because I don't edit from personal experience, but in this case I'm going to draw back the curtain and note that I'm an Hispanic male adopted by African-American parents and have encountered the processes of cultural assimilation Dolezal reports, though not to the extremes she took it. This was an important topic for me to explore, and I was particularly intrigued to learn about Bonilla-Silva's Latin-Americanization of Race Relations thesis during the construction of this article. It's not personally perturbing when some editors choose to call me things like "garbage" and a "troll" but I'd just like everyone to think there may be other people who come to this AfD who are having a more difficult time with self-identification and these terms can be genuinely hurtful or make them self-perceive as freaks or oddities. Wikipedia should be a safe place; comments like User:Drmies, User:SkyeriseRobofish, and User:Liz have left get their !vote across in a civil and succinct way. As they've proved, it's not necessary to fire-off a lot of insults - direct or indirect - while !voting. BlueSalix (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, if someone called you that, I hope someone else warned them for it--there is no room for that. And all joking aside, there's very little that's funny about any of this (except for the coverage on the Nightly Show, of course), certainly not for the subject of this media melee. I mean, it is certainly not fun for her, and all of us tweeting around and giving our opinions and 4channing all over the place, that's not something she deserves. Which reminds me, BlueSalix, and I hope you saw that in between all my snarky remarks, I do not deny that such a thing as "transracial identity" can exist, far from it. It's just that I don't want such an important thing to be written on the basis of a couple of passing comments and a bunch of...well, chit-chat. That time will come, no doubt, and when it does we will write it up good. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, Drmies, no one did. And that's fine, it's no big deal personally. Like I said, I'm more concerned about other people who come here and might perceive themselves to be freaks because Transracial has been hijacked by the talk radio circuit as a "ha ha" thing and one or two crusading Wikipedians feel the entire concept needs to be aggressively debunked as a tit-for-tat so are self-excusing language like "you're a troll/garbage/obvious hoax" etc. Also I didn't see you made any snarky remarks at all so I don't think you have any reason at all to apologize to anyone. BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this edit by User:BlueSalix is illegal copyright infringement / cut and paste copy. Could the closing admin please tidy that up. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, good point. Listen, BlueSalix, I'm going to have to remove that. However, the closing admin will, no doubt, be glad to userfy the article for you and put it in your user space. And if not, I'll give them a spank and do it myself. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought WP articles were CC licensed. I didn't realize I committed illegal copyright infringement by putting a copy in my sandbox to work on. My apologies. If I attribute it as per the Creative Commons license can I restore it? BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit has been removed by now, but as I understand it, it was copied from the transgender article (correct me if wrong). If that is the case, it speaks volumes of the POV nature and lack of merit of this article. The transgender article covers a topic that is a formal medical diagnosis and subject of an extensive scholarly literature; one cannot invent a psychological condition based on media coverage over less than a week of a single case and by copying an article about an unrelated psychological/medical condition. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I hereby correct you. There's nothing in the article that says Transracial is a medical diagnosis, nor - to the best of my knowledge - is it. Nor - again to the best of my knowledge - has anyone on WP claimed it was. BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really answer whether parts of the article was copied from the transgender article or any other similar article about an urelated medical-psychological condition. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer that. I am one of several contributors to the article. Wikipedia articles are written by editors like you and me, not some mysterious force. BlueSalix (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC
The article does indeed appear to have been started by BlueSalix with the first paragraph of the lede being a minor modification of that of the Transgender article. [22] Not entirely sure why anyone would deny that. Artw (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the line in question. Lede as it stands is now a little disjointed, and IMHO the article is sufficiently doomed that not too much effort should be put into repairing it, but if anyone wants to pput in something NOT taken from another article in a seeming attempt to cause offense please feel free. Artw (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be closely tied to Rachel Dolezal, who already has an article and doesn't need another one, and therefore has problems with sensationalism and recentism as well as WP:NEO. If it's still something people think is real in six months time maybe give it another shot then. Artw (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's possible that this will one day be an established and accepted concept, but it's not quite there yet. It depends a bit too much on a recent controversy tied to a single person. Mostly, we get articles like this, which question whether it's a thing. I think that's a sign that maybe it's a bit too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing a large or reliable enough source base to justify an article on this (yet). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fyddlestix. To assist me in possibly restructuring the article in the future, could you do me the favor of identifying which sources are unreliable? Some people have said the Sydney Morning Herald is unreliable and I've marked that down on my list; truthfully, this was an honest mistake by me as it is the first time in the many WP articles I've worked on I've heard the SMH is unreliable. Others have said Dr Ann Morning (h-index 3.4) is also unreliable and I've marked her down for removal as well. Dr David Goldberg (h-index 3.9) has also been noted as unreliable and I've marked him down. If you can cite other non-RS in the article, it would be very helpful to me. Or even just let me know if those three sum it up or if there's an h-index # I should be shooting for in identifying RS? Thanks very much and best - BlueSalix (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as general news sources go the SMH is pretty reliable. The problem is that sociological and/or medical concepts and definitions also need to exist in the academic literature, which in this case they don't. -- haminoon (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the articles claims this is a medical concept or definition. I personally view it, at this stage, as a cultural phenomenon. And cultural phenomenons absolutely do get articles absent scholarly journals. BlueSalix (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that a polite "I disagree, here's why" will get you further than sarcasm. I looked at and read the sources, most of them are just news coverage of the current controversy, there are a few that use "transracial" in a quite different sense (in the context of adoption) and a very small number of sources that consider the concept this article is supposed to be about in any kind of depth. It's not enough to hang an article on. Maybe one day when the Dolezal controversy has died down and people have thought/written about this in some depth, but right now it's too soon and the sources just aren't there. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say "I disagree, here's why" because I'm not sure I do. I was asking some questions about your opinion to better inform myself. That said I don't think "the sources just aren't there," which is the call we've heard throughout this thread, really qualifies given the breadth, depth, and quality of sources that are, in fact there, which have been repeatedly pointed out, and which are universally considered RS in every other article in which they're used (The Sydney Morning Herald is now non-RS? Really?). Responding with "well, no, I can't say why these sources are non-RS, they just aren't" is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BlueSalix (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The definition of transracial this article uses actually goes back at least a couple of decades. It has often been used by TERFs and has been used almost exclusively to mock and deride transgender people. There are few if any reliable secondary sources on this definition. I can reference plenty of examples of this usage but that would be WP:OR. A lot of this article quotes academics talking to reporters in very brief context-less quotes, but none that I know of have published on the transracial identity. I've checked Ann Morning but not the others. Most of this article as it stands now is original research or very close to it and synthesis. At this stage it fails WP:NEO and I don't think there is enough written about the term yet to write a reliable article about it. -- haminoon (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic, well-written article, and supported by reliable sources. Kelly hi! 08:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; Haminoon's additional context is useful and fascinating, and I encourage other commentators to read it when factoring things in. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hamimoon-- a combination of a non-notable neologism with heavy use of WP:SYN to combine sources to apparently support it. In the event that this actually becomes a mainstream term, we can always re-create the article later. There now seems to be such a string consensus for deletion that I'd go as far as suggesting a speedy delete for this now. -- The Anome (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also a similar AfD at Racial transformation (individual) -- The Anome (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Too much coverage from diverse and reputable sources for WP:HOAX to apply. Yes, it's a relatively newly-popular term, but again, there's sufficient coverage and discussion from diverse sources provided in the article to dissuade me from voting to delete at this time. (I was preparing to vote "Userfy" when I first read through this AFD. Then I actually looked at the article.) Townlake (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to have to strongly disagree on the quality of the article - in the unlikely event of this being a keep it;s going to need rewriting from the ground up so it isn't generalized from the actions of a single person. Artw (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're answering a question that nobody asked. I didn't say the article is high quality. We're not discussing whether the article is good, we're discussing whether it should be deleted. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so minus the actual text I don't see the sources in isolation as justifying it either, being that they mostly revolve around one individual. WP:TNT would seem to apply, except I'm more sure about the "blow it up" part than the "start it over". Artw (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that it should be deleted per WP:SNOW at this point, as there seems to be consensus that it is a neologism or hoax, and that the article is WP:SYN and WP:OR based on the actions of one person (who has her own article). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Artw (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As 4 editors..real editors, not throwaway socks or single-purpose accounts...have opined to keep, I think we're just short of snowfall territory at this point, plus it has only been running for a day. Early closes are usually just an invitation for Deletion Review complaints, so it doesn't hurt to go the full 7 days and get an iron-clad closure. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another option may be to merge to Racial transformation (individual) if that article is kept. The AfD there looks like a probably "no consensus" so far. Kelly hi! 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The word transracial is not a neologism as it appears in the OED with usage going back over 40 years. It is easy to find it used in a respectable encyclopedia discussing the case of Moses, which goes back millennia. As for the topic, there are entire books about it such as Changing Race, "The book identifies the multidimensional nature of individual racial identity ... When is race determined? At birth? Death? And by whom? By parents? By an unknown observer? ..." Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't define it but it appears to be using the definition Janice Raymond used facetiously in 1994, which is for a person to change from one race to another. This definition is definitely not in the OED online database. -- haminoon (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was started with a definition but has been subject to hostile editing. If Raymond was discussing the topic over 20 years ago then this is further evidence of the topic's age and notability. Moreover, you fail to address Changing Race — a substantial source which clearly bears on the topic. For another similar example, see Partly Colored — another book which focusses on groups who commonly can and do make choices in such matters. This work clearly uses the word transracial in the sense of this page and was written over 5 years ago. The idea that this concept and terminology has only just been invented is blatantly false. Academics have been discussing this stuff for years. Andrew D. (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The earlier definition in the article was "Transracial is the state of one's racial identity or expression not matching one's natural skin color," which was copied from the transgender lede. This is not what Rodriguez's book is about. It is the definition Raymond was using but she wasn't discussing the "transracial" identity or the "transchronological" identity - she was making up non-existent identities to further her hate speech against transgender people. Bow is defining a neologism that doesn't seem to have caught on. Her definition is quite different to Raymond's and is closer to what Rodriguez is talking about. Recently she has talked about it as "social betweenness" and has denied it is about changing from one race to another. The quote you have linked uses the word to mean reaching across cultures and spanning a divide. -- haminoon (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article started with a definition copied from the transgender article, which I removed for obvious reasons. Nobody seems keen to replace it with a proper definition supported by sources, but the option to do so there. Artw (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment, another definition in scare quotes. This time you're talking about Ethnic plastic surgery which is already an article. Perhaps you'd like to add the concept there? -- haminoon (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be many existing pages which relate to this topic such as cultural appropriation. These further demonstrate that we have nothing very new here. Even the supposed neologism already existed as a dab page leading to several other pages. The only reason that we seem to be having a deletion discussion is that the matter is in the news and this has excited some drama. As we have numerous pages and plenty of sources, the matter will take time to resolve by ordinary editing in the ordinary way. Deletion is disruptive to this process and is contrary to our policy. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was put up for deletion soon after it being created and this would have happened regardless of it being in the news. I don't quite follow your argument here. Since the article doesn't have a definition I think if it survives the AFD it will end up resembleing a dictionary entry with editors adding several different definitions. -- haminoon (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is that the claim of the nomination that this is a neologism is false; that the word transracial has been in use for some time and that there are plenty of academic sources, including full-length books, which discuss the topic in detail. Even this were a neologism, this would still not be a reason to delete as it has great notability and so readers should be taken to some appropriate page(s). For examples of more novel neologisms see Grexit, hashtag and twerk and notice that they are all blue links not red links. See also WP:BLUDGEON; my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems very real. Just because it may sound silly and there is also a media circus, does not mean it does not exist.--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any sources at all to back up your claim? Sources that are not WP:OR WP:SYN, as this discussion has established that the "sources" in the article are? Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this is a very useful term. It opens dialog about racial issues that many people face. We've long known that something like this existed for many decades if not centuries. There could be many reasons why a person may choose this designation. Racial self-hatred may be one reason but not the only one. I've known a person who stop hanging out with his non-Spanish speaking friends to be with Hispanics, changed his name and called himself Hispanic -- even though Hispanic is not a race. I think the designation is useful for open dialog. I fully support transracials since race is simply a social construct anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfireman84 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Samfireman84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid rationale to retain an article in this project, nor are your personal anecdotes regarding the matter. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Samfireman84 appears to have created their account solely to make the above comment. -- The Anome (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no redirect) - A common prefix + racial identity can mean many different things. What we would need are reliable sources which show that this is (a) a well defined subject, (b) notable (WP:NEO), and (c) distinct from other topics we already cover. I don't see that we anything close to sufficient sources to do that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many RS demonstrate notability. Editing issues can be addressed easily. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant into into Rachel Dolezal article. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info into passing (racial identity). I believe there is a distinct concept here but a little explored one which may or May not come to the point where it deserves its own article but not yet. SPACKlick (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with some information possibly merged into Rachel Dolezal. As many have noted, this fails WP:NOTNEO. There is also no evidence that any attention to this term will extend beyond the current news story that created it. Given the situation surrounding this term, I'd say this should be considered more as a news event than anything else, and if so, it fails WP:PERSISTENCE. ~ RobTalk 13:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, recentism, notnews. Such a concept would be the purview of social science, not a term coined by mainstream news sources. No need to merge as it's sufficiently covered in Rachel Dolezal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NEO. Wouldn't oppose a redirect to passing. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. The purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to be on the cutting edge of terminology, but rather to be a reflection and summarization of the common terms and topics. This currently has no scientific basis, and time will tell us if there really is one. Having many news organizations use the term is insufficient to support the article, as it only demonstrates that it is the buzz word of the day, due to the current event with the NAACP. This doesn't establish the validity of the term nor demonstrate that such a thing as "Transracial identity" even exists. Redirecting is also inappropriate as it would lend credibility where it hasn't been earned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. No prejudice toward recreation when legitimate scholarly sources exist outside of this media frenzy.--v/r - TP 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article uses reliable sources and meets the requirements of WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 June 2015‎
    • What part of WP:Notability? Because this part seems to disagree with you: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events.".--v/r - TP 00:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete currently article is completely unjustified per WP:NEO. Widefox; talk 01:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black KIte, Cas Liber et al. Neologism. Make a redirect to Passing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See Jejemon and Noynoying. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain further? Artw (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Right now, it's a POV fork of Rachel Dolezal and for that reason alone, it is not presently appropriate as an article. As utterly ridiculous as the term is and as experts are nearly universal in their debunking of it as a legitimate identity, there is no question that it is notable at this point. We have articles about notable hoaxes and so there is no reason that an encyclopedic topic about this term/concept could not be written. --B (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N and WP:NEO. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim first-round draft picks. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bolden[edit]

Ryan Bolden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His death is a sad story, but this subject doesn't seem notable. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - based on his professional success I would agree that he appears to be non-notable despite the circumstances of his death, but he was a first round draft pick so may have achieved coverage for that and for his amateur career that was apparently impressive enough to warrant a first round pick. But a quick search for sources understandably brought up a lot of articles about his death, so may take a little more digging than normal to see if there is notabilty-worthy coverage besides for his death. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One trick I use is to do a web search on Google and choose a date range, so in this case, anything prior to December 2014. I did find this and this, but nothing else. I don't think that plus the reports on his death are enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 16 June 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. Underground related topics are often borderline and lead to mixed opinions. I strongly recommend that those wishing to keep the article shore it up with references to prevent it coming back here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Dog Records[edit]

Planet Dog Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable sources that discuss the company or indicate any sort of notability. Unreferenced at current, and I don't see that significantly changing. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worth pointing out that this has been completely unreferenced for a decade. It was declined for speedy deletion on the grounds that having multiple notable artists signed to the label was an indication of notability. Lets examine this claim...
  • Eat Static - has been around for a decade, has 10k of words based on 2 references, one of which is a single paragraph blurb on AllMusic.
  • Banco de Gaia - has been around since 2003, has two 'references', one of which is a Soundcloud page with no actual text.
  • Children of the Bong - has been around since 2006 as a seven sentence unreferenced stub, mostly about what the members did afterward.
  • TimeShard - has been around since 2003, only reference is a single paragraph on Allmusic.
  • Mark Barrott - has been around since 2006 as a two sentence unreferenced stub.
Let's please not drink the 'inherited notability' koolaid that seems common in music topics here (since they don't even appear to be vaguely notable either), and put this to a merciful death as the utter trivia that it is. Reventtalk 17:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear. The decline was not that having the multiple artists with articles was a sign of notability. It was declined because it is a sign of significance. That is a much lower level than notability but enough to pass WP:A7. -- GB fan
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per revent's rationale abvoe. There has been no evidence this has been notable to last decade,and neither is there any now. It doesn not have inherited notability if one member of a band that was once a membery of a vaguly notable band. Notability doesn't work like that. Kill this thing before it spreads, or something. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with caution: Underground music is, by its nature, underground. It won't generate a lot of "reliable" sourcing, because the press that does notice it will be of the alternative sort. Therefore, on this walled garden, I agree with delete, but if we delete here, we are also suggesting that some of the Wikipedia articles on underground music that were probably written by contributors to that music or participants in those scenes with access to expert knowledge (and COI, of course), will have to go away until someone writes a book. . . or doesn't. . . fifteen years later and says, "I remember that there was also this and that." I.e. the notability and RS standards are going to have some weak spots on some subjects. (I say this as a veteran of the "Athens music" scene who now struggles to remember all the connections.) Hithladaeus (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hithladaeus: There is something to be said, yes, for the argument that something can be 'truly' notable without findable online references, but unfortunately in music topics this sometimes turns into a 'crystal ball' of potential notability, with the mere existence of bluelinks being used as the basis of notability for more articles... unreferenced stubs about bands, all their members, all their albums (and a navbox, of course) stretched out three or four jumps from any topic with established notability. There is a place for the accumulation of such information, but it's not Wikipedia... there are far too many music articles that merely consist of a track or album list copied from Allmusic. Wikipedia is not a trivia database, and it is not an appropriate place for unreferenced reminisces to be kept on the grounds that they might be unreferenced footnotes about a topic that some reliable source finally decided to write about, someday. Sorry if this seems like a rant, but... it really is, in a way. Reventtalk 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with you, especially in cases like these, where it looks like a walled garden is up. I was thinking, instead, that we have different notability guidelines for different subsets for good reason -- not assessing an academic the way we would a military officer, for example -- and underground culture can be verifiable and, indeed, "notable" without passing the same stringency as other articles. I completely agree in cases like this, though. (If you're ranting, I was musing.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which should be enough in itself, but as well as finding this on the first page of a GBooks search, the same page has two articles from CMJ ([23], [24]). And those bands are not non-notable simply because the state of their articles is poor. --Michig (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The first CMJ article mentions the Mammoth Records release of Dog's record. It's not about the label. It's about him as a legendary DJ and his first release on his own personal label. The second is, again, about Dog again, and, again, about that release of his material, which is being released in the US by a different distributor, but now with his imprint intact. All of that coverage testifies that the label founder deserves an article. CMJ is American, of course, so its interests are US college radio. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevertheless these are sources that can be cited to verify facts in the article. You haven't mentioned why the entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music should be discounted. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Michig: I'm not trying to be polemical or disprove your case. I offered my judgment in good faith. I don't know The Encyclopedia of Popular Culture well enough to assess its validity and did not look at its entry to see whether it, too, was about the founder and not the label. This debate is about whether the label passes notability standards. I don't see it. You think it does. I don't think this is a place for arguing with each other. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thing is - there's no detailed coverage in independent reliable sources with which to write a sensible article. --ℕ ℱ 19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except there is because there's an entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music - a print encyclopedia published by the Oxford University Press in one of its editions, and subjects covered in pucka print encyclopedias should be covered in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the critical word here is 'sources', as in plural. The entry you are mentioning is 215 words long, apparently, which is better than nothing, I guess, but can't exactly say much. It's a better claim to notability than it being 'inherited', though. Reventtalk 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added some sources, but it still doesn't meet GNG in its current state. Why keep then? Because people are also starting to drink the GNG koolaid. Notability is far more encompassing than GNG. Note the label's heydey: 1993 - 1998. This is pre-WWW and at the very infancy. Likely sources common to this genre exist for the time period, and likely they have not been scanned/indexed by google books. The encyclopedia entries, and the fact that they are significant enough to be mentioned by Billboard at all indicates a high likelihood of notability, and that sources probably exist. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are valid points, and I feel better about the existence of this now, even without any actual 'content' changes, merely because it's existence is now based on something other than 'well, someone created some unreferenced bluelinks'. It's less a matter of the 'six degrees of notability' argument that often comes up in the case of music articles now. Reventtalk 22:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep newly added sources seem sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of more sources, and clarified the SPIN source with a link. Artw (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Those newly added sources didn't do anything of the sort: they're casual mentions, and don't discuss the subject at ALL, let alone give it the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. (Far from "drinking the koolaid," the GNG is the fundamental interpretive guideline of WP:N and WP:V. If you want to overturn it, this isn't the venue to do it in.) My answer to Hithladaeus' comment about the innate under-the-radar of underground music brings up one of my pet peeves: when folks at AfD argue that a subject or a group which avoid the public eye ought to have the provisions of WP:V suspended in their favor, just because. Sorry, but the proper answer is: "... then that means a Wikipedia article on the subject can't be sustained." Nha Trang Allons! 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a tendentious interpretation of what I was saying. Would The Great Speckled Bird be a "reliable source?" It's the reliable source used by historians of popular culture of the 1960's in the West Coast. If I agree to do a book on the history of the Atlanta punk scene, my reliable sources, other than interviews, will be Creative Loafing and half a dozen defunct free weeklies. No one would ask for Time Magazine to attest to Moby Grape, and the elder media do not retroactively cover the things they missed. Therefore, I was suggesting that people need to be intelligent about what constitutes a reliable source for a given subject. We have different standards for different endeavors. Heck a high school merely needs a roof to be automatically "notable" and deserving of an article, whether it graduates a single student or not. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where are you seeing a WP:V problem exactly? Artw (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Right there. Nha Trang Allons! 16:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's plainly not the case. Artw (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Egads, nobody's looking to overturn the GNG guidline. First, it is a guideline. Not a policy. Not a rule. This guideline is to help keep out articles that don't deserve an encyclopedia entry per WP:NOT. It is one of the best guidelines on Wikipedia. Meeting GNG kills AfDs dead. (apologies to the distinguished editor, whom I can't remember, who stated this gem on their user page) However, if that were the only criteria, then there would be no reason for AfD debates at all, only debates about what constitutes a reliable source, or what the precise definition of "in depth" is. The long-standing position has been that a record label of significant tenure (never defined) which has released material by several (again, not defined) notable artists is presumed notable because it has measurably impacted musical culture. It is therefore worthy of an encyclopedia article. The original nominator was concerned that this label might be part of a walled garden, and in fact the "multiple notable acts" signed by the label were not notable at all. These are valid concerns. However, based upon the verifiabilty of the information presented, I am of the opinion that the label deserves an encyclopedia entry. Further, an entire article can and been created, not just a definition, per the first bullet in WP:WHYN, and merging the topic into another subject does not appear viable. Furthermore, my point is in fact that it is likely that GNG is satisfied by the existence of the articles present already, but they are likely offline. WP:NEXIST. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that plainly IS the case: what reliable sources that've been offered up do you claim provide "significant coverage" of the subject? Second, WP:V (which is a policy, for those of you scoring at home) requires that those sources be provided -- not just alleged that they might possibly maybe exist somewhere -- and puts the burden of proof on editors wanting to keep articles. Third, yeah, GNG is a guideline. So what? What irreparable harm to the encyclopedia are you alleging will take place if it isn't set aside in this case? That people'll have to Google this tiny, ephemeral indie label and go to its website to find out about it instead of searching for it here? You need rather more than "The GNG is getting in my way for keeping an article I want to keep" for a rationale. Nha Trang Allons! 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even looking at the article or the sources provided therein? WP:V isn't even at issue, the claims within the article are currently verified by the sources, the sources listed are reliable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NukeThePukes, I'm going to remind you that being caught in a lie is not cause of become WP:UNCIVIL, furthermore because your claims of a a WP:V problem are false I'm going to ask the closing admin to disregard your vote. Artw (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning more delete - I thought about this a while and I think although it took this long to finally get sources in the article, my searches (News, Books, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) evidently found nothing else with this (Books) being the best. Indeed, underground stays to the meaning "underground". I would've suggested moving elsewhere but I'm not seeing a good target aside from its artists. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources the club nights might be more significant than the label, since the label is spun out of them. I can find more Megadog specific sources that are actually online, which might help as so many of the present sources for Planet Dog not being online seems to an issue. Artw (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources added since the start of this AfD are enough to meet our guideline for inclusion. — sparklism hey! 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has a measurable cultural importance in recent British history. apropos an earlier comment by Hithladaeus, the "elder" media *do*, at least in the UK, quite often retrospectively cover the things they missed; roughly since the emergence of Tony Blair, you can find many articles in newspapers like the Times covering stuff they would have ignored when it was new, which can sometimes be a help when it comes to sourcing (though the Melody Maker digital archive we were once promised would be better still, of course). RobinCarmody (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Wescott[edit]

Robert F. Wescott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person, written by a user with an obvious COI. All the sources are either primary sources from people he's worked for, or links to his publications. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Clearly non-notable. At least not from what is written on the the article, nor from what can be gathered from a web search. The subject has not been widely covered as a main topic by third-party reliable sources, he has not received nor being nominated several times to receive well-known awards, and it seems he has not made long-lasting profound contributions to his field. His work, by itself, doesn't look notable either. Bottom line, I don't see any reason why the subject should be included in the encyclopedia. --Legion fi (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems pretty much non-notable. His biggest claim to fame was that he was once an adviser to the Clinton administration. The 'Selected Works' section in the article has one item, the only thing that he is perhaps vaguely noted for, and he's the second author of that. Was an academic, now runs a consultancy. Seems unlikely to produce anything groundbreaking now.Poltair (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Bookspan[edit]

David Bookspan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article by editor taking paid assignments but not specifically citing this as a paid article. Relatively minor executive. Inappropriate tone: uses first name throughout as if he were a popular entertainer. Uses vague adjectives of praise "avid baseball enthusiast" "world-class companies" "mentor to numerous startups" etc. If her were notable this could be fixed, but he is not.

References are mainly local write ups that probably represent PR and are therefore unreliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article is really weasily, but we can't hold that against it (apparently). (Granted, I want to know what happened to "his outfielders," because it sounds like he hurt them all.) The sources, at best, attest to the dynamic, exciting, high-paced, wonderful opportunities of incubating your start-up with these thrilling and dynamic paradigm shifting companies, not David Bookspan. No RS for any claim to pass BIO. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Borecká[edit]

Martina Borecká (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (no reason given). Original concern: This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination. Doesn't meet tennis project notability standards and no claims the player meets WP:GNG. Fazzo29 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Terziyska[edit]

Julia Terziyska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (no reason given). Original concern: This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet tennis project notability standards. I see no case for why she should be an exception to these or that she is generally notable. Fazzo29 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 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 CSD A7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

চট্টগ্রাম মহানগর যুবলীগের আহবায়ক মহিউদ্দীন বাচ্চু[edit]

চট্টগ্রাম মহানগর যুবলীগের আহবায়ক মহিউদ্দীন বাচ্চু (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass our notability guidelines for politicians. While a search reveals a few hits, most are about activities where he participated, and none are actually about him. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable local politician. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no credible assertion of notability. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete zero assertion of notability in the article. Let's not let this sit for 7 days. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). The potential of a merge can be further discussed on an article talk page, if desired, or perhaps boldly performed. North America1000 02:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jigyasa Singh[edit]

Jigyasa Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone contested PROD, but the concern is still there. WP:TOOSOON concerns. (plus no sources to estabilish notability and verification) TL22 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 15:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:08, 16 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GotNews[edit]

GotNews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined PROD because of objections raised on the talk page. However, I believe the article needs discussion at AfD. My own opinion is that the website GotNews is not notable; all of the references are about its creator, Charles C. Johnson, rather than about GotNews. I am neutral about whether this article should be deleted, or converted into an article about Charles C. Johnson. MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charles C Johnson, where the blog can be mentioned. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "Redirect," do you mean rename the article and rewrite it to be about him? Because there currently is no article about him to redirect to. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The subject is clearly not notable. If someone wants to write an article about its creator, let them do so in the future, and his notability can be discussed at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Duh - didn't notice I was voting on my own nomination! Please ignore the duplication. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:ORG; no sources that cover the actual company itself, possibly create an article on its founder and selective merge? Esquivalience t 02:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This would have qualified in December/Jan for CSD G5 due to creator's topic ban. WP:WEBSITE is the correct guideline, WP:WEBCRIT 1. needs evaluating 2. clearly not
    • Delete WEBSITE "be notable and of historical significance" it currently appears to be WP:NOTNEWS (more about the website creator who may or may not be notable) and overall WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gorfaine/Schwartz Agency, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Gorfaine/Schwartz Agency, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. While this talent agency has represented a few A-listers, notability is not inherited, and I am not seeing significant coverage. The article itself references only a trivial mention, a directory listing, and a piece in Variety that doesn't look like an independent source, reads just like a press release. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any secondary sources with significant coverage. KSFT talk 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll admit that I'm concerned about the obvious COI with the article, as there have been some extremely promotional edits by various people that are clearly affiliated with the company. I'd like to ask them to please exercise extreme caution with the article since they're really not doing it any favors right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now after looking at the history and seeing since the article was started in 2009 it was acceptable then but in 2011 the promotional material started happening. My searches found results here, here and here but I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International country rankings[edit]

Miss International country rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft based on related sources The Banner talk 22:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are so many, many reasons: Wikipedia is not random information. There is no notability to a table of countries competing (which they don't) in beauty pageants (which aren't competitive sports), much less this particular one, which doesn't have outstanding notability, either. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't like an Olympics medal table or ATP tennis rankings, which are widely published in media. This is just something somebody made up one day. It's not notable of itself, it's original research, it's a bunch of stats (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK), it's not especially useful. The main article can say who has had the most winners and other very important statistics, but not this much detail. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While it might not be obvious from a count of the votes, the only keeps don't even consider Wikipedia policy in their rationale, so are more personal opinion than policy rationale. As such, weighing the discussion on the actual policies involved, I see a consensus to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Aeronautics Science Network[edit]

European Aeronautics Science Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party sources for notability; mostly copied from their website. Mostly information of no interest to any but their own membership DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to assert notability per WP:ORG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article aimed to present EASN as one of the main European aeronautics-related network representing academia. It is being composed by a number of experts and professionals who represent the voice of European aeronautics universities and seek their participation on innovative research projects. To this end, I consider that the topic is notable and worth writing for in Wikipedia. I have updated the article in an attempt to verify this notability and some of the works realized, as these are referenced from third party sources. Please let me know of your feedback. Myrto Zacharaki (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added keep to your above vote because your statement makes this clear. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Network is an administration of the European Union, and the board is elected by the European Union Parliament. The Network is discussed more in government and education reports than the mainstream news, but notability with governments and universities is still notability. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Waters.Justin:, it's really not appropriate to edit other people's comments like that. Whoever closes the debate will read everything and figure it out for theselves. Labeling comments with a bold single-word summary is common practice, but it's neither required nor essential, and it's entirely up to the individual editor if they want to do that or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Placebo discography. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides: 1996–2006[edit]

B-Sides: 1996–2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been unsuccessful in establishing the notability of this subject outside of a sole review by AllMusic. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge to Placebo discography. I don't see a good reason for outright deletion here. Why would the encyclopedia be better without this verifiable information about an official release by a highly notable band? --Michig (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a valid deletion rationale IE: one user can only find one review. The Allmusic review would be enough, along with the other refs in the article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS. I couldn't find anything to support notability when searching. One ref is simply a listing of all Placebo's tracks and the other is deleted. Lugnuts, if you have some other sources please post them. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG beats WP:NALBUMS. Try again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts I'd be happy to change to keep if it meets WP:GNG. As I stated, I was unable to find anything that supports any notability. Telling me to "try again" is not going to help your argument. If you have any other refs then add them to the article or at least post them here. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This album may be the black sheep in Placebo's discography in terms of media coverage, but the band is clearly notable and this album's information would not be adequately displayed if merged to the discography. I am happy it has the AllMusic review, there are also two German reviews online that could be added, [25] and [26], if needed. Citations for a lot of the tracks can found by searching for the actual singles that featured the tracks in the first place, like [27].Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to the band's article: 1) the naming is wonky (no other album can ever be called "B-Sides: 1996-2006"), 2) arguing notability from discussion of the songs is the very reason the record isn't getting reviews or discussion: the review sites and critics feel as if they've already said what they want to say about the music in its original release, 3) a repackaging of B-sides very, very, very rarely makes news (perhaps Dead Letter Office by REM, perhaps Singles 45 and Under by Squeeze), because these days the repackaging of songs is easy (this has to do with the move to digital; in the days of vinyl, one had to wait to get a shot at the chance to get the missing B-sides for a re-release -- all that died with Napster)). Album doesn't pass the notability guidelines, and arguing that the completeness of all records having articles is not compelling. 14:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithladaeus (talk • contribs)
    • The above was my motion on this debate: Redirect and merge. I miscounted tildes. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Placebo discography. It needs more sourcing, but not deletion. Probably not notable enough to stand alone on its own article, but content should be kept and merged into the band's discography. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:20, 16 June 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco certifications[edit]

Cisco certifications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG, I see no reason to keep this article. The references don't demonstrate significant coverage, as they are almost all from Cisco or blogs (which are not sufficient). TheCascadian 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles reads like a course registration booklet. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the right platform for this information. Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Article is part of the Information security certifications category. Also Refrence 11 is not from Cisco.com the material itself will be from Cisco.com mostly due to them having to document how they run and base there courses on. I respect the guideline but I do not believe it applies here due to the nature of what we are talking about. certifications made and designed by a business will allways be designed and explained in the most complete detail by the business themselves. Also most other articles in that group will need to be deleted if this goes through for the same reason. you may wish to save your time and simply request a deletion for all items in the category. Andrdema (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 11 ([28]) is one of the few references that isn't from Cisco itself, and even then it's not significant coverage. You are correct that it makes sense that some of the references are from Cisco itself, since they document their own certifications. However, that isn't the issue at hand. References from Cisco don't constitute independent sources or significant media coverage, so the article topic is not notable. Lastly, you are correct that several other articles in that group will need to be deleted if this one is deleted. If this article ends up deleted, it will establish a precedent for deletion of several others. TheCascadian 22:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this certification is fairly significant. I don't know how to get statistics for it. Article really needs to be improved to have this information to be of encyclopedic value. [29], [30] —МандичкаYO 😜 10:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one looks like a good source for CCNA, but not all certifications. The second one seems like an eHow-type article. TheCascadian 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Anyone even vaguely familiar with IT know that these certifications are industry standard, and pretty much required to work in IT. The sourcing could use improvement, but a notable topic nonetheless. Here are some sources that may help. ABCDEFG. I could find many more, not sure much WP:BEFORE was done prior to this nomination. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those references appear to be from training/certification services, and therefore wouldn't qualify as independent sources. TheCascadian 01:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So are you trying to say that the fact that multiple accredited universities and colleges offer Cisco certifications is somehow a reason to delete this article? If that is the case then here are some more sources that aren't from training websites, ABCDEFGHIJK. I still say keep plenty of sourcing if you look for it. Obviously the easiest to find links are to training sites because that's normally what people looking up these certifications want to know about. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that multiple accredited universities offer cisco certifications is irrelevant to the topic's notability. Please reread WP:GNG. I also recommend WP:RS. I don't see how online definitions pages like those you posted from techopedia and about.com qualify. Lastly, you say it is easiest to find links to training sites, but that's beside the point. The point is that those sites are not independent and therefore do not establish notability. See WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on on secondary sources, not primary sources and original research. TheCascadian 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were also several news sites that I referenced as well that you failed to mention. What is wrong with the IT World Canada source, or the CRN news sources, or the New Jersey Journal article. My point with the training sites, is that you have to dig deeper for sources because several pages of google results will be solely training sites, some of which have contracted with Cisco and aren't an independent source. However, many of these accredited universities offer it because it is so widely recognized in the industry and not because they have contracted with Cisco, thus they can be used as secondary sources, and the information given on the school websites can be used to support the article. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a topic of importance to technical people that are likely to turn to Wikipedia for information. If the encyclopedia covers topics like MSCE or CompTIA then this is well in-bounds. --AlexWCovington (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is essentially a brochure or course/sales catalog for Cisco. This subject does not warrant an independent article apart from the main Cisco article. Stesmo (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge all sub articles into this. This is clearly a notable topic, but the article itself is badly written. It should be largely blown up and a single article (perhaps under this title) should be created which merges Cisco Certified Entry Networking Technician, CCNA, CCIE Certification, and any others into a single comprehensive article. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merì Grigoryan[edit]

Merì Grigoryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Spinosa76 (creator) with the no rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: being prominent as a female chess player and even founding a chess team is not the same thing as passing the notability guidelines for a biography. Essentially, if print sources are talking about her, then it's likely someone will need to search for her name. There is no evidence that they are, so. . . delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Grigoryan's achievements are significant and notable; British Women's Champion, representing her country at individual and team events, such as the Olympiad ... etc. Chessbase News, an authoritative source for contemporary and historical chess articles recently covered Grigoryan [here]. Details of her achievements are evidenced in the article, as well as her charity work. In-line citations could be provided accordingly. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She was English Ladies Blitz Champion in 2004, a considerably less impressive achievement than winning the national women's championship. I wouldn't attach too much significance to the ChessBase article either as she has reported for ChessBase on several occasions and I suspect they may have been doing her a favour in return. I'm not seeing much coverage on her outside of that article and British chess blogs. If there were mainstream news sources covering her charity work or achievements in chess I'd be more inclined to change my mind. Cobblet (talk) 09:24, 19 June 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 selective merge to Bayport,_New_York#Emergency_services. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bayport Fire Department[edit]

Bayport Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable department that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Most of the page is unsourced. Zackmann08 (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom —МандичкаYO 😜 10:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:' The person recommending deletion has a history of going through and recommending pages for deletion that should not of been recommended[1]... so those reviewing this should keep that in mind and if it continues admin should consider sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlassiter (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalamazoo_Department_of_Public_Safety
Zlassiter, I've never seen a spurious or disruptive AfD from Zackmann08. That one for Kalamazoo was kept after consensus with mention of possible discussion about merging. This is hardly a malicious AfD that would need an admin involvement. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It reads like a mix between trainspotting and town pride. I would suggest a merge to Bayport, Long Island, but we're going to start cutting the cake pretty thin at a certain point. This is a volunteer department (not municipal). It has a band and boats. That's all very nice, but it doesn't get an automatic bye for municipal function (or automatic merge). The sources are locally published histories and the Yellow pages, which doesn't leave a lot of room for !voting otherwise. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DanTD and Northamerica1000: For what it is worth, as the original nominator, I too support selective merging. The comment I will make is that we want to avoid WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Every community has a fire department. I'm not sure it would be beneficial to add a section on every community's page about the fire department IF all that section says is "there is a department, they fight fires...". Just food for thought! But yea, I too support a selective merge. :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no objection to your merge of Brentwood Fire Department to Brentwood, New York, but I still think you should've added the content from that article to the community. The same should be done with Sayville Fire Department, which should be added to Sayville, New York, rather than deleted. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karunesh Arya[edit]

Karunesh Arya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a businessman. Sources are his company, a press release, and an interview with him. No indication that he meets notability requirements. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly he is the Avis India COO according to several sources, and while Avis India is probably a notable company, this man does not inherit notability from the company. I do not find sources that offer "significant coverage" of the topic to establish notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I almost feel bad. As stated by War wizard90, he is definitively the COO [31]. However, the coverage is all brief and routine mentions. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, but definitely not now. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My first searches at News, Books and browser found nothing to suggest solid independent notability and this one link at News doesn't seem promising. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBEXI[edit]

OpenBEXI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software Dandv 07:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking multiple independent RS references. The one borderline-RS ref is internetspotter, which describes itself as a blog. In any case, on its own this ref is not sufficient to establish notability. A search turned up download sites and incidental mentions, but no further significant WP:RS coverage of this software. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the developer, so likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Software developed by "arcazj"; article contributed by WP:SPA User:Arcazj. Of the given refs, only the 2008 review on Internetspotter could be considered and my searches are not finding anything better that could indicate the software to be notable. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 16 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhi Dharma University[edit]

Buddhi Dharma University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created by a persistent self promoter who has now been blocked. Only reference is an article on a different Wikipedia, which obviously is not sufficient. Looking at that article on Indonesian Wikipedia, the only sources used there appear to be the school's own website. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - all universities are inherently notable. According to the article, this new university is the recent result of combining other universities, so it probably doesn't have as many articles, but I don't see why it would not be notable. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All genuine secondary and tertiary educational establishments are automatically notable but, given the behaviour of the author which got him blocked, I am not prepared to assume this "genuine" until I have checked it out. I'll !vote in a short while. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DanielRigal, the Indonesian version of the article was created more than a year ago and has been edited by multiple people. The official website works fine for me. There's also this one on a different server, which I think is the academic login - [32] —МандичкаYO 😜 21:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. My concern here is not notability but verifiability. For a "university" I am finding it pretty damn intangible. On my PC, their website often displays as a black page with "0%" written on it. I assume that it works better for other people but it does not look like the sort of mistake a serious academic institution would make. It is hit-and-miss if I can even get a page impression out of it at all. What I can sometimes get is a confused mixture of languages. Lots of the links at the top just take you back to the homepage and not much of the promised content actually exists. It could be a complete fake but I suspect it is just incompetent. You would not expect this from a university with an IT faculty, would you? Google Translate does not make for a great way to read it but I get two things from their history page: The place was founded as a college in 1912 but only became a University in January 2015.
So what does Google think? Well, not a lot. As far as Google Scholar and Books are concerned there ain't no such thing as "Buddhi Dharma University". So how does it fare under the name "Universitas Buddhi Dharma", which is what it says on the website? Not much better. Still sod all in Google Scholar or books to suggest that this is a real university that publishes papers and so on.
So, what have we got here? I don't know. Maybe it is a genuine FE college. Maybe it is a diploma mill. Maybe it is something else entirely but I don't see proof of a university as I understand the term. Unless it has a third name (maybe its previous name before it became a university) which it is more notable under I am not able to !vote this as a "keep". All it would take to get that "keep" would be a government website listing it as an authorised and accredited university. Any RS news report for the Inauguration ceremony would also serve to prove it was genuine.
I believe that we need somebody with the local language skill and knowledge to tell us what is really going on here.
If it is a "keep" then I suggest we gut out everything not verified, even if it only leaves a stub.
--DanielRigal (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to get their website to load, but it doesn't do anything or say anything substantive about the institution. . I don't know if Indonesia has anything like accrediting bodies for universisites, which help you tell the difference between the real deal and a diploma mill, but if it does I am unable to find any evidence of any accrediting body endorsing this school. I could declare the "University of Beeblebrox Institute for Wikipedia editing" set up a crummy website with generic pictures of students and buildings, and spam up an a Wikipedia article about it, that doesn't make it real. Hence why I agree with you that "snow keep" is not the likeley outcome of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI here is a news report that mentions the inauguration ceremony. Additional searches bring your normal results (including YouTube clips with music and some kind of play on campus). I just don't see why people are so suspicious after doing a basic search. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Machine translation from Indonesian is pretty dicey, but that article seems to mainly discuss grant monies being disbursed to the Uneversity of Tangerang, while also mentioning "Buddi Dharma Land Gokap". I'm unable to find a translation for "Gokap" but it doesn't seem to mean "accredited university" because the translator recognizes those words in Indonesian. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says the mayor attended the inauguration of this university "Kepastian ini diungkapkan Walikota Tangerang Arief R Wismansyah kepada Tangerang Ekspres usai menghadiri peresmian Universitas Buddhi Dharma Tangerang" = "The mayor of Tangerang Arief R Wismansyah confirmed this (I think it says confirmed) to the Tangerang Express after attending the inauguration of Buddhi Dharma University." —МандичкаYO 😜 22:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I'm not arguing that this doesn't exist at all. I am arguing that it may not be a genuine, accreditred university. The mayor would come out to a ceremony because mayors love ceremonies and taking credit for anything that may bring money to town. Their website is so sketchy, it looks like they mainly just used stock images of college-age kids and campus-like buildings and stiched them together, that's what makes me believe this may not be all it's cracked up to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the website is typical of a website of a university for a religious minority (>2%) in a relatively poor country. This [33] is the website for the previous university that goes up until the merging. The orange building in the photo is not a stock pic - it matches lots of photos and also [34] this video. And this [35] is apparently an American who attends, and I don't get the feeling this video is part of a scam, or that he's being scammed by doing his Buddhist studying at a degree mill. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS Also the website states that it is part of "akreditasi BAN-PT" which translates to [36] "National Accreditation Board of Higher Education" for Indonesia —МандичкаYO 😜 22:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that stands up then I agree that it is a "keep" but I am still concerned by how little we can actually verify here so I'd certainly recommend removing all content that is not, and can not be, reliably referenced which might not leave much. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What other information are you looking to verify? Here is an article about the official opening. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to tell what sources are RS here, not being familiar with the area, but I think this is probably OK. My ongoing verification concern is for the contents of the article. Accordingly, I'll change my !vote to...
  • Keep. There seems to be enough coverage to verify the university and support a stub or short article but it needs to be referenced properly with any unverifiable elements removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Lack of RS and fails GNG. (yes, there are a handful of sources, but I wouldn't characterize any of them as RS) LavaBaron (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poor article but looks to be a genuine university, which we always keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The university is notable enough to keep. Maduwanwela (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: besides its own website, there are no other reliable sources to establish the notability of this university. Truco 503 07:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hughes High School#Athletics. There are three responses to the nomination, one is a comment, and two are suggestions to merge the info, though one of the suggestions says delete and merge. The merge will redirect the title to the new article so has the same effect as a deletion, but leaves the history in place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendric Smith[edit]

Kendric Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No enduring notability. Nine touchdowns, while impressive, is a one-off event for someone who has made no other contributions. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - there's a Kendric Smith who went to Ohio, could it be the same guy? He went to high school in Texas but I supposed he could have transferred. [37], [38], [39] —МандичкаYO 😜 08:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't be him. According to the Ohio player's bio he would have had to be 14 at the time. This Smith was a senior in high school at the time. [40]. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - @Wikimandia: Specifically, what information would you propose to merge to the high school article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but merge information about his record into his high school's entry, if it's not present. This is a high school sports record that is state-dependent and fleeting. It doesn't create a biographical article, a la Everybody's All American. Nothing against the young man, but it's beneath the GN standards. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:08, 16 June 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 Catnip Dynamite. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Down in Front[edit]

Down in Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band, no reliable source to establish notability. Salt and burn. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore original redirect to Catnip Dynamite - All my searches (News and Books) found absolutely nothing and it wasn't until I added "Japa Kaur" to the search that I only found primary and non-significant links. Not notable and no significant sources by all means. I'm not entirely sure about the salt (although starting the article again since 2007 is interesting) because the article since 2011 moved you to Catnip Dynamite so that can probably be restored. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of a song on an album (Down in Front, of Catnip Dynamite) has a right to exist as a wiki page, then an article about an entire band named Down in Front certainly has the right to exist as an entry as well. It seems fair that both these entities be allowed to co-exsist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downinfrontband (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But keep to mind like I said in my comment, there are no good third-party sources talking about this and that's very important to save the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third party talking about it:

http://artsandentertainmentnews.com/arts_and_entertainment_articles/2015/06/san-francisco-rocknroll-band-down-in-front-conducts-national-donut-day-tour-407604.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downinfrontband (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Downinfrontband:Press releases are not considered reliable sources. You may want to consider familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies before contributing further. Also, given your username it appears you have a conflict of interest regarding this article and are too closely connected with it's topic. COI editing is strongly discouraged. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Mallett[edit]

Garry Mallett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Being president (essentially a part-time clerical position) of a minor political party doesn't infer notability. -- haminoon (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there seems to be a large amount of sources in respectable newspapers confirming Mallet's notability. Additionally, ACT New Zealand represented in parliament, indicating some level of public notability in New Zealand. Qasaur (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:30, 16 June 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 02:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz Krawczak[edit]

Kaz Krawczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It seems to have been deleted and recreated; and I do not believe this version addresses any of my concerns. References are problematic: primary/difficult to verify/what I can verify seems to mention him in passing. In essence, he had a small business. Yes, he made some guitars, and his name was a niche brand name, but I am not seeing anything here that would make him encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Those are extremely cool resonators. We know that "notability guidelines" differ for different endeavors, with "artists" and "bands" and "books" having their own. A boutique guitar maker simply isn't going to generate the sorts of press than even Rickenbacher does. So, the question is whether we cover any or none. If we cover any, then we need to recognize some of the references given in that article (if verified) and auctions. If none, then we apply corporate standards. Until there is a guide for something like this, I'm forced to say delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:21, 16 June 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 01:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Jinn Peri[edit]

Raja Jinn Peri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of source, too short Rochelimit (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. MBisanz talk 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1633 Chimay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1633 Chimay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. I am perplexed as to why the 1st AfD was closed by Nakon as keep, when it seems to have had a nominator for deletion, a redirect vote, a comment and a keep. The IP who opted for keep was assuming a bad faith nomination and also wrongly stated that the ASTRO consensus is to keep all below 1000 - it isn't, it's to examine them carefully, and the majority have been redirected to list at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Shouldn't of been closed as Keep but hey ho, Redirecting these is the norm so this IMHO should join 'em. –Davey2010Talk 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Boleyn, you have been AfDing every asteroid at CAT:NN for months. I and others suspect you are doing little (if any) wp:before, so it is logical that some people will question your motives when they come across several hundreds of nominations. If the asteroid was more than 70km in diameter, I would vote Keep. Though I do think the 3D lightcurve model makes the article more worthy of inclusion. -- Kheider (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." and as the nominator is proposing redirection not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Looks like the original nomination was more of a no consensus and it seems somewhat tacky to re-nominate the article this quickly. The asteroid does appear to be a member of the Themis family. -- Kheider (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: it gets a few brief mentions in some papers, but nothing substantial. I think one would be hard pressed to demonstrate it satisfies WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for the same reasons I gave before. A quick re-nomination is justified in this case as a response to a bad close, but I think it would have been a better idea to try to get this declared as a bad close and reopened at WP:DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 16 June 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. (WP:SNOW). North America1000 01:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Edwards[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Misty Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted in 2010 but somehow came back without much improvement. The sourcing is extremely weak. Incidentally, someone claiming to be the subject is objecting to some of it as reported at WP:BLPN. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 16 June 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. Nakon 02:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Anyiam[edit]

Hubert Anyiam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject has not played in any of the professional leagues required by WP:NGRIDIRON. The only citation in the article is only a profile, and I did not find anything but the same when I performed my own search. All the news articles which mentioned him seemed to be mere passing mentions. Therefore, he also fails WP:GNG. --Biblioworm 02:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the indoor football league is outside of the scope of GRIDIRON, then the subject fails notability guidelines. His Oklahoma State history doesn't seem to merit inclusion, either. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Playing minor league football does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:12, 17 June 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. Sources provided show subject clearly meets inclusion criteria. Before nominating users should perform appropriate checks per WP:Before SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iraj Weeraratne[edit]

Iraj Weeraratne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking any references. Was subject to a contested Speedy Delete in 2008 however no referenced justification for individuals notability has been provided. Dan arndt (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unsourced BLP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My first searches (News, Books and browser) found nothing particularly useful aside from some News links from the past years. It's unlikely he's notable but if he becomes so, this can be restarted with better sources. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is a notable musician in Sri Lanka, that article is just poorly sourced.--Blackknight12 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the subject is notable why have no references been provided to establish notability. Just saying an individual is notable doesn't prove it. Dan arndt (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Weerasuriya, Sanath (2011-06-26). "Iraj promotes Lion Nation". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2015-06-26. Retrieved 2015-06-26.

      The article notes:

      Iraj Weeraratne, a musical maestro, whose name is common in many households in Sri Lanka, is currently promoting his very own DVD titled ‘Lion Nation’. ‘Lion Nation’ consists of all music videos released by the Iraj so far.

    2. Banu, N. Dilshath (2004-12-19). "Hip hop music with a local flavour". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2015-06-26. Retrieved 2015-06-26.

      The article notes:

      His voice floats through the thin air not only in Sri Lanka, but also to other parts of the world, casting a spell over anyone with a taste for ‘new music’. His name will be recognised as one of the revolutionaries on the contemporary Sri Lankan music scene. He is not unknown to our audience; he is Iraj Weeraratne, the wizard of hip-hop music. And now, his fans can look forward to his newly released solo album.

    3. Najmuddin, Jamila (2010-06-23). "Iraj detained in Chennai". The Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2015-06-26. Retrieved 2015-06-26.
    4. Rutnam, Easwaran (2013-06-02). "Infaas' Manamali creates a storm". The Sunday Leader. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-06-26. Retrieved 2015-06-26.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Iraj Weeraratne to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:21, 26 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_June_16&oldid=1142625502"