Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 June	19 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach West Scotland Route X50[edit]

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

Non-notable route. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The only two refs are current timetables, which bear sufficient similarities to make me think they're both automatically derived from some common system. PROD removed with a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale. I'm not seeing anything approaching a secondary source in google searches. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bus route - and no, I couldn't find any evidence of anything remotely approaching the sort of third-party sourcing which would justify an article either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bus route - It's no different from any other bus service in the UK ... And nothing of value was lost. –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by AndyTheGrump Shad in Net 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep I am currently working hard to acquire better sources, please bear with me Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have a valid policy ground on which you'd like to advocate keeping the article? Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd be *astonished* if qualifying sources that discuss this bus route in significant detail came up. It's just a bus route. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Mildon[edit]

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

Fail to see notability, and page is mostly promotional beyond repair imo. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by WP:GNG Shad in Net 01:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Potential WP:COI based on User:SpiritualPA's username. User's previous attempt to create The soul searchers handbook further supports that claim. Regardless, it still also doesn't fulfill WP:GNG. E. Lee (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My first searches found nothing to suggest notability aside from the current links. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are way below adequate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing significant at this stage in NZ media either. NealeFamily (talk) 00:29, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rob Bowen[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:NACTOR; article seems more focused on name dropping than being encyclopedic. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-impressive WP:RESUME of past roles; the IMDb shows a sudden ramp-up in his work since last year, but the subject is far from even getting near the role they had on Sabrina as a garden-variety college student. Nate • (chatter) 10:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMDb pretty much summarizes his work and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing of course to suggest independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with what's already been said; the article is promotional without demonstration of notability. It fails all 3 points of WP:NACTOR--no significant, notable roles; no demonstration of a significant fanbase; not a prolific contributor to the field.TallCorgi (talk) 15:35, 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 procedural close. Article moved to draft space. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sterling Winters Company[edit]

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

This company does not appear to be notable. There are a variety of mentions in the media, but never any substantive discussion about the company. Overall, the sourcing is extremely thin. (Note: I accepted this at AFC, because I don't think the outcome of this debate is 100% obvious, but I personally believe that the article should be deleted.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn The author would prefer that it be moved back to draft space for now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:25, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. I did not know that there were other articles that listed Acts of United States Congresses. In light of those other articles, this is a valid and notable list article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acts of the 108th United States Congress[edit]

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

Non-notable list. Wikipedia is not a directory. I don't think that this information is "indiscriminate", but I don't see the need for this list of laws etc that were enacted by this specific U.S. Congress (2005-2007). Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is only one of the articles in Category:Lists of United States legislation that list acts of the 108th through 114th Congresses. In many areas Wikipedia includes complete lists of "works", such as works of creative artists. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies LISTN. Acts of Congress are notable as a group. LISTN says we can spin off daughter lists (of the parent list of all Acts of all Congresses) without regard to notability. This seems a reasonable spin off, as dividing them chronologically and by the Congress that passed them is obvious and is just common sense. James500 (talk) 22:15, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Albinson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Sammanhumagain^t@lk 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a small amount of coverage, I couldn't find any more. As a result, fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:43, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Barker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Sammanhumagain^t@lk 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, and unlike a couple of the other Man City youth players that this user has created, they don't have much news about them, so they fail WP:GNG as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:44, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picat[edit]

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

Not seeing notability, article reads like a how to guide or a walk through, and was previously csd deleted on copyright grounds. In short, nuke it. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Article does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the article reads like a manual rather than an encyclopedic article. --JAaron95 (Talk) 15:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP is not your /man page. (Prolog was supposed to be the language that a poet or philosopher could use. I'm one of those things, and I couldn't even get "Hello World" to work.) For GN reasons and for "manual" reasons, delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GNG. Unable to find sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (programming language) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are by the author of the software. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this language.Dialectric (talk) 00:13, 25 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 07:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okuden Music[edit]

(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 was deprodded by User:Theshinzu (creator) with no rationale. I am not seeing any good refs, niche passing coverage, self-refs, that's about it. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent refs, no notability, probable spam.Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found reviews of the Matthew Shipp / Mat Walerian concert recording in The Wire and Allaboutjazz, but nothing substantially about this festival itself, so I don't see it established as a notable event. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it personal - have serious suspicion about the idea - the concert series were funded by local government etc. - it is more than official : http://www.okudenmusic.com/partners.php: - also concert series featured most important musicians in the jazz world - so maybe just make your research more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshinzu (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On 9 June the article author added several references. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the refs added at [1], not seeing how they pass WP:QUESTIONABLE. Mentions in passing on minor websites, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concert series was financed by official government money plus every single concert is reviewed in encyclopedia of Polish Jazz : Maciej Lewenstein "Polish Jazz Recordings and Beyond", ISBN 9788380117440, page 434— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshinzu (talk — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 9 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed in detail... Could you scan that page so we could analyze it together? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:31, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Street (journalist)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. While it appears Street has written many opinion pieces and some articles, it does not appear that any reliable, independent news outlet, publication or periodical have written about him. Also, the word "journalist" to describe Street does not appear accurate for a researcher and historian who writes his opinions. The three sources in the article are not reliable citations. A search did not find articles about him from 3rd-party sources. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD now correctly added. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weakest keep~~: The article reads exactly like a press release sent to a booking agent. It's a brag sheet. The nominator is right that calling this subject "journalist" is inaccurate for his profession, but it's as a "journalist" that the person would be discussed/known outside of teaching. As an editorialist and provocateur, he'll have quotations and responses about. I'm not sure when that ceases to be "to" him and begins to function as "about" him, but I would just barely go over the line to 'keep' here. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete after the research done below. I'm still not entirely comfortable, but if the references aren't there, then the article can't be, either. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've attempted to make the article more encyclopaedic and read less like a press release. I've added some more refs and fix a couple of broken ones. Web-searching for a person named Street isn't straight forward. I believe Street to be notable, although more references would be preferable.Jonpatterns (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -By adding more unreliable sources, you have cemented the point that there appears to be no reliable and/or significant coverage of Street. Adding more unreliable refs does not make him notable. The TeleSUR source is listed on the site as opinion and it shows that it was written by Street, therefore, it is not a reliable, 3rd-party ref. The HuffPost piece, which is a blog, has a half line at the bottom along with a dozen others, mentioning something the subject wrote, but the subject is not mentioned in the HuffPost piece. You also cited a prnewswire.com post, which is a promotional site. Before working further on the article, you might familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing articles. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is reliable or depends on what they are being used for. You are right that the sources you mention do not prove notability, the TeleSUR ref is to show he has written for TeleSUR, the Huffington Post is to show he worked at Chicago Urban League and the prnewswire is a record of his role at Chicago Urban League.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the New Statesman article that is cited as a ref, just one sentence is about a book by Street - which illustrates the lack of substantial coverage of this subject to warrant an article on Wikipedia. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I ran a series of searches on the titles of his books that failed to turn up reviews. Only exception was 2 reviews of the co-authored book, "Crashing the Tea Party: Mass Media and the Campaign to Remake American Politics", both in fringe sources [2], and [3]. Like Nom, I failed to turn up secondary sources that discuss him and his work, aside from the single sentence in New Statesman. Moreover, writing essays, op-eds and opinion pieces does not make you a journalist. I did not check all of the fringe outlets where article states that he has "written for" However a search of his name in ChicagoTribune.com; and HNN.org; failed to substantiate the assertion that he has "written for" either the the Tribune or History News Network.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:Here are a couple of articles he has written for the Chicago Tribute Jonpatterns (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC):-[reply]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-06-17/news/0306170320_1_major-league-baseball-fans-wrigley-field

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-06/news/9711060008_1_city-contracts-corruption-in-city-hall-ordinance

He is also mentioned in these articles, mainly to do with his research:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-06-20/news/0306210282_1_cubs-lovable-losers-unlovable

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-15/features/0601150375_1_chicago-freedom-movement-marquette-park-north-lawndale/2

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-11-23/news/0411230329_1_working-poor-families-poverty-line-chicago-urban-league

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-11-02/news/0311020179_1_job-training-jackson-spokeswoman-chicago-urban-league

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-05-28/business/0305280276_1_black-males-white-applicants-affirmative-action

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-09-28/business/0309270285_1_associate-degrees-cards-grads

Regarding History News Network, it appear just one article of his was syndicated from Dissident Voice http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/39738.

I'll be back later to take a closer look. (What an annoying website the Trib has). Here's the Street mention in the 2004 article. ""Many families are living in poverty even when the parents are engaged in work," said Paul Street, vice president for research and planning at the Chicago Urban League. "Nobody, working or non-working, should be poor in the richest nation in the world."

The study compared census data from 1989 and 1999. It found, among other things, that three-quarters of people who head families living near or below the poverty line earned just $13,001 a year.

"It's distressing," said Street, a co-author of the study. "The American Dream depends on the idea that if you work, you should be OK. This is a core, I think widely accepted, American value."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, a salute to User:Jonpatterns, searching the Trib it was easy to find an op-ed or 2 by Street, those don't contribute to notability. To find the rest of these he had to comb through pages of hits on "St. Paul Street", and I admire Patterns for having realized that doing so would, eventually, find articles that quote this Street. The site is annoyingly clunky (locks you in). And you then have to read down the page searching for Street. So, with apologies for length, Here are the mentions:
"The differences between White Sox and Cubs fans are bigger than not being able to agree on who has the better first baseman.

"There's an aspect of class and race to it, there always has been," said Dr. Paul Street, a researcher with the Chicago Urban League and an avowed Sox fan. The South Side and North Side both have histories that include fans with blue-collar, working-class backgrounds, Street said, but it's changed over the years, so any argument invariably brings up which group of fans better represents the city. "There really is this sense that we're the legitimate, lunch-bucket, Kowalski, South Side, working-class fans down here that appreciate baseball," Street said. "[Cubs fans] are the Lake Shore, Armani-wearing, cell phone-toting yuppies."

"Today, the Chicago area ranks as the fifth most residentially segregated metropolitan area by race in the United States, according to a recent Urban League study, "Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, Policy and the State of Black Chicago" written by Paul Street."
Paul Street, vice president for research and planning at the Chicago Urban League, said that as blue-collar jobs have left the city limits for the tax shelters of suburbs and the low wages of foreign countries, nothing has filled the void. He said money spent on education would help to fix the problem.

"Job training is well proven by research to have big payoffs for unemployed populations," Street said. "You reduce the unemployment rate exponentially when you give people skills." The current "vicious cycle" that urban youths find themselves in cannot be stopped without a serious injection of education programs to make them more appealing to businesses, Street said. "Being incarcerated has almost become a normal experience in black urban life," Street said. "If we could take some money out of [jails] and put it into job training, the benefits would be enormous."

Dr. Paul Street, vice president for research and planning for the Chicago Urban League, said the study looked at the suburbs because they have the region's fastest job growth.

"Conventional wisdom in the country right now is that racism in any meaningful sense is largely over," said Street. But "disparities still exist." He is author of "The Color of Opportunity: Race, Place, Policy and Labor Market Inequality in the Chicago Metropolitan Area," a research paper released jointly with the hiring study. Street said employers are reluctant to hire blacks, especially black males, because they are afraid they will steal from them or be unable to relate to white customers because of differences in speech patterns and education levels. "They don't think blacks can interact with white customers." Street believes that if it were done today, the disparities would be even worse due to the impact of the poor economy. Government statistics bear this out. Typically, the unemployment rate among blacks is twice that of whites and worsens in a recession. In April 2000, during boom times, the black unemployment rate was 7 percent, the lowest it had been in three years. Last month, the national jobless rate was 6 percent, but among blacks it was 10.9 percent--compared to 5.2 percent for whites. Street calls the study "a smoking gun," saying it illustrates that changing perceptions is a persistent problem.

Inequality in the labor market: Racial injustice hasn't gone away, according to a recent study by Paul Street, vice president of research and planning for the Chicago Urban League. The report also was authored by the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago.

According to Street, "when similarly qualified black and white applicants apply for entry-level managerial jobs in retail companies in Chicago's suburbs, white applicants have a 21 percent higher chance of being contacted for an interview." And, when matched pairs of African-American and white women applied in person, whites received more job offers than African-Americans. The study, titled "Racial Preference and Suburban Employment Opportunities," refutes the notion that racism is no longer a significant problem for African-American job seekers.

That's everything in the Trib, except the 2 opinion pieces. The History New Net online republication of the opinion piece form Diddident Voice is interesting because it offers a potted bio:"[Veteran radical historian, journalist, and speaker Paul Street is an anti-centrist political commentator located in Iowa City. Street is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004), Segregated Schools: Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New York, NY: Routledge, 2005), and Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, and Policy in Chicago (Chicago, 2005) and The Empire and Inequality Report. Street's next book is Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis: A Living Black Chicago History (New York: Rowman and Littlefied, 2007). ]" I'm still thinking about this one. Because significant, independently sourced reviews of his books and profiles of him and his career are still lacking. And because with the Tribune pieces that quote him do so as an employee (who co-wrote a a study) of and spokesman for the Urban League, I'm still leaning towards delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I don't see how he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:JOURNALIST —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing notable status. A few books doesn't really rate an entry. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's not a lot available about the subject, except for review(s) in the New Statesman. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 11:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the thorough source investigation above, which shows they fail WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOUR and WP:JOURNALIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 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 redirect to Bobby Shmurda. There's clearly consensus against keeping, but there's not full consensus for delete+redirect. It should, however, be considered a hard redirect and therefore probably should not be restored without clearly demonstrating WP:NALBUM. slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shmoney Shmurda[edit]

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

Non notable mixtape. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete promo. no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Bobby Shmurda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Why specifically "delete and redirect"? Can't the current version simply be preserved for future uses rather than recreated again? SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of reasons: it's short and can be easily recreated;it's probably unlkely to achieve notability in the near future; it's one of the available standard AfD closure criteria; Some genres of musicians are notorious fro blatantly ubdoing redirects. But perhaps I should have probably voted for outright deletion, but I'll stick with deletion leaving a redirect for now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Bobby Shmurda - It seems this and Bobby himself got more attention for the song "Hot Nigga" and the dance, no independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, a move is not technically possible because an article of that name with valid content already exists. What I think you mean is 'redirect'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a promo piece. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 11:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Bobby Shmurda. Non-notable on it's own, but a plausible redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: fails WP:GNG: [4], but not enough. If recreation is a problem, deleting and fully or semi-protecting the redirect page is an option. Esquivalience ^t 12:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If it gets reverted, the redirect can be protected. I don't see a need for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 25 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 Lobbying in South Australia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barker Wentworth[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, confirmed after performing several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fate of this page could be to integrate some of its content into Lobbying in South Australia? The list of staff may be excessive in its detail, but the summary would be worth preserving in my opinion. --Danimations (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the lead and activity paragraphs to Lobbying in South Australia and agree that the table of staff is excessively detailed, and does not include enough notable people to be justified. I'm happy for the page to be deleted. If it is, please set up a redirect to Lobbying in South Australia. --Danimations (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying in South Austraila also has not one independent, secondary, RS. I don't see a Lobbying in Australia article, maybe start there, using Category:Politics of Australia as a source for text and citations. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lobbying in South Australia as suggested, my searches found absolutely nothing to suggest this has received good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. looks like an advert. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis isn't an example of corporate puffery, it's actually some good detective work in tracking down the various corporate influencers of contemporary political decision-making in South Australia. (I haven't commented earlier because I have met User:Danimations once, although he hasn't yet participated in any Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings that I've organised. However, I do admire the work he has been doing on quite a number of different articles on environmental topics and issues in South Australia, particularly the one on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.)

Regarding the relative lack of sources on Barker Wentworth, I'm not surprised that I hadn't heard of them earlier. It's the modus operandi of lobbyists to work outside of the glare of publicity; and in a city where News Corp has a complete monopoly of the national, metropolitan and local print media (for the benefit of those editors who lack any local knowledge, Adelaide is the very place where Rupert Murdoch began his media empire), it hasn't been too difficult for them to fly under the radar. The one group of lobbyists which does get some media attention is Bespoke Approach which consists of ex-politicians of various persuasions, one of whom was in fact a frequent columnist for the aforesaid News Corp metropolitan daily.

Barker Wentworth, by contrast, seems to be the company favoured by professionals in the corporate sector. In this example, which seems to have been missed by Danimations, I note that, according to his bio, this person was earlier both a director of Barker Wentworth, and COO of (Canadian-owned) Bight Petroleum at a time when the latter company was seeking approval for seismic surveying in the Great Australian Bight near Kangaroo Island, which attracted quite a bit of community opposition at the time, and remains controversial. Bahudhara (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they operate in the dark, they may remain there, without an article here. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:COATRACK. The two sources linked above as "approval for seismic surveying" and "remains controversial" do not mention the subject. Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given User:Bahudhara's contribution above, I would like to see the article kept and expanded to better explain its importance to South Australia. Clearly this is possible, in light of the Bight Petroleum example above. --Danimations (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You, as the creator of this article, should expand then, not ask somebody else to do it. But don't forget to add reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Kraxler (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH, "sources" are related to the subject (including own website), directories (including LinkedIn) or trivial mentions. Web searches turn up more directories, news and books yield nothing. Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be nothing more than an advert or promotion. A Google search found no evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources. It does not meet the notability guideline for corporations and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Bahudhara made as strong an argument as possible, but it still does not convince me. It is a good argument for why the topic should have reliable coverage, but it does not change the fact that such coverage does not, in fact, exist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article doesn't have a single, independent, secondary RS. Pure WP:PROMOTION and PERMASTUB. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:02, 30 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. The overall consensus herein is for article retention. Of note is that some of the delete !votes are based upon the state of the article prior to its significant expansion ("The article as written is a single sentence with no references whatsoever", "not enough material to justify a stand-alone article"), which at this time do not address the expanded state of the article or the sources added to it. Also of note is that several !voters changed their !votes to keep. Lastly, some of the initial rationales in the deletion nomination were addressed by copy edits (e.g. "completely unsourced"), and the nominator changed their initial deletion nomination to "merge and redirect" in a later comment in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Continuing Education[edit]

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

This article, which is completely unsourced, (a) fails GNG, and, (b) is of a non-encyclopedic, WP:PROMOTIONAL character (e.g. of prose - "seeks to encourage people in all walks of life and throughout all stages of adult life to recognise the contribution that education can make to society as a whole and to the lives of individuals within it"). Finally, mention of this institute is already included in the main article for the University of Cambridge and a separate article barely more than stub-length is unnecessary and redundant. LavaBaron (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: The usual thing would be to argue for "merge and redirect" to Cambridge University, but I have to agree that this text is much like a sales brochure. I would have suspected it of being a port from the school's promotional materials, frankly, but there is a non-unique name, a promotional purpose, and a breaking out of a school unit to a separate article -- all of which seems to suggest the article isn't redeemable. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised text is no longer promotional. A merge to Cambridge University may not be entirely appropriate, because the text makes it clear that Cambridge only recently took direct control of the institute and may not regard this as an integrated unit. Therefore, I recommend a rename to Cambridge University Institute of Continuing Education, as this thing appears to be . . . sui generis. It's not quite an adult/community education unit such as is found in other universities. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ So spammy promotional, otherwise merge would be better. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every US high school is implicitly notable. This is a department of the University of Cambridge and it has over 11,000 enrolled students. Now the current state of the article needs improvement, sure, but it's a remarkable stretch to believe that an organisation of that size, as a credible department of a fairly well-known university [sic], isn't going to be "notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every U.S. high school is implicitly notable. However, every university department is not. We don't allow an unsourced article about the Bowling Green State University speech pathology department just because "every U.S. high school is implicitly notable." Does that make sense? Maybe not, but that's how it is. LavaBaron (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11,000 students though is far from trivial. I can't believe that an organisation so large could possibly hide itself so well that it wouldn't meet WP:N]. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, inexplicably, it has ... LavaBaron (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major semi-autonomous institute often mentioned in sources and which has been around for over 140 years. Not simply a department of a university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are currently zero sources in the article, it would be appreciated if you could add some of the sources in which it's "often mentioned." Thank you. LavaBaron (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some departments can be notable enough for a stand-alone article, particularly if the parent university article is already too long and the department content would be out of place in the former. And there is independent coverage specifically relevant to this department. [5][6][7][8]--Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For anyone searching for sources, note that the Institute of Continuing Education has apparently been known by several other names during its history - from 1923 until sometime between about 1999 and 2007, it was called the Board of Extramural Studies; before that, from sometime apparently around 1890, it had been part of the Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate; and even before that, it had had several names (of which I think the first may have been the Local Lectures Committee). The following three books: [9], [10], [11] are all concerned directly with different periods of the history of the Institute, but I had better note (before someone else does) that all three were published by Cambridge University Press and the author of the third one taught at the Institute. I will allow others to wrangle about whether this makes them unusable (except to note that if it does, almost everything we have on Wikipedia about the histories of Cambridge and Oxford Universities would probably count as WP:OTHERSTUFF). PWilkinson (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, PWilkinson. Under that name, Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate, there is some extensive description here which is published by the Lutterworth Press which is independent of Cambridge.--Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, one sentence in a 204 page book? LavaBaron (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For that particular source, looks like over a paragraph to me (it's referred to as "the Syndicate").--Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right, there are three sentences. So, based on this source, we now know (a) ICE exists, (b) it was once housed in an impressive building. Hopefully we can find more WP:RS information. An article that simply acknolwedges ICE exists and it was once housed in an impressive building may not meet WP:GNG. LavaBaron (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several more WP:RS above.--Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one that says 380 species were discovered living in the garden outside the ICE building (not that ICE discovered them, just that they happened to be outside the ICE building)? [[12]] Do you believe this kind-of collection of trivia would be appropriate to an encyclopedia article? An article about a university department should include things like when it was founded, its organizational dynamics, programs supported, notable achievements, and so forth. An article that includes nothing but to say "X department exists - we don't know when it was founded or the extent of programs it offers - but there are 380 species living in the garden outside its building" is not an encyclopedia article. LavaBaron (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually usable, but anyway, cherry picking 1 source you don't like out of 8 sources that are currently provided isn't helpful in this discussion. This source for example does include things like when it was founded, its organizational dynamics, programs supported, notable achievements, etc. It even states it's the "oldest such university department in the country." If a reliable source describes something as notable, then it's notable. It's reliable sources that decide what's notable, not wikipedia editors.--Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly cherry-picked it. It was the first source in the list. And, in fact, it is wikipedia editors that decide if something is notable, not some mysterious force. As per WP:N, notability is a test used by editors. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First or last source on the list, choosing one out of eight sources to diss as if that's the only source and ignoring one that even gives the exact information you requested is cherry-picking. As per WP:N above your provided quote, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. That "test" WP:N speaks of is a test of reliable sources. If you'd like to change WP:N to ignore reliable sources and just go by what editors think, you can make your case on WP:N's talk page. --Oakshade (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Won't someone think of the horses? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ From the most general considerations, not just the rules of Wikipedia, I want to say that it is possible to insert into an existing article on Cambridge.Shad Innet (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge or University of Cambridge? As both of those are already massive topics, with no room for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree. Keep Shad Innet (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, or failing that, delete. The article as written is a single sentence with no references whatsoever. It was redirected for three years and no-one even noticed. I looked at the pre-AfD version and it was all promotional puffery. I glanced over the sources and none were above WP:ROUTINE. Pace Andy Dingley, a institute with 11,000 students (source? how many are full-time?) will generate news coverage, but that doesn't indicate notability. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE discourages sources that are, as it states, "sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." The coverage about this institution are far beyond such "routine" coverage and goes in-depth about its history and description. "Pre-AfD" article state is the absolute wrong method to assess a current article. WP:GNG states clearly is requires the existence of sources, not that they be already in the article. An article being a stub is not a proper reason for deletion and it's beyond a single sentence now anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough material to justify a stand-alone article. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the excellent expansion of the article's content and sources by User:Anythingyouwant I'm changing to Keep. Article now seems to meet WP:SPINOUT and would be too long to merge with University of Cambridge. Ghostwheel ʘ 20:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge leaving Redirect to University of Cambridge, does not meet WP:SPINOUT and is a department or program of the University. Ghostwheel ʘ 01:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Delete. ~~The references are woefully inadequate~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current version is improved from what we had before, but I'm still not convinced this is notable on its own. Looking over the current crop of references, most of them are still first-party. The's an entry in a "how to pick a college" book, but I don't put much weight in that; it's essentially a directory. The Daily Telegraph is clearly a reliable source, but the article isn't so much about ICE as it is about the more broad topic of the university branching out into non-traditional degree programs (i.e. "dumbing down"). ICE is just one of the colleges mentioned in passing. I'm undecided on the question of a merge. I think the core problem here is that Cambridge is (many) hundreds of years old. When I read an encyclopedia article about something that old, I expect it to be mostly about the history, not about what's been going on in the last decade. Merging all of the current text into the main Cambridge article would be putting undue weight on current events. In fact, looking at the current Cambridge article, I get the feeling we've already moved in that direction. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per Roysmith it clearly lacks third Party references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Change to Weak keep .per WP:HEY good stellar work by Anythingyouwant it is clearly in the Borderline zone.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is a tough call, but it does not seem like there is enough material for an article here. Several passing mentions are not the same as even one piece of in-depth coverage; at best this would be a collection of assorted facts about the place, with little coherence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Weak keep Anythingyouwant has done a stellar job of finding sources that everybody else missed. The amount of content now sits on the borderline between merge and keep, IMO. I am voting "keep" because merging this content might create problems of due weight on the main article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources out there if we look hard enough. See here, for example.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have de-puffed it, added a couple reliable sources, and accompanying text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple pics for good measure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 14 footnotes from five different reliable sources, plus five beautiful images, 253 words of (riveting) readable prose, three external links, and two categories at the bottom. It's a cute little article, now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to [[University of Cambridge. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to [[University of Cambridge - After looking at the excellent job of improving that Anythingyouwant did, I would like to change my !vote from Delete to Merge & Redirect. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User: LavaBaron, but why not keep it as a cute little separate article? The University of Cambridge article already seems to have plenty of stuff in it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did an excellent job in improving it as far as it can be improved but, honestly, there's not enough there to justify a standalone article and WP:CUTE isn't a thing just yet. Your improvements to the article will make it a valuable addition to University of Cambridge following merger. I'll give you a barnstar in a moment. LavaBaron (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the compliments. I have edited the article a bit more, and it is now over 2.5 kb of readable prose, which I think is enough to justify a separate article, and would be too much to merge into the University of Cambridge article. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you another barnstar for your latest updates, but I still think it would be better off merged. LavaBaron (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. :-) Since my barnstars qualify me to be bolder than ever, I have individually asked the people above what they think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tremendous amount of WP:HEY work was done by Anythingyouwant and this occurred after most of the !votes were made in this AfD. Great job, Anythingyouwant. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer - The previous !vote is the nom. Most WP:HEY work was done in the last day. --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting due to late-breaking overhaul to page/changes in !votes slakr^\ talk / 10:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 10:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect It's about the University of Cambridge, so should be in that article. Whilst this article has been substantially improved, I don't believe it merits its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was some practicality to merging this when it was a tiny stub. However it's now a 6.5k article. We can't practically merge that into the (already large) UoC article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Cambridge article is already over 135 kB. Per WP:SIZE, that's too large. Just like Cambridge University Library and many other Cambridge-related articles, there's too much topic specific content to be merged into the already too long main university article.--Oakshade (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important institute with a long history that has played a significant role in continuing education in the UK, now with adequate sourcing. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established by the presence of sources; article is long enough to be a stand alone, text isn't overly promotional. No reason for deletion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:06, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bataclan (single)[edit]

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

Non-notable single. No evidence of charting, awards or in depth coverage in reliable sources. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable single. Koala15 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERIT. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:05, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmorphic sensor[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is a real technology. No hits on google scholar, and the only reference is to the website www.crossmorphictech2015.org. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Sammy1339 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG - appears very recent; thus article written by inventor Darla Xavier (user Real d xavier)[13], [14]. Hopefully it will be a big success, but too soon for WP article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's apparently too soon for this to have gotten any third-party coverage. Maybe later after more papers and articles about it have appeared. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did somebody realize that the author of the article added the following hidden comment : "This is a fictional technology created as part of an Alternate Reality Game"[15]? So, it's most probably a hoax. Anyway, I couldn't find any evidence that this (alleged) technology would be notable. --Edcolins (talk) 17:24, 25 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TeamWork Online[edit]

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

Promotional piece with no in-depth coverage of the company to be found in reliable, independent sources. Fails CORP and GNG. Thought about nominating for G11, but there's a chance someone can salvage it, so let's discuss.... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional bollocks that serves no purpose here, –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved to correct location) Hi, I am the author of this article. What can be done to salvage this? I am a bit confused on how to communicate through wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8200:A100:107F:CB36:9CF6:532E (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising by and for the company, that would need to be wholly rewritten to become encyclopedic. No prejudice against future recreation, perhaps through Articles for Creation or Requested articles using independent sources:

Klein, Dustin S. (29 October 2001). "Managing transitions". Smart Business.
Kleps, Kevin (29 April 2013). "TeamWork Online is tough to beat". Crain's Cleveland Business.
Belzer, Jason (8 February 2013). "Want A Job In Sports? You'll Need TeamWork". Forbes (Blog). - op-ed, not reliable for facts, see WP:NEWSORG

Worldbruce (talk) 08:18, 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 Move to St. Augustine's Higher Secondary School, Karimkunnam. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 16:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St.Augustine's Higher Secondary School Karimkunnam[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Sammy1339 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. 1. The proper name is St. Augustine's Higher Secondary School, Karimkunnam (note the missing space between the period and upper case A). 2. The article does not locate the school even as much as nation. 3. The article contents are which classes to get "plus two badges." 4. There is no lede or claim made in the body of the article. Therefore, even if someone is an impassioned lover of all secondary schools everywhere, there is nothing to save in this article: all efforts at repair would mean deleting and starting over. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and move to St. Augustine's Higher Secondary School, Karimkunnam. WP:TNT should not be regarded as applicable when the basic information required for a viable stub is either already present in the article or can be added after just a minimal search. PWilkinson (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and move to St. Augustine's Higher Secondary School, Karimkunnam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article fails WP:GNG. Can anybody explain why this article should be kept, but User:RexxS/St Rexx Secondary High School ought to be deleted? --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Rexx Secondary High School is a draft in user space that has never appeared as an article in Wikipedia mainspace. The establishment is not listed as an accredited place of learning in any government or independent lists of UK schools. It appears to be a demonstration sub page of a Birmingham, UK, based PR agency. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above is true. "Rexx Secondary High School" is a (hopefully) transparent hoax hosted on my server along with others. But St.Augustine's Higher Secondary School, Karimkunnam is not listed as an accredited place of learning in any government or independent list of UK schools either ("Rexx Secondary High School" claims to be in the Chaldean Catholic Archeparchy of Mosul); St.Augustine's website is hosted in London by Linode Llc; and the domain is registered to an individual living in Chengannur. It is similarly devoid of references and relies solely on its own website. How does WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES exempt St.Augustine's from the basic requirements for a Wikipedia article, which we agree "St Rexx's" doesn't meet? --RexxS (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as per the above. Per longstanding precedent, secondary school articles are typically retained (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not pertain to hoaxes. I love all the automatic "votes," but I do wish they would be a little less reflexive. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The school is listed here here, which is the first place I would look to check whether it's a hoax. "Hoax" is a rather loaded word to be throwing around. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't think it's a loaded word at all. I was applauding the people who vote automatically "keep" on high schools. After all, they know, because a bunch of people have done so in the past, that such a thing is settled in the future. I was only wishing that they wouldn't be reflexive and would be certain they were voting for a high school before they launched their "snowkeep!" and lectures about how all secondary schools are automatically granted articles. After all, a school that has a name on a website might not be a real school. A school that has funding but no students might not be a real school. I know that "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" doesn't talk about that, but surely folks who invoke it have done investigation before invoking it. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - Hooray! a genuine third-party reference. I must admit that the first place I would look to check a high school isn't the website of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Archeparchy of Kottayam, but I'm glad there's independent verification of the school's existence. Given that SCHOOLOUTCOMES means that for a secondary school "existence = notability", I'm afraid that eliminating the possibility of hoaxes becomes an absolutely essential part of establishing that notability. It's called due diligence. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - It exists, so outcomes applies. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and move to St. Augustine's Higher Secondary School, Karimkunnam. –Davey2010^Talk 02:18, 25 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. Since the coverage identified below towards establishing notability was produced there has been no support for deletion. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Urcelay[edit]

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

No evidence of non-inherited notability. Reads like a resume. -- haminoon (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CEO of a large company, but no significant resources about him. Another CEO article created by sock User:Editingright LaMona (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)~~ Edit-conflicted with a last-minute keep !vote with valid sources (see here.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(The above was moved here from atop this discussion page, to prevent any confusion.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this, this, this, this, this and this, which should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per the sources listed above by User:Kraxler. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 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. If anyone wants to merge any of the information in the article let me know. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Tryton and Odoo[edit]

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

Seems like a useful page for users of the software products in question but not at all encyclopedic. There are a number of software comparison pages, but they typically compare a whole category - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparisons. Possibility for speedy deletion? If comparisons between any two topics are allowed as topics then the number of pages will rapidly head towards infinity... U2fanboi (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad article but I fail to see the point of it existing on it's own If information was taken from this and added to the Tryton page that would be far more agreeable as there is information on this page that is not available on the Tryton page. I propose a merge of some information and a deletion of the rest. Andrdema (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comparison of two pieces of arbitrary software, themselves of dubious notability. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Katsuki[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, therefore it fails WP:BLP1E policy as losing finalist didn't win in modelling competition. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuki finished the 4th place in Asia's Next Top model cycle 3; She did'nt won on the competition. She is not belong to the top 3 finale.MarkHerson (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; scanned fashion magazines, newspapers in Japan, worldwide, US, no evidence of meeting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for models at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigurd Legion[edit]

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

not demonstrably notable-single mention of one of many splinter groups--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News and Books immediately found nothing aside from one of the current sources and there's nothing to suggest this is independently notable. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are potential merges at British National Front (since it's supposed to be a protest group or something) or UK Neo-Nazism or something similar, I guess, but there is no indication that this group is notable. I hope it doesn't become so. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:57, 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 07:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jitul Sonowal[edit]

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

Singer with questionable notability-I also swear this has been prodded a few times before. Wgolf (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, article was previously deleted (like 1 year ago), some kind of promotion, poor Google results - delete Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - My searches found News links and a passing mention at Books while browser of course provided nothing outstanding and one at thefreelibrary but I found several from the past nine years at Highbeam. The other two Wikis aren't good quality either and Bengali Wiki has one ref to a 2005 newsletter. @Wgolf: and @Tymon.r:, what would you make of the Highbeam results? Several seem to list him as "popular" and "celebrated". Granted, the possibility is that additional sources are non-English. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:34, 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 merge to Lennar Corporation. Selective merge, per Mnnlaxer. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart A. Miller[edit]

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

Look at all the tags it has, non-notable person with a poorly sourced, promotional article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTADVERTISING Joseph2302 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lennar - News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary all found results but basically and also looking at the article, he's best known for this so it would be best to move it to Lennar. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any important information, and there is almost nothing here that qualifies, can be added to Lennar. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:30, 30 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) 18:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Arnold[edit]

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

No evidence this person is notable, and this article is so spammy. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't quite get her to notability. She did get some notice for her sculptures, but I couldn't find much beyond what was in the article. I thought surely I would find an obituary somewhere, since she died only last year, but I found nothing; that in itself speaks to her notability (or lack of it). --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Changed from Comment) - work was mentioned/reviewed in The New York Times, may pass WP:ARTIST #4 d. Needs checking whether there are really pieces in the museums stated in the article, and whether they are "notable galleries or museums" under this guideline. There's no "National Academy" in New York to which she could have been elected, she was not a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters (based in New York City). Kraxler (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources stated below, and the info available there, make clear that she passes WP:GNG and several other additional guidelines like ARTIST 4 d. The biographical entry cleared up that she was an associate of the National Academy of Design (which indeed seems to be simply referred to as the "National Academy") an institution founded in 1825, and where "one cannot apply for membership", one is chosen "from the highest ranks of American artists and architects". Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's in the Met (ref added), and Albright-Knox[16][17] though not quite sure how major the latter is. But I think there's sufficient coverage:

Article in New York Times already cited.
Hilton Kramer, "Anne Arnold's Peaceable Kingdom", 1971, reprinted in The Age of the Avant-Garde, Transaction, 2011.[18]
Campbell, Lawrence, "The Animal Kingdom of Anne Arnold", Art News 63:8 (Dec 1964) 32-33, 64-65
Campbell, Lawrence, "Anne Arnold at Fischbach", Art in America (Nov 1988) 173-174
Jules Heller, Nancy G. Heller, North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary, Routledge, 2013, p32[19]
A catalog Anne Arnold: A Retrospective published by the University of New Hampshire, 1983
Some things in Google Books snippet views including an article "Anne Arnold" in Craft Horizons, Volume 31, 1971.Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the fixes. The Natl. Acad. Design might also clue us in on why she's not in a lot of shows past the 1960's: she may have switched from painting to design, which doesn't hang on walls as often. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the collection of three notable museums (including the Met) is enough for WP:ARTIST, and the additional evidence provided by Colapeninsula is also convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A woman born in 1925 has sculpture in the Met? This is something of interest.Soilmicro (talk) 01:55, 20 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egalia[edit]

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

School that gained a bit of fame for using gender-neutral pronouns. Apart from that, it's a non-notable preschool, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and fails the children who attend —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It got a big burst of coverage in 2011, and is pretty consistently referred to with a paragraph or so in articles written since then on the "hen" pronoun or on gender stereotypes and children. I note the weakness of the delete vote above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I very rarely do "strong" !votes. Let's put aside all of the sources we know exist at least to some extent in Swedish-language sources just by virtue of this being a school. Preschools are not automatically notable, but we know there are going to be at least a few behind that language barrier. Putting those aside entirely, here are the sources I found in about 10 minutes of digging. Note that there's an extraordinary amount of coverage in high-profile international sources from 2011 and sufficient additional sources from 2012-2015 to make this a really easy keep. A subject does not, of course, have to match the amount of coverage it receives at a particular point in time in order for the "sustained" part of the WP:GNG to be met.

From 2011: CBS News, Daily News, Forbes, Daily Mail, BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Week, The Star, Politiken, Wendela, AgoraVox, Gentside, Emirates, Information.dk, Alternet, Huffington Post, Today, Jezebel, Good Magazine, Pravda, Parents,
From 2012: New York Times, Zeit Online, Christian Science Monitor, The Atlantic, Inquisitr, Liberation, Courrier International,
From 2013: Daily Mail
From 2014: Ozy, Sina
From 2015: Washington Post, Educatie
I stopped on page 6 of the search results (there are many more). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia, Roscelese, and Joseph2302: are these sources sufficient to consider altering your !votes? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Majority are about gender neutrality in Sweden as a whole, and not about the preschool/kindergarten. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also no, the articles mention the school but are really about gender neutrality in general. And so I still don't think their "claim to fame" is notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful in there that only have a significant paragraph or two on the school, but there are no brief mentions whatsoever and many of them are about the school. But regardless, from the WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Are you really arguing that the sources above constitute "trivial mentions" of Egalia? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your browsing pleasure, I have bolded the articles which are specifically about the school. All of the others merely talk about it in a significant way that would nonetheless still help it to pass WP:GNG. I've also removed any sources which only spend one whole paragraph on the school. What remain cover it either as the subject of the article or across multiple paragraphs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, but FYI, the majority of the 2011 articles appear to be the same AP story (or discussion of AP story) and per guidelines do not count multiple times. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to AGF here, but first you said the majority are about gender neutrality in general and not about the school. Even though WP:GNG explicitly states the article subject doesn't have to be the primary subject of the source, I bolded those sources which are about the school to highlight the opposite is true: the majority are about the school. Now you're saying the majority of the 2011 articles are the same AP story. Again, that's just false. CBS, Daily News, Sydney Morning Herald, Emirates, and HuffPo are indeed reprints of the AP source and so count as one. That's 5 out of 21 I listed for 2001 above. It's tricky when an article mentions an AP story, because you have to figure out if they're just doing a little rewording and thus effectively republishing it, or referencing it in a piece of original journalism. One or two additional fall into the first category, and a couple others fall into the second. Regardless, it's certainly not a majority, and we're only talking about the 2011 sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to concur with the above. The coverage is going to be about a feature of the school. It's a noble aim, but it's not coverage of the school as a school or (yet) of its graduates and their effects on the wider school system, etc. In a decade or so, there will probably be some discussion of the school and its effects as well as its singular difference. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of an aspect of the school is coverage of the school. Could you be more specific as to how it does not pass WP:GNG? The only question that matters is whether there has been significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that persists over a period of time. Coverage of graduates, the school system, etc. are irrelevant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies: If someone is commenting on the unique pedagogy of a school and only on its novelty, then that probably does not amount to coverage of the school. I know this is a judgment call, and I'm not totally comfortable with it, either, but this is an article on the school, rather than its reforms. That means, for me, that the article's coverage have to be examined carefully. Several elements -- founding, pedagogy, demographics, effects -- would be tantamount to showing that the school itself, rather than a technique it employed, was significant and notable. Let's face it: there are numerous schools, especially since the explosion of charter schools in the U.S., getting ink for novel pedagogy. To separate those that bloom and disappear from those that represent actual pedagogical innovation and an effect on the world at large, I feel that it takes careful assessment of the "coverage of the school" requirement. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage as shown above. "fails the children who attend" is not grounds for deletion and suggests the first delete vote is at least partly from hatred of the school or of gender-neutral pronouns in general. Claiming the press coverage is about the pedagogy and not the school is hair-splitting: what is a school if not the process of pedagogy? (Well, possibly the building, but plenty of schools in architecturally mediocre buildings are notable.) If the pedagogy (unique to this school) is notable but the school somehow is not, then rename the article to Pedagogy of Egalia, but that would be ridiculous even by the standards of Wikipedia. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:34, 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 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M.R Jayageetha[edit]

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

Having problems finding notability-only a few films so far it seems and none of them seem to have notability-the only refs were not about her at all as well. (The style of the article needs to be cleaned up also) Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not a single reliable source in the article, and my own search gave me two mentions [20], [21] in relation to a railway harassment accident several years ago, which obviuosly does not create notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search "M. R. Jayageetha poet" found the same results as Ymblanter and simply "M. R. Jayageetha" found here while another search found this IBNLive link. Maybe it's the language and country barrier but overall it seems this article can't be noticeably improved. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as a speedy because of the repeated, explicit ([22] [23] [24]) requests for deletion from the creator--not simply keeping it around in userspace. Although that's a reasonable assumption, between WP:G7, WP:BURO, and/or WP:BLP's spirit of no-harm, I feel it safer to stick to the letter of what was requested. I'll drop a note to the user with a few options for WP:UNDELETE and userfying if that's what they actually end up wanting. slakr^\ talk / 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sun[edit]

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

Reads like personal promo. Unsourced at the most essential parts. The Banner talk 11:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably an autobiography (see Special:Contributions/Sue0683), isn't kept neutral (WP:NPOV) and described person isn't exactly notable (WP:GNG). Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:BASIC. Indepth coverage in these sources: [25] [26] [27]. More sources can be found through a baidu news search. NPOV problem can be fixed through regular editing, not deleting.--Antigng (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article posted a request to delete this on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutOffTies&diff=665572575&oldid=664830038 --CutOffTies (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy? The creator may not know about the userfy option. If the article needs more work, moving it to the user space could take the pressure off the creator, who appears not to be a seasoned editor. I always like to suggest, also, the articles for creation process, painful though it may be, but it puts a new editor in touch with more seasoned WP participants. LaMona (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Userspace: The creator of the article asked for it to be deleted, as mentioned above, and they are the only major contributor to it. They said they want to go back to it at a later time, however. Moving it to a userspace draft encourages the editor, who is acting in good faith, to continue contributing. The original author should also be referred to WP:MADEDRAFT to help them gain a better understanding of the core issues of creating an article. ~ Rob^Talk 13:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Userspace: No opinion on notability given that I can't read the Chinese-language sources; userfy though, given that the creating editor appears to be working in good faith. I don't think outright deletion is necessary in such cases; the article can stay up in draftspace until the editor has found the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Smaragdis[edit]

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

Although the article was created in 2007, it appears that WP:BLPNOTE fails. None has any intention to improve it. 115ash^→(☏) 08:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject meets GNG. Search for his name in Greek. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are numerous transliteration issues, as well as language problems, in the article. However, the director is an award-winning director. "Cavafy" (sic) is better known in English as "Kavafis" (1996). The fact that these issues have been known for years and that no one has lifted a broom is a bad sign. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:07, 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 01:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most prestigious Greek directors, whose films pick up lots of awards and big audiences in the country (note: "prestigious" is not the same as "good"). Most sources are going to be in Greek, but here's some in English and French: Cavafy[28], El Greco[29][30], God Loves Caviar (aka The Pirate)[31][32][33][34][35] Article obviously needs a lot of tidying up, though some of the first paragraph isn't terrible. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:09, 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) 06:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Wong[edit]

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

I'm not seeing the level of notability we expect for a BLP. The subject doesn't meet any of the criteria listed at WP:PORNBIO either. I found this interview in addition to the one source already present in the article. Diannaa (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. --92slim (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means - Nothing at all to suggest notability from as a game show contestant on Jerry Springer to her adult film career. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 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 merge to Len Bias. Consensus at the target is free to determine how much of the article, if any, is to be integrated. If nothing gets merged and/or consensus is against there even being the redirect, the redirect can be listed at WP:RFD for deletion. slakr^\ talk / 08:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bias[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, his death received coverage because of his brother CutOffTies (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Significant coverage as well because he was a High School All-America and one of the top 20 basketball recruits in the nation. He did happen to be the younger brother of a famous player but he was also a great basketball player in his own right. If you go to the 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game roster. More than half of the players already have a wikipedia page without EVER playing a minute of college basketball. [36] Jay Bias did play and brought his team to number 8 in the nation. He passes WP:GNG/

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A shame what happened to him, but being a community college basketball player doesn't seem notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect: Incredible misery that the family has endured, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of sources found by NegroLeagueHistorian for fame for Jay convinces me that a merge with redirect is probably warranted. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: A merge proposal was posted ahead of the initiation of this discussion. Jay Bias was already covered in Len Bias. See Talk:Len_Bias#Proposed merge with Jay Bias. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Len Bias Jay Bias gained fame as the brother of Len Bias. He became a famous basketball player in his own right. His death made national news. The sheer number of non passing sources show that he passes GNG. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge, as I stated above; note that every one of the sources you provided mention Jay, precisely, only in the context of Len. (Check out the search links above for searches that exclude mention of Len.) Also, all the coverage is about his having died. Regarding that, see WP:SINGLEEVENT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ONEEVENT makes exceptions for those who are historically significant." "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles"" This includes individuals like John Wilkes Booth, James Earl Ray, John Hinckley Jr, Todd Beamer, and Lauren Grandcolas. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the historical significance of Jay Bias? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the historical significance of Mark Bingham or even Rosemary Kennedy ? Jay Bias passes WP:GNG . If he wasn't why was his death in so many newspapers? Many famous people have siblings who die and very few make so much news! NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of his senior year he was named one of the 20 best high school basketball players in the United States. [45] NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bingham tried to save a planeload of people from perishing and received coverage in his own right (not as somebody's brother) as a hero. Rosemary Kennedy and her treatment by her famous and politically important family were a subject of public controversy and a sustained topic of conversation (but WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply to her anyway). Jay Bias simply died, with the addition of being rated not the best, but one of 20, in a list by a magazine—which is an achievement but not exactly the Hall of Fame (should the other 19 also all have articles merely on the basis of that recognition?)—,and you're comparing him to John Wilkes Booth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largo, I never said he was the best of all time. He was though an All-America, a highly recruited player out of high school and the victim of a street violence. He led his team to a number 8 ranking in the nation. There are many articles dedicated to him and I have added even more including from places like NY Times. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you said he was the best of all time. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, Being a high school All-America is quite notable. Being top 20 in a nation of 250 million is quite notable. There is even a catagory for it in wikipedia Category:High school basketball in the United States. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Len Bias. Notability is not inherited, and there is enough on the main page about him. Jay Bias is not historically significant. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NegroLeagueHistorian all of the sources you listed are in the context of his more relevant brother. Sure he should be mentioned, but not in his own article. Though the event was tragic, if his brother was not as famous, it would not have gotten any attention, and inherited notability is not allowed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His brother is more significant. This does not mean Jay is not significant. Many famous people have siblings who died tragically. Most do not make the news! NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And if Len Bias hadn't died, then when his brother did it wouldn't have made the news either. The only reason it made the news was that it compounded the existing tragedy of Len's death. So the notability of Jay Bias and the notability of his death lie entirely not only within the scope of the notability of Len, but within the scope of the notability of Len's death. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It made the news also because of his amazing talent as a basketball player. He was a high school notability and college notability. There are many articles that mention him and not his brother. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NegroLeagueHistorian, now come on. You know it was because of his brother's death, his death was notable. He was a community college basketball player. He was not considered a top potential draft pick in the NBA, let alone attending a notable college. Like I said, it deserves a mention in his brother's article, but that's it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TGS, Take a look at ALL-AMERICAN! That is notable. He went to a community college because of his grades ^[1], even there he succeeded. He was still being recruited by notable colleges ^[2] in the Big East. ^[3] So you can't say that any notable colleges weren't recruiting him.

"There are many articles that mention him and not his brother." Not any of the sources you cited above, nor any of the twenty or more that you've cited in the article that I clicked. I've clicked a bunch of links from Google searches and found only this one so far. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-12-05/news/1990339029_1_jay-bias-university-of-maryland
^ http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-09/sports/sp-1503_1_jay-bias
^ http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-09/sports/sp-1503_1_jay-bias

Ok, in terms of many. I should clarify. Many that I saw though not necessarily in the article.

He does pass WP:GNG.

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

Articles about him range from the NY Times ^[1] to the LA Times ^[2]. This shows that he is notable based on his ability and prior to his death. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/25/sports/sports-people-another-bias.html
^ http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-09/sports/sp-1503_1_jay-bias

The very titles of both those articles frame him in terms of his brother. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Notability is not inherited and pretty much every reliable independent source is in the context of Len Bias. He is not notable for his high school career, he didn't receive the kind of coverage that would denote GNG. Recruiting rankings in and of themselves do not connote notability. Rikster2 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A high school All American, not all state, but All-America is notable. If you go to the 2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game roster. More than half of the players already have a wikipedia page without EVER playing a minute of college basketball. [46] NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NegroLeagueHistorian that would be mentionable (on his brother's page describing personal life) if he were a college All-American, but as you even say, he was a high school All-American which is impressive, but not worthy of an article. A merger is the only option since you have not made any conclusive or factual points as to why he is notable without the context of his brother. No one else has agreed to your argument and suggest a merger or deletion, so why not work on the merger?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High school basketball All-Americans are not inherently notable, college All-Americans are presumed notable per WP:NCOLLATH. Trust me, I have created over 400 basketball player articles, I know what the standards are. The 2015 McDonald's All-Americans need to meet GNG to have articles. This one rises or falls on the back of GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Obviously meets WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, and by following the guidelines as they're written this shouldn't be deleted. The sources are spread around the United States and not just routine local coverage. Los Angeles and New York are far from Maryland. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Essentially, There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jay Bias to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I disagree with you that the coverage provided constitutes notability for Jay Bias outside of being Len Bias' brother. He flunks WP:GNG in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Not that it matters much given other issues, but the articles on the LA Times website were actually published in the Baltimore Sun, as stated on each article. They are now both owned by the Tribune Co which gets things mixed up --CutOffTies (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also passes WP:NCOLLATH

Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team
and WP:NHSPHSATH
High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 08:55, 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 redirect to The Story of Tracy Beaker (TV series). I intentionally left it open in the hope a discussion would happen but seems that never happened so meh redirect it is. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanna Thompson[edit]

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

Non notable actor - Other than this[47] I can't find anything. No objections to redirecting to The Story of Tracy Beaker if wanted. –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Story of Tracy Beaker as suggested because it seems obvious she is indeed best known for that and my searches found some results for it as well. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 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. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KONIKA MEANING[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod template removed. Adam9007 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced and dubious dictionary definition. There is nothing worth saving in a brief stub which includes this absurd claim: "In ancient times the only language used worldwide was sanskrit." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF with dubious unsourced claim. If not exclusively so, "Konika" is mostly associated in search with Konica, the company past of Konica Minolta (which I am proposing to create that redirect, in before whoever created a whole Wikia for this "KONICA MEANING" realizes that Konika is available). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We do have articles about given names (like Mary), so I could see having one about this one. But the etymology looks like OR, and I couldn't find any secondary sources that looked more promising. No indication what else would be in the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sanskrit: कङ्का (or IAST:kaṅkā, ITRANS:ka~NkA) does indeed mean "scent of a lotus" (source:Monier Williams), but that is just a small part of the article other than which everything is pure conjecture. We can include words if there's material beyond a dicdef for them, but in this case -- based on a search, it happens to be just another Sanskrit word, nothing more. As —SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD. Maduwanwela (talk) 16:22, 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) 06:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical Stories of Henan[edit]

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

Looks like somebody put his high school essay on Wikipedia. Some of the stories already have their own pages, e.g. The Foolish Old Man Removes the Mountains and Butterfly Lovers. Timmyshin (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this could be speedily deleted under G3 (hoax) or misuse of Wikipedia as a web host (U5). Even if not, it clearly doesn't belong here, as it looks like a fictional story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSFT (talk • contribs) 00:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything in there has some form of mention in either ENWP or ZHWP already (Lo Shu Square, empress Wu Zetian and zh:洛陽牡丹, Butterfly Lovers, zh:嵩陽書院#將軍柏, The Foolish Old Man Removes the Mountains, zh:陳橋兵變) but this article is not encyclopedic and WP:NOTESSAY can finish my argument.

History-wise, the creator and main contributor appears to be actual student(s?) from Nanjing Normal University perhaps on some Wikipedia course, started this in September 2011 and has not edited it since December 2011. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the above reasons -- a dead letter, when letters aren't appropriate -- although I really enjoy the meta- element of it, where the article starts by saying that it is an article full of information. (Yes, the authors are referring, obviously, to a source text that they are actually writing about, but which they do not document.) Hithladaeus (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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.

[1] ttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-12-05/news/1990339029_1_jay-bias-university-of-maryland

[2] ttp://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-09/sports/sp-1503_1_jay-bias

[3] ttp://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-09/sports/sp-1503_1_jay-bias

[4] ttp://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/25/sports/sports-people-another-bias.html

[5] ttp://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-09/sports/sp-1503_1_jay-bias

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]