Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 June	22 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 keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 07:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Romfors[edit]

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

Deleted at AfD, recreated, speedy deleted, and then brought to deletion review to contest the speedy. My listing it here is purely an administrative action; I offer no opinion on a desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Since the January 2014 AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Romfors, the subject has received coverage in two new sources. The subject also passes WP:NHOCKEY because he played a 2013–14 regular season game in the Swedish Hockey League (according to the nominator at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 14#Victor Romfors), which is considered a "top professional league". Per WP:NHOCKEY:
Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league
Here are the sources I found:
1. Wiis, Kenny (2015-01-23). "Romfors van vid lyckliga slut". vt.se (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2015-06-22. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  Link to Google Translate: The article provides substantial biographical coverage about the subject. The article has over 1,000 words. Roughly half of the paragraphs discuss the subject, while the remaining half of the paragraphs are quotes from the subject.
2. Millner, Alexander (2014-04-10). "Månadens HM-Spelare: Victor Romfors, HV71". Hockeymagasinet (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2015-06-22. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  Link to Google Translate: The article calls him a "most valuable player" for the finals, taking his team to the "team's second straight national championship in J20". It provides several paragraphs of coverage about the subject.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Victor Romfors to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY and passes WP:GNG as demonstrated above by Cunard. Dolovis (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playing in SHL meets WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Hofmann[edit]

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

Very little coverage of this painter who is alleged to have been the first artist to have his work taken on a space mission. This claim is cited to a gallery website but I can't find any reference to it in a WP:RS (one would think it would have been a news item, at least somewhere). Austrian but no German wikipedia article. Vrac (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find one other source (unreliable) that mentioned he received an entry into Guinness for the apparent painting on MIR. If someone can find something, anything, I will gladly change my !vote. -Pax Verbum 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to establish any notability of his work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Substantial coverage from independent reliable sources is not offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue. These belong at WP:RFD, 2016 U.S. Open (golf) is now a page but It's pointless splitting everything up for the sake of it so these can all go over to RFD (No objections to WilliamJE amending "2016 U.S. Open (golf)" back to a redirect if wanted} (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from creator: I have to withdraw this page now due to the fact that the 2016 U.S. Open (golf) article has been rightfully filled in, as it is under one year from now. At a later date, I will create a new page for this (2016 PGA Championship, 2016 Open Championship) with the proper updated information. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 U.S. Open (golf), 2016 PGA Championship, 2016 Open Championship[edit]

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

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

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

Delete: as having been made too early, and empty. New editor seems to have created these pages seemingly for no reason other than to create them, and these pages are empty, and it's confusing the situation; I edit the golf related articles and found these, making matters confusing because these are articles pertaining to annual events that are next year, in which this year's events have not been held yet, let alone next year's. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 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 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are all prodded and don't have the AfD template on the pages. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of now. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These pages were redirects before the nominator blanked them. WP:Redirects for discussion is the correct venue for discussing them, not AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep per Gene93k. I also restored the redirects....William 10:04, 18 June 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 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 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 merge to Alien Youth. T. Canens (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Youth: The Unplugged Invasion[edit]

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

Notability tag removed after seven years. Probably best to merge with the album it is associated with. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD is not for merge proposals. If you want to propose a merge please use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. That's why I nominated it for AfD, but I simply state that I am not opposed to a merge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 07:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close and start a merge discussion on the article's talk page. Merging seems obviously preferable to deletion and we don't have an argument here for the latter. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alien Youth - the discussion was started here, so it may be finished here. Stand-alone article for this DVD is not warranted, no significant coverage, should be mentioned in the album article. Kraxler (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alien Youth. I guess leave the redirect behind. It's not a very likely search term, so it makes a poor redirect, but hey, redirects are cheap, so it doesn't hurt. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. @DBD: You may pursue a merge proposal on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deanery of Alresford[edit]

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

Non-notable divisions of Church of England structure containing information which is quickly out of date. Easily merged into diocese or archdeaconry articles. DBD 20:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are broadly equivalent:[reply]

I am leaning towards keep as these are essentially standalone lists, and possibly the only place in Wikipedia for a parish church that is not notable enough to have its own article. Deaneries seem to exist for many decades, and the churches much longer. Why do you say the information is quickly out of date? Also, would a list of all the churches in a diocese be of a manageable length? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The location of the information would not solve the quickly out of date situation which would be same where ever it is located. Keith D (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Keith D: @DBD: Please explain what gets out of date. Is it the names of the incumbents? The article doesn't have to name them, but if editors choose to, I don't think it is a problem. We seem to have no trouble keep sports team line-ups up-to-date, and they change much more often.
  - I think the nominator's proposal is to move the quickly-out-of-date info to the archdeaconry or diocese articles.
  - Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the 'out of date' argument might be a red herring here. While some information, like the name of the rural/area dean, will change, the establishment of a deanery will not. To make any change in a deanery, by adding or removing parishes, the division or amalgamation of deaneries, the raising or closing of deaneries requires a Privy Council order. For this reason, deaneries are often centuries old, and rarely change. The 'notability' criterion has often been aimed at stub articles because the article does not give sufficient information about notability. Yet the creative growth of Wikipedia depends on the existence of stub articles that someone will edit up into notable non-stubs. We allow stubs because of this potential, and because this is not a paper encyclopaedia (space is not an issue). These articles are likely to include information about parishes and churches that do not have their own articles. Deaneries also represent an important aspect of English historical geography: where other divisions have come, gone and changed, these often represent an ancient pattern on our landscape. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gareth Hughes. There seems to be a tendency to opine that because an entity isn't regularly in the news media or the like that they are not significant. However the very fact that they are not extensively covered elsewhere means that they are more worthy of inclusion of a scholarly work such as en encyclopaedia. Deaneries are centuries old, many have had broadly unchanged boundaries since the 16th century. They are of significance to those carrying out family history and similar historical research as the potential custodians of records touching of births, deaths and marriages. S a g a C i t y (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohc ^¡digame! 06:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's response:

Keith D & Hroðulf: I do propose to omit the individual priests' names, but I find myself somewhat convinced that there ought to be some information on deaneries. However, I would prefer to merge these into Diocese or Archdeacon articles (while Diocese articles are already fairly substantial and would contain many deaneries, Archdeacon articles are not usually so substantial and would only include a few); especially since this would avoid the proliferation of nigh 700 Deanery of... articles!
Gareth & Ohconfucious: I meet your protests of significance with a compromise proposal to merge into Archdeacon of... articles.

DBD 15:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but purge content. The deaneries are not something that is here today gone tommorrow (or perhaps next decade), they tend to have a reasonable permanence, though reorganisation may take place. How ancient they are may vary from diocese to diocese, according to whether the structure of rural deans was maintanted from the Middle Ages. Listing their clergy in the articles (as at Barnstable) is inappropriate, becasue the clergy change every few years. The consensus is that local churches are usually NN, which measn that most do not have an article; and this also applies to most of the clergy. If they do have articles, the link should of course be made to it. However, it might be appropriate to add a link to the church website. Barnstable lists two team ministries. It may be appropriate to add details on when the parishes were amalgamated. Lincoln lists a lot of churches, but the link is merely to the saint they are dedicated to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Fatena[edit]

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

Contested prod-book that has yet to come out by a author who has yet to write anything and is being speedied as well. Wgolf (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no coverage at all in published independent reliable sources, and no indication that this book meets WP:NBOOK --ℕ ℱ 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. This is a case of TOOSOON at the very least. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, no published reviews (beyond user-submitted Goodreads reviews that don't help). I tried looking for Arabic sources since the book is written in Arabic and targeted at Arab audiences, but I didn't find any helpful Arabic references either. Huon (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage to show that this book is ultimately notable. On the talk page the original editor asserts that this has received some coverage in social media and the like because its subject matter prevented it from being published, but I can't see where that has translated into any coverage for the book either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be WP:RS that shows that this subject passes WP:GNG. At best the reason is that it is WP:TOOSOON. Either way delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:10, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knox equity group[edit]

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

no notability ScarryThirdAnt (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: I can't find third-party coverage either. (I found some very silly trademarks for T-shirt phrases though — https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/knox-equity-group-llc-2177243/ — so I suspect we're not dealing with Goldman Sachs here.) Seems to have the same people involved as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojo Photo Booth by the way. --Closeapple (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding little evidence that might lead me to the conclusion that this article meets the general notability guideline. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreenFacts[edit]

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

I've taken a closer look at the article after some prodding from User:Deselliers about his/her desire to use a primary source. Taking a closer look, I see the article is primarily cited to the org's website and has only 1 independent source that has just 1 paragraph on the org. Google Books searches reveal a few brief mentions, Google News is completely empty and my library's archives only show press release reposts.

Some unreliable sources accuse the org of being a front group, which I believe is what the Funding section is alluding to, because much of its funding comes from corporate interests. However, without actual secondary sources, this is all original research and we cannot confidently create a neutral article on this org, or even know what a neutral article would look like (whether it should be identified as a front group or not).

A prior AfD from 2007 resulted in KEEP, but no sources were provided that verify notability. Note to closer: This article apparently has a long history of COI editing and if it is a front group (I'm not saying it is, but am withholding judgement), you can expect astroturfing of this discussion; something to look out for. CorporateM (Talk) 15:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure how it ever passed an AfD, but I guess standards were lower in 2007. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search of “GreenFacts” (with quotes) gave about 98,000 results, some of the ones I found relevant among first ones being:

- Google search: 43 mentions on the UNEP website

- Google search: 2,360 mentions on the European Commission website

- The Global Mechanism (a body of the UNCCD)

- Belgian Walloon environment ministry

- DIVERSITAS International (a Biodiversity NGO)

- The Association of American Geographers (AAG)

- La Banque des savoirs

- European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals

- http://phys.org/news/2006-04-chernobyl-years.html

- http://forestportal.efi.int/view.php?id=1107

- http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/PCBs

- http://www.eoearth.org/profile/Green.facts/

Indeed, for some reason, none of these relevant articles are referred to in the article about GreenFacts. I was actually trying to improve it with external sources when my edits were reverted by CorporateM, which started our discussion in the talk page. Regarding the accusations of front group by some sources, I was managing GreenFacts when they started, and we then had reasons to believe that it was part of a smear campaign, possibly organized by an industry-funded organization that disliked one of the scientific report that we had summarized.

Hoping this will help clarifying the issue --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deselliers. I still don't this represents an understanding of Wikipedia's principles for sourcing. Maybe someone else at AfD will do a better job explaining. CorporateM (Talk) 21:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, CorporateM I don't understand what would be more credible references than, for instance, 43 mentions on the UNEP website, 2,360 mentions on the European Commission website, an article by a body of the UNCCD... Would the following references be better?

- http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2006/2802/2802-pp12-14.pdf an article by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

- http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Capacity-building/CBW/Resources/Pages/Publication-Page.aspx?ItemID=62 A referral by the UNCCD

- Six referrals on the website of the Millennium Assessment

What else would help? Thanks, Jacques de Selliers (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deselliers, you need to go away and read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and its lengthier cousin, the General Notability Guideline. These describe the principles that guide judgements as to whether an organization is notable. Broadly, an article subject requires significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of that subject. Very few of the links you have added above actually meet those criteria. I'm not even going to start on the Google hits, as Google is not in itself a source and sheer numbers do not denote the significance of a source. I do not have the time or inclination to trawl through each of those hits and work out exactly what Google is seeing, but a casual glance suggests that most are trivial. Of the specific sites given, an awful lot of your supposed "mentions" and "referrals" are actually either directory or catalogue listings (which just show that something exists) or are inclusions in a list of references (which just shows that the organization writes stuff). Based on those criteria pretty much any scientist or scientific organization that actually publishes papers would be considered notable. As for your links from UNCCD, these are not independent as that body is actually funding GreenFacts, and at least one of the links you have provided is simply a press release from that organization stating that fact. The UN funds an awful lot of research projects across a huge range of fields; merely receiving their money doesn't make the organization notable. Only one of your submissions above is slightly more interesting, and that is the feature article which appeared in Chemistry International. This is exactly the sort of significant (in that it is a detailed piece that describes the organization) coverage in a source that might be considered reliable (in that IUPAC is an esteemed international organization itself, and the magazine is produced by a professional publishing company) that may change people's minds. However, the article reads like a gushing promotional item rather than an independent critique and analysis of GreenFacts, and that alone raised many red flags regarding the circumstances behind its writing. I note that Chemistry International accepts Feature Article submission from all and sundry, and that the article's author (Manuel Carmona Yebra) is listed as having been GreenFacts' Communications Officer until shortly before that article was published. Therefore, I am about as certain as I can be that this was an article submitted by a GreenFacts employee and therefore fails (and, oh, how it fails) the independent test again. So-called native advertising and advertorial can be difficult to spot when done well. This piece was easy. Pyrop e 00:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pyrope:. Just FYI, the article was started by @Cacycle:, whose userpage says they are an administrator. The original contained the phrase "GreenFacts has many characteristics of an industry-funded front organization" cited to sourcewatch. It's extremely unlikely the article was started by an employee at the company. CorporateM (Talk) 02:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: My comments were concerning the provenance of the article in Chemistry International. Apologies if that wasn't entirely apparent. Pyrop e 02:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad. Thanks for clarifying. Sometimes I'm multi-tasking and am not paying as close attention as I should! CorporateM (Talk) 02:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for clarifying, @Pyrope:. Considering the mission of GreenFacts, I had thought that producing scientific summaries for notable organizations such as the European Commission and UN organizations (such as UNCCD, the Millennium Assessment and the IAASTD) would be a valid notability credential, but I am not a Wikipedia expert. So if this is a consensus view, I humbly accept it. I would however be pleased to hear the opinion of other Wikipedia experts. Thanks again, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To put this on an intentionally trivial footing, somebody probably also screws in light-bulbs for those organizations as well, but we don't have articles on John Smith (UN janitor), do we? The fact that your organization produces materials for and provide services to notable organizations doesn't confer notability on you (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Writing papers and being cited by others is a run-of-the-mill part of being involved in the scientific professions. Many tens of thousands of scientists write original papers for esteemed international journals each year, and thousands of these are used by the UN, MA and others to prepare their reports. For any entity with an article in Wikipedia, including scientists and science communication organizations, it isn't the work that makes them notable, it is the notice taken by the world at large that makes them notable. Pyrop e 16:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these new clarification, @Pyrope:. Again, I am not a Wikipedia expert, so if this is a consensus view, I humbly accept it.

However, I'm not sure that your comparison with John Smith (UN janitor) is relevant. Even if he were the best light-bulbs in-screwer of all UN organizations, I don't think his website would have 58,460 Daily Pageviews (according to http://mysite.reviews/stats/greenfacts.org), or that it would be cited 98,000 times by Google, including in over 700 books and 900 scholarly articles. :) Jacques de Selliers (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm extending this another week to give people a chance to evaluate the list of sources presented late in the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, lots of primary sources and so fails WP:GNG, therefore still support deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having looked through Deselliers' list of supposed reliable sources above, pretty much all of them fail at least part of WP:42. In digging around I found very little that suggests GreenFacts has had any impact on society, and nobody within the mainstream media has taken a blind bit of notice. See comments above for further details. Pyrop e 00:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GreenFacts.org is cited in a significant number of books - and indeed we refer to it many times on Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: CorporateM: The article was 'not' started by me, it was in fact started by GreenFacts employees and was an obvious attempt to give the impression of an independent grass-roots eco-NGO when in fact it was an industry funded lobby group. I then edited the article accordingly and, if I remember correctly, a small edit war started as they realized that this had backfired for them... I am not sure about their notability, but I guess, it is important to have independent and objective information about lobby and front groups easily accessible online. Cacycle (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just double-checked, but the editing history does verify that you started the article in March 2005. You used the edit summary "created" [1] and it was the first recorded edit on the page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awakening of Heroes[edit]

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

non notable game Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this game. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Also WP:CRYSTAL issues, as this is game is still in testing. Dialectric (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:33, 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. If/when this becomes an important idea, people will write about it in reliable sources. And when that happens, we can use those sources to justify recreating this article. But for now, the consensus is it's just a neologism with no reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp (object-oriented programming)[edit]

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

new term, used by one author in one book. Has not gained traction yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too new and may not become widely used. Only a primary source is available, no secondary sources yet. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It's a well-defined concept that is gaining some traction amongst developers. However WP's dogma against online sources will inevitably lead to deletion here. When Factory Patterns for Dummies is published in a couple of years, future WP editors can come back and see this AfD to see how pointless their inevitable recreation work will be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley I'm a full time OO developer for many years, and I've not heard of it prior to this article. From what I can see its a term used in one book, by one author, and only usable in one language (javascript). The article currently has NO sources. I did some WP:BEFORE but the word "stamp" was a poor marketing choice, as its fairly difficult to get rid of the noise with such a generic term. But if you are aware of WP:RS using the term, now would be the time to bring them up, otherwise there is no chance of keeping the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. WP:RS excludes almost every useful source on every IT-related issue that's under a decade old.

Most of the discussion about stamp-like behaviour seems to be on the lines of how to do "factories with mixins" (a failing of trad. GoF factories). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I think I disagree with your broad statement about IT and RS there are plenty of online sources I would consider RS (and books certainly aren't on a 10 year lag). If the "online sources" are all blogs (and blogs by non-notables) then yes, there is likely to be a problem here. But the alternative is basically throwing WP:GNG and WP:RS out the window for tech topics, which is also not a viable strategy. Under what criteria could a tech concept ever be deleted in that world? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Blog" on WP has two meanings: a prejudicial bias against the hosting platform (not the content) because the letters "b-l-o-g" or "wordpress" appear in the path names, and an unchallengeable excuse (see also copyvio) for our persistent deletionist trolls to delete stuff, without having to pay attention to either content or author credibility. This is after all the site that has prodded or AfDed the likes of Martin Fowler and Aaron Swartz before now. This is not how it's meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any other sources (besides the book) that even mention this concept, let alone establish notability. APerson (talk!) 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 15:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Ioan Botez[edit]

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

No independent sources attest notability; all citations are to the subject's own work. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some papers, but a few hundred citations are not enough to meet WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of meeting other WP:PROF criteria or WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 14:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching Google scholar for author:mi-botez I find citation counts of 170,161,148,123,109,108,101,... enough to convince me of a pass for WP:PROF#C1. I'm pretty sure these are all his and not by someone else with a similar name: the first six are all on brain function, and the seventh (a letter on folate deficiency and pregnancy, [2]) is off-topic but the affiliations match the particulars of our article. The French obituary linked at the bottom mentions an honorary doctorate, generally a sign of notability. (It also hints vaguely at various academy memberships but unfortunately without supporting detail.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 5 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) 21:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - h-index of 22. Easily passes WP:ACADEMIC. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Мандичка, can you please include the link that got you the h-index of 22? I only see a 5 in G-Scholar, but perhaps you are looking elsewhere? Thanks. 142.254.111.113 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's Google Scholar, but I changed to "M.I. Botez" instead of Mihai Ioan Botez. Everything appears neurology related. Actually I just checked again and h-index went to 103. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really odd, because I just copied your search query and did it on G-scholar and got a maximum (non-normalized) h-index of 35. This makes me wonder greatly about the reliability of these numbers! Note our (WP) own caveatH-index#Calculation about using G-scholar for h-indexes, due to the fact that its algorithm also picks up minor- and non-publications that are not generally considered scholarly (e.g. unpublished conference papers). LaMona (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I got 35 too. Then I hit the "load more sources" or whatever and it shot up to 103, so changed it on here. I would think even 35 is quite sufficient. Still, even the calculator is of course unreliable, David Eppstein (who tends to have good knowledge of academics) just glanced at the citations as showed up and also believed it met WP:ACADEMIC. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we need more than citation counts to determine notability. I'll see if I can find something more substantial. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Romanian sources say here and here that he was a foreign honorary member of the Romanian Academy since 1993. Romanian and French Wikipedia say he received a Dr.h.c. from Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, albeit without stating sources. Passes WP:NACADEMIC #3. Kraxler (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred and Linda Chamberlain[edit]

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

Inadequate indication of notability, and also poorly sourced BLP promoting a particular point of view on controversial matters. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two third party citations since this page was marked for deletion: (my edits), but I did not follow the instruction "Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag." Possibly if I had followed the instruction and removed the tag this deletion debate would not exist. But I also think that the citation of MENSA INTERNATIONAL is a reliable third party source, so I disagree with David Gerard's opinion that it is unreliable or not third party. --Ben Best:Talk 21:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- procedural note: this is quite separate from the prospective deletion - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just added another citation, this one to PHOENIX MAGAZINE. David Gerard is ignoring the other citations I added this month. --Ben Best:Talk 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added two additional citations, one from Time (magazine), and one from the New York Daily News. --Ben Best:Talk 11:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands or redirect to Alcor Life Extension Foundation - the Mensa article is the only third-party WP:RS, and it's not sufficient for a living biography. The sum total information in it on either Chamberlain is documentation that they founded Alcor. Redirecting there (as founders) would be quite appropriate (and Alcor is unambiguously noteworthy). I am willing to be convinced by e.g. third-party coverage in venues that meet WP:RS that actually talks about their lives as individuals - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable within the cryonics movement, founders of Alcor. Sources were added after PROD was made. Should be improved, e.g. Linda is the author of a science fiction novel called Star Pebble. Fred is a cryopreserved individual, which adds notability in that very few people have chosen this route, in combination with being an Alcor founder. Lsparrish (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a "Fiction books authored" section to the article, giving citations. --Ben Best:Talk 01:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now appears sufficiently sourced to meet GNG and just about separate enough from Alcor to justify an article. Artw (talk) 16:03, 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 no consensus. There is a numerical prevalence of delete votes, with the argument that "ethnic minority" is not a well-defined criterion, at least not in the UK. (Note that many delete votes were cast before sources have been added). This argument has been countered by the keep votes, who argues that we still have reliable sources (some of which have been added) which call certain politicians "ethnic minority politicians", and at least these should be included. I do not at this point see any consensus between these viewpoints, and invite therefore all the discussion participants to return to the talk page and discuss the inclusion criteria, the list on case-by-case basis, and possibly the name of the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

This list does not cite a single source. At present, it is a WP:BLP and WP:OR mess. I started an RfC on the article talk page to solicit opinions on whether it might be possible to establish criteria for inclusion in the list. During the discussion, it has become apparent that consensus on these criteria is unlikely to be reached, and a number of contributors have suggested that deletion would be the best option. Note also that the article was created by confirmed sockpuppet User:Comte de Mountstuart. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An inherently problematic list, given the obvious difficulty in arriving at any objective criteria for inclusion. What constitutes an 'ethnic minority' is clearly a matter of opinion rather than fact, and likewise the question as to whether an individual is a member of a particular minority or not isn't something that Wikipeda should be making definitive statements about. Ethnicity is a fluid and contextual construct, and as such not one amenable to a reductionist list-compilation that obscures more than it illuminates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a lengthy talkpage discussion no-one could define inclusion criteria. Most of the ethnicities listed aren't real ethnicities and most seem to be based on where the politician was born. Therefore the article is full of BLP violations, and since the main contributor has been banned I doubt anyone else will want to sort it out. I don't even think the article can be referenced as not many British politicians are asked "what is your ethnicity?". -- haminoon (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above explanations. --92slim (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. An unreferenced complete mess of a list with no clear criteria for inclusion. This is beyond rescue. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per all of the above. An unsourced, unclear inclusion BLP-mess. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. for the reasons I already explained on the talk page, e.g. dubious classification based on racialism (Boris Johnson listed as 'British Turk' because of a Turkish great-grand-father and several other similar historical cases), being a member of an 'ethnic minority' is genetically defined by the main contributor as having some even distant 'non White' ancestry. Minorities observer (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above, a WP:V and largely WP:BLP nightmare with no clear criteria in sight. It almost qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G5 as one of the creations of a banned and blocked user who made, using various accounts and detected IPs, at least 56% of the edits and nearly all the substantial contributions (excluding formatting, housekeeping and reverts as block evasions became apparent). NebY (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the concept of an "ethnic minority MP" is not a new one, even if "politician" is a little vague. See for example The Guardian, on the subject of women and minority ethnic MPs.

Arguments that "ethnic minority-ness" cannot be defined are spurious if RS's do it for us.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: That Guardian article doesn't appear to be written for non-British readers and doesn't define who counts as an ethnic minority. It confused me even more with "black and minority" - does that mean that Black Britons aren't ethnic minorities? But who are? Do Welsh SMPs, Jewish atheists who strongly identify with Jewish culture, Turkish people, Irish Travellers, Boris Johnson, Basque people count? -- haminoon (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to decide this, RS do it for us. For example 0n 26 June the following headline appeared "Yvette Cooper Wants To Double Number Of Black, Asian, And Ethnic Minority Labour MPs (Huffington Post UK ,Graeme Demianyk). We learned that the classification is "BAME". Clearly if it is desired to "double" the number of a certain group of MPs it must be defined who is in that group. (Note that this could have probably been achieved by not standing against "BAME" Conservatives.

) I do agree that assigning people to groups for "representation" purposes is a fraught issue, however is not not our (Wikipedia's) issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Terms such as "Black, Asian, And Ethnic Minority" have always confused me, because they suggest that Black and Asian people in the UK are not ethnic minorities. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added -- with a moment's googling -- three RS sources; there are many more one can cull from this google search, as a start. And here. So the primary assertion in the nomination is no longer the case; there are now RS refs, and the prospect of adding more, from high quality RSs.

This is an accepted cross-section discussed by the RSs and Parliament, as in the Guardian articles "Record numbers of female and minority-ethnic MPs in new House of Commons" and "Parliament failing to represent UK's ethnic diversity; Commons needs 117 black and minority ethnic MPs to reflect population, but only 27 are not white", and the Parliament paper "Characteristics of the new House of Commons: key issues for the 2010 Parliament; Gender and ethnicity".

AfD is not for cleanup, as I expect most of us who are seasoned know. The fact that a sock created this is of course unfortunate. But irrelevant in an AfD discussion. The deletion decision is based on the merits of the list intersection; not on the merits of the original creator. Rich is completely correct in his note above that arguments that "ethnic minority-ness" cannot be defined are spurious if RS's do it for us -- which they do. Perhaps User:DGG will have thoughts on this, as he often addresses thorny issues. Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your typically well thought-out comments, Epeefleche. I just have one query about sourcing. Are you suggesting that if and when we come to find sources for each entry in the list, we'd need to find one that describes the particular politician as a member of an ethnic minority, or would it be sufficient for the source to describe them as, say, British Indian? I agree that there are plenty of sources establishing that the intersection is notable, but the question for me is how we then set criteria for who counts as an ethnic minority. The first sourcing approach gets us around this, but I don't think the second does, as we then have to judge whether we consider British Indians to be an ethnic minority (which doesn't sound problematic with British Indians, but when we get to Iain Duncan Smith and his Japanese great grandmother it all gets a bit complicated). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry. Inasmuch as this is an AfD discussion, I think that we should table that issue for the talkpage. As we typically do when faced with the birfurcated (though not completely unrelated) questions of: a) "should we delete this list?", and b) "what should be included in this list?" The second question is one properly had on the talkpage, once the determination is made to keep the list. For now, all the refs I supplied were ones that indicated that the politician in question was an "ethnic minority". This list published by Parliament of dozens of ethnic minority politicians (including over 40 "ethnic minority Members of the House of Lords" in October 2013) can be used to provide support for much of this wikipedia list. I imagine that the vast majority of the list can be supported by such sources, that mention "ethnic minority." Any that don't can be discussed on the talkpage; but that issue would IMHO be secondary to us keeping the list. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points again, although the difficulty of establishing criteria was a key reason why this was nominated for deletion, so I do see that as part of the AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree as you do that the intersection is notable, and you by your wp:before search found RSs such as those I set forth above that support some (in this case, many) of the names listed belonging to the intersection, I don't believe that the fact that there may be disputes as to whether certain individuals should be included in the list is a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion.

As WP:ATD states, furthermore: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Epeefleche (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the talk page was to nominate the article for deletion, so I did. If you want to close this and take it back to the talk page, please feel free. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. Perhaps the talk page discussion didn't consider the above sources, such as the Parliament ref that sources much of the list. Or wp:ATD, etc. I've now sourced 75 entries to RSs; more can be done, and non-RS-sourced entries can be deleted. I feel that I'm too involved here to do what you suggest, though I appreciate the offer. I'll wait for someone else to take action, either along those lines or at the end of the AfD (where a closer will apply the rule I expect that guideline-based !votes carry the day, and it is not a raw numbers vote). I think that we are in agreement that the intersection itself is notable, and the sources supplied so far are clearly RSs and clearly support inclusion of dozens of people on the list. The article needs clean-up, certainly, but cleanup is not an AfD matter. I think that at least those identified by RSs as "ethnic minority" belong in the list. If the RSs disagree, that can be discussed in the list -- that is an area where a list has greater utility than a category. It may be reasonable to require sources to so identify list members, as there do seem to be many sources that use that phrase for members of the intersection. Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are press articles based on the journalists 'common sense' definition of 'ethnic minority' and a document by Wood & Cracknell where 'ethnic minority' is equated with people with 'non White background'. Both 'sources' may not be considered as reliable to list people on an ethnic base. Moreover, by the time the first 'mixed race' and 'non White' lords and MPs entered the Parliament, it was either through their White aristocratic filiation or as symbols either of critics/support of British imperialism and/or of the unicity of the working class, just like Roestam Effendi in the Netherlands. Not as 'ethnic minority politicians'. It is a-historical to use the present mediatic (not scientific) and somewhat racist concept of 'ethnic minority based on non White background' to analyse/classify XIXth and beginning of XXth century political situations. In my opinion, it would be much more useful to recycle the information in the press articles in specific sections of every WP article on United Kingdom general elections as I did in the past on the French WP for the Turkish electors and MPs in the 2005 German federal elections (I regret now I didn't source it correctly then, but I was a 1st year beginner on WP) or (more sourced) for the 'diversity' candidates to the 2008 French municipal elections. Bare lists of politicians for these matters (and others) are useless and even noxious. --Minorities observer (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you say: "Your sources are press articles". Yes. RSs. Of course we may rely on RSs. Whatever makes you think not (excluding your OR as to the reliability of the RS here). We follow Wikipedia guidelines, not individual editors' OR. That's the DNA of notability, per GNG. Furthermore, we have Parliament itself as a source. You call the RS-supported identification of race "racist". That's blatant POV. The RSs and parliament so identify the individuals; it is therefore appropriate for us to do so. Your personal feelings that youdon'tlikeit aside. It doesn't matter whether we are speaking of race or nationality or place of birth -- if the RSs report it, it is appropriate for us to report it, even if some individual editors may seek to have it hidden from Wikipedia. This is obviously an intersection heavily covered by both scholarly articles and RSs. We don't hide those because "Minorities observer" wants to hide it. Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary sources such as Wood & Cracknell say themselves that they are not reliable: "Analysis of ethnic minority representation is difficult, because ethnicity is both sensitive, and difficult to define. Work such as this generally relies on self-definition. The UK Census includes an ‘Ethnicity’ section, as do most staff surveys within major public services. However, it is not a mandatory requirement for Members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords to disclose such information. Data on the ethnicity of Members is unlikely, therefore, to be 100% accurate at any given time...". Andrew D. (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For following reasons:

Although there are few citations at moment, give time for more to come up. (I am glad to see the earliest Anglo-Indians in Parliament mentioned cited, never knew PM Lord Liverpool had been one.)

This list is cross-referenced to the article Records of Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom and is a solution to the latter article becoming too long.

It ably gives, at a glance, members of the House of Commons, House of Lords, European Parliament British MEPs, Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembly.

In short I feel it is better that it be kept and improved/updated where/when necessary, rather than deleted. If the article were a house I would say "Don't demolish it, it has potential for improvement." Cloptonson (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator says, there are no objective criteria for inclusion, beginning with Lord Liverpool who apparently had one Indian grandparent. Besides, the color of the skin is irrelevant to one's political position, there are white Tories and black Tories, white Socialists and black Socialists etc. It's a POVFORK from lists of all members of any political body (legislative or executive), because the notion that a black man doesn't represent white constituents, or vice-versa, promotes racism. Kraxler (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is "described by Parliament and the other RSs as such." Arguments as to the scope of the criteria are appropriate for the talkpage. But not, as indicated, an appropriate argument for AfD. See the above. Including WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is "a severe case" as described in the rules. To promote racism or ethnic segregation is not debatable. Kraxler (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your pov. It is not one that Wikipedia guidelines support. And is misguided to boot.

We don't delete all mentions of the races of people at the Project. On the assertion that -- to know the race of notable individuals (such as members of Parliament??) is to promote racism.

Your !vote, based on that non-consensus view, is therefor of little if any weight at this AfD. As we count !votes based on wp guidelines and practices.

As an aside - your assumption that it promotes racism, rather than the opposite, is at odds with the apparent tones and the focuses of the scholarly articles and RS articles that appear as refs in the article. Which are certainly not pro-racism ... or "pro-segregation" in the slightest. What's next - will you seek to delete Obama's race from his article? Or the List of black Britons? Or the category Category:Black British people? Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming bad faith, and for advancing a fallacious argument which has nothing to do with my rationale. Also thanks for !voting in a discussion and then assess consensus of it. Certainly having !voted "keep" you are absolutely neutral here. As to state the race of an individual in his bio, that's a legitimate topic. So is Black British people. And now back to the beginning: My argument was "the color of the skin is irrelevant to one's political position, there are white Tories and black Tories, white Socialists and black Socialists" which makes a list of ethnic minority politicians a pointy POVFORK. Besides, it presumes that, as I said above "a black man doesn't represent white constituents, or vice-versa" which is absurd. By the way, Lord Liverpool was certainly a member of an ethnic minority, with his Indian grandmother, scholarly sources certainly say so, and at the time he was hailed as the first Indian British member of Parliament, a pity that the early 19th-century Times was not on-line yet to give us a link. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The early 19th Century Times *is* online, and has been used as a source on here before. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the term "ethnic minority" was in use in the 19th century, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a link, then, which says "Lord Liverpool (or what his name was at the time) is a member of an ethnic minority" or "is an Anglo Indian". Kraxler (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was that comment directed at me, or at RobinCarmody? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I agree that newspapers at that time probably wouldn't have used such language. I was simply pointing out that the Times Digital Archive exists because the comment above seemed to suggest that it didn't - not specifying which language it would or wouldn't have used. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, nobody would call a 100% "white" man a member of an ethnic minority anyway. See below for the explanation. Well, he was removed from the list... Kraxler (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the discussion was before additional sources were found, so even though there has been a lot of discussion overall, it seems reasonable to let this go for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems too selective in its view of what constitutes an ethnic minority and lacks historical perspective. There are numerous groups which are ignored and any number of special cases. These include:

The Scots clearly constitute a significant ethnicity to the extent of almost getting independence recently. And then there's the Irish and Welsh, of course, plus the smaller groups such as the Cornish, Manx, Shetlanders, &c.
Sundry Europeans such as Gisela Stuart (née Gisela Gschaider) or Daniel Kawczynski
Jews such as Disraeli or Gerald Kaufman
Corner cases like Boris Johnson who was born in the USA and has a Turkish heritage. Churchill had an American mother so we might as well include him too.

One could argue endlessly about this. Notice that we don't have an article entitled ethnic minority — it redirects to the page minority group which states "There is no legal definition of national (ethnic) minorities in international law." So, you need to sort the more general question before you can start to use the concept to make lists of this sort. Andrew D. (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the "one could argue endlessly about this" point is why this AfD is not cleanup - because inclusion criteria might be an essentially unresolvable issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from delete, above, and struck-out). The issue about being unsourced has been addressed thanks to the fantastic work by Epeefleche (talk · contribs). The main crux of the argument lies on "what is an ethnic minority" and AfD is not for cleanup. This issue needs to be defined on the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not an artificial category constructed by us, but an actual category used by the UK political system and widely reprinted in British news sources and academic discussions. Theoretical considerations about whether we would have made it a category of our own only on our general principles for categories are therefore irrelevant. There will of course always be some disputes about who ought to be in, which is frequently the case and a characteristic of most descriptions of groups of people. As a relevant example, there are debates on who counts as British, but we still use that term for categories. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'system' in UK politics which classifies politicians by ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various official UK publications over a number of years so categorize politicians, as do a number of scholarly articles over a number of years. Some of these are reflected in the List refs. There does seem to be a systematic classification -- nothing suggests a non-systematic random classification by the government and academics. This is as DGG says something constructed by others, and not by WP editors. Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which 'official publications' demonstrate any 'systematic classification'? And where are the criteria for this 'systematic classification' documented? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at WP is reflection in RSs. The guideline is not that there be a "demonstration" of the "criteria" for a "systematic classification" used by the RS. If it were -- we would have a problem with lists of women, lists of citizens, and lists of people born in place X, as our RSs do not delineate how they arrive at the statement that person a is a woman, is a citizen of b, and was born in place c, and whether they look at birth records or require the person to drop their underwear.

Furthermore, as I indicated before, the official UK publications and scholarly articles ... a number of which are reflected in the article ... seem to be a systematic classification rather than a non-systematic random classification. And, as DGG says, this classifying is constructed by others, not by wp editors. Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's usually clear cut sources for MPs first elected from 1987 onwards (Abbott, Boateng, Grant and Vaz were much covered as a breakthrough) but even some after that seem to be random ancestry inclusions - Seb Coe and Iain Duncan Smith spring to mind and nobody ever proclaimed IDS as the first BAME leader of a major party. Before 1987 it's frankly a mess because ethnicity wasn't thought about in such terms at the time and so with the exceptions of Dadabhai Naoroji, Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree and Shapurji Saklatvala it's down to random assertions about mixed ancestry in a way that none of the politicians in question would have recognised at the time - the UK never had formal racial segregation much less a one-drop rule. Jonathan Sayeed is almost a classic problem case - he's generally rejected the BAME categorisation to the point there could be BLP issues but others have at times applied it and this reflects in the sources being rather mixed on the subject. And Sayeed is a case of someone who was active politically at a time with a relatively clear concept - earlier cases didn't have that. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive of entries that do not have RS support being struck. That can be done boldly, or following article talk page discussion. In any event, that's not an AfD issue, as AfD is not for cleanup. But rather an issue for the article, and its talkpage. The narrow AfD issue is whether this list (presuming entries are appropriate referenced) is an appropriate list. The answer to that I believe, for the above reasons, is clearly yes. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your instruction, and removed Lord Liverpool from the list, the claim that he was Anglo-Indian or a member of an ethnic minority was unsourced. Kraxler (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: You removed him from the Commons list but not from the Lords list. Also, it took me less than three seconds to browse the article and find a source about his Indian ancestry. Why did you remove him when you could find the source in so little time?--The Theosophist (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information over his ancestry was already on wikipedia, and it is not at all as clear as you say: his great-grandmother was a 'Portuguese Indian Creole', meaning she possibly was herself of both European and Indian descent. To consider anyone as 'Anglo-Indian' on this ground is obviously misplaced and a proof of ignorance of what ethnicity is and is not (not some classification based on 'one drop of blood'). --Minorities observer (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Portuguese Indian Creole" means a person born in India of ~~white~~ European colonizing clarified, see below Portuguese parents who went to live in the Portuguese colony of Goa and adjacent regions. Kraxler (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Portuguese do not consider an individual as 'white' or 'non white', belonging to the 'majority' or to any 'minority' in the same way as the Brits, US Americans or South Africans, and many Portuguese, even in Europe (incl. the Azores, Madeira and mainland Portugal) have mixed ancestries but are considered as 'mainstream Portuguese', except if they chose otherwise (ex. the deputy Celeste Correia whos comes from Cape Verde but 'can pass for Portuguese', unlike some of her 'darker sisters'). Moreover, many Indians are no less 'white' than most Portuguese with European ancestry, only cultural racists would believe such nonsense. --Minorities observer (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct, Minorities observer. That's the reason why I advocate deletion of this article, ethnic segregation or classification is nonsense, especially in politics where people should be considered by their political stance and not by their skin colour or ancestry. I used "White" Portuguese here above, looking at it from the creator of this article's point-of-view, to make it clear that the inclusion of Lord Liverpool was blatantly lacking objectivity. My wife is of mixed ancestry, and my children are too. I never knew personally any of my own grandparents, and only God knows where their ancestors came from, and I couldn't care less. I would never vote for anybody because he claims to have the same skin color as mine own, to vote for somebody I would ask him about his politics. Kraxler (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you voted for the deletion of the page because of your ideology? I do not think that this is allowed. The list should be kept because it is very encyclopedic to note how much have immigrants integrated in their new countries in the last few years.--The Theosophist (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thesophis is precisely correct here. And the closer, following wp guidelines, will discount those !votes made by editors on such a basis, rather than in accord with wp guidelines. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My delete vote is based 100% on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. It's a WP:POINTy WP:POVFORK. The closer will read the whole discussion and will weigh the strength of the arguments. Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. But as you say, the closer will decide. Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: Quoting you: “ethnic segregation or classification is nonsense, especially in politics where people should be considered by their political stance and not by their skin colour or ancestry” When you cite this for your “delete” vote, you clearly delve into what is your personal opinion concerning both race and politics. Whether or not you are right and whether or not we agree, this is not neutral voting based solely on whether the subject is encyclopedic/notable/useful. I demonstrated that there is nothing racialist (I am not saying racist) with this list, as it is clearly encyclopedic, notable and useful to take note of all these immigrants who managed to integrate that much in their new country. In fact, taking note of it, can be thought as an appraisal of their efforts (now I get POVy). Either way, what you believe about these people should play no role at all when you vote on the encyclopedicity/notability/usefulness of this list, and I think that I have defended the latter well.--The Theosophist (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is common sense, not a personal opinion. My vote is based on policy and guidelines, as I reiterated several times above. That there are "ethnic minority" members can be mentioned in the full list of members of parliament, and can be highlighted there. There are "ethnic minority" members of many political bodies in many countries, but there is so far only one article about them, this one. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this shows that "ethnic minority" membership is not considered an encyclopedic subject, but this one article was created by a single editor to make a WP:POINT, and is based on a single source as pointed out above. Also there is the totally unencyclopedic classification of "black, Asian and ethnic minority" by a source who apparently doesn't know what they're talking about. Thus it also fails WP:GNG. No need to rehash it, it's all been said. Also I know that AfD is not a headcount, but the !vote is currently 9 delete to 4 keep, so the keep !voters need some really good arguments instead of just pure POV pushing. Kraxler (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a source that states that he has Indian ancestry is (as discussed above) that we then have to make a judgement about whether that makes him a member of an ethnic minority. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: My comment was an answer to the statement “the claim that he was Anglo-Indian [...] was unsourced”.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm just concerned that it's a slippery slope once we start having to make judgements about who counts as an ethnic minority and who doesn't. Ideally the source would state that he was from an ethnic minority, and then we avoid the problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that his bio says that he had one Indian grandmother, but that doesn't make anybody a member of an ethnic minority. It would be OR to say so; We need a reliable source which says so. I asked here above for a link, but got only speculation. On the other side, a source mentioned in the article (The Guardian) says "the first ethnic minority MP was elected in 1892". Kraxler (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about individual belong on the article talk page. All pages dealing with this subject tend to have a few entries that need discussion. The criteria for these discussions should not be whether the person actually is in an ethnic minority, but whether they have been reported as such in a political context. The title may need some adjustment DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consensus with some of the above comments, esp the first few. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete problematic given that nobody can precisely define what an "ethnic minority politician" is. For instance, I'd classify Máirtín Mag Aonghusa and Nicola Sturgeon as such, but I'm sure that many here in this discussion would disagree with that assessment. Likewise, the sources that do talk about this don't have a consistent definition, leading to a floppy "well this source says they are, and this one doesn't" sort of argument that doesn't lead to a consistent or useful end result for our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Litchfield[edit]

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

I'm creating this AfD discussion in response to this edit by Lovethevoid, who I hope will come here as soon as possible in order to explain the request. Hoary (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these sources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], I guess to a certain extent she comes under BLP1E for now but I'd imagine there's a few different sources online and offline, Personally see no benefits to deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I am seeing no reason for this to be listed here. Artw (talk) 00:38, 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. Michig (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qhora[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX. Not finding coverage to verify content of the article. This was nominated for speedy deletion for lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article as per WP:A1, but declined because the context is present. However, this does not appear to meet WP:V, and thus cannot meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: term does not appear in the source cited, at least according to the search function of Google Books. Also, the orthography is suspicious. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find the term in my physical copy of the source cited (which has a glossary of plants named in the text). "Qhora" is apparently a Quechua term meaning "herb", but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so no need to cover Quechua term here. Plotkin's book focuses on his work in Suriname; Quechua is not spoken there and glancing through the index, I don't see that any countries where Quechua is spoken are mentioned. Plantdrew (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Wintergate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Though Wintergate seems to have kept very busy, her notable claim to fame is being part of Play Date, for which we already have an article. Apart from the information here about Play Date, this article is almost entirely unsourced (I mean lacking sources that are reliable and independent). Granted, there may have been an article about her in Chicago Metromix (though the link is now broken) but I can't see any other coverage online about her or her solo work. She's a songwriter/musician active in the internet age, with an unusual name to boot, so I would think if her solo work had been widely noticed there would be some clues for us to find. At the moment I'd suggest a very short biography (if anything) be added to the Play Date article, and this one is redirected.
Addendum: I've subsequently realised I particpated in an earlier AfD. One of the arguments for keeping the article was that there was not an article at the time about Play Date. This no longer seems a barrier to redirecting this one! Sionk (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a page for deletion while I'm in the middle or a big expansion/source adding binge? Seems a bit pre-emptive -_- To start I would argue that authoring the book makes it so she's not related to only the band, and would request that the afd be withdrawn while I'm still working on things. re-nominate in a day or two if you like. Earflaps (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, seem to see some of the confusion: note that the book was published several years before Play Date was founded, with Wintergate as the author. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Creative Child's award to know if that's enough, but I've found a number of good reviews. Earflaps (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- "I WENT FOR A WALK by Shanti Wintergate and Gregory Attonito". Verbicide Magazine. Scissor Press. December 10, 2007. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
- "Rocker's a hit with real punks". San Francisco Gate. November 13, 2007.
- Looked up the award it won in 2014- not much written about it in other places, but the magazine that does the ranking is a major national publication.
- McConville, Brian (September 27, 2007). "Book Review: I Went For A Walk by Gregory Attonito and Shanti Wintergate". Blogcritics. I'm not amazingly familiar with the site either, though a quick search found it used as a review source in quite a few good/feature quality pages: Spinning_Around, Flirt (novel), The Book of Taliesyn, the less nice looking Revelation Space. Maybe I should just make a new book page... Earflaps (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article because it seemed to be a very long a promotional piece that was almost entirely lacking reliable secondary coverage about the subject. As for the book, it is a joint project by Play Date, evidenced by the fact the awards were made to Play Date, not Wintergate or Attonito alone. The notability seems to flow back to Play Date, hence my argument for a redirect. Sionk (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I see why you thought that, the page was in bad shape when you did the nom, and the book/play date chronology wasn't really explained in the bio. Sorry if I came off as rude, I have a regrettable habit of snapping when I see red. Earflaps (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification now that I've some less vague sources: for a time it looks Wintergate and Attonito promoted the book/their children's material with joint shows (here and here) that included solo material from their individual catalogs, and it wasn't until (very early?) 2012 that they decided to adopt the Play Date name and release official material. Earflaps (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the subject being involved as a children's book author and Play Date member. focused on the bio a bit more, found some copyright violations that had to be cleaned out in the upper sections (there are still some junk sources as placeholders, which I'll probably mostly be able to clean out with better ones, though may add tags for the interim). Earflaps (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to other sources, the SF Gate coverage by Peter Hartlaub is significant. That's the website of the San Francisco Chronicle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commission scolaire des Sommets[edit]

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

WP:N (talk to) TheOtherGaelan('s contributions) 23:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (if there's something appropriate to redirect it to)- fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is a school district. We normally keep school districts and merge non-notable primary schools into them. At worst, the district can be merged into its region, Eastern Townships. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with a suggestion to the nominator that they review the pages at WP:AfD, WP:DELETION, and WP:OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ORG: [12][13][14]. There should be leniency when it comes to school boards if they don't meet WP:AUD. Also, per WP:GEOLAND, school districts are inherently notable because they are considered legally-recognized places. Esquivalience ^t 14:52, 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. If anyone decides to prepare the new article proposed as a rescue and wants a copy of the current content as a starting-point, I will be happy to provide it. JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian television shows currently in production[edit]

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

Unsourced and effectively unmaintainable list of television shows that are currently in production. Wikipedia should not, as a rule, maintain lists whose membership will be in a constant state of flux — with rare exceptions, such as List of current heads of state and government, lists should normally only be compiled on "once in, forever in" criteria rather than on transient characteristics. Just as an example of the problem, I can point out several entries on this list that aren't currently in production — and many more that are currently in production but haven't been listed here at all. Which I point out not because that problem isn't technically fixable — but because it speaks to how much attention is actually being paid to keeping the list accurate. The creator started with a partially inaccurate and incomplete list right off the bat, and only one new show has ever been added to it (and none of the cancelled shows have been removed) since. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle to List of longest-running Canadian television series and re-focus Titling is completely wrong, and coming in I thought this was a fancrufter coming in and out to tell us when a show was filming or not, but it's just a list of the longest-running Canadian series inexplicably combined with a bunch of unupdated info and odd additions like The Drunk and On Drugs Happy Funtime Hour. Refocus towards long-running series, remove out-of-production shows and filler like That's Hockey only the scheduling department cares about and this is a simple job for WP:RESCUE. Nate • (chatter) 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: the rescue measures being advocated might rescue, but they are tantamount to delete and writing a new article. I understand if some people really want to preserve the hard work of the original. I rather think the original is poorly conceived, unmaintained, and invites the impossible. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:01, 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 10:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not of general reader interest (87 views in May). The benefit of this list to readers does not justify the constant maintenance of the list. Esquivalience ^t 14:46, 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. Michig (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Kannattu[edit]

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

I'm unsure whether these politicians are notable. The references don't help much - need more expert eyes on Indian politics. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - links have been pasted by creator into many articles and they dont relate to the subject. No evidence of notability Flat Out (talk) 05:27, 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 10:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its current form, this is a completely unsourced article about a person whose only substantive claim of notability is as the leader of a splinter faction within a political party, with no evidence that he's actually held a notable office to satisfy WP:NPOL, and no real substance to indicate why leading a splinter faction within a political party would get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tukai(Tushar) Dam[edit]

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

I don't think this singer is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not discuss Dam in any detail, no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. The subject doesn't appear to meet the threshold of general notability, let alone notability for musicians. Generally, when there are this many red flags in the body of an article itself indicating a lack of notability (eg, "new playback singer", "popular on Facebook"), notability can't be established. I did, however, do a thorough check for sources, and User:Primefac is quite right. Nothing but brief passing mentions. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. No indication of satisfying GNG or a subject-specific notability guideline due to only primary sources and brief, passing mentions in secondary sources. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:28, 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Muneer[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Does not meet WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for MMA fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and coverage is just routine sports reporting. Jakejr (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, trivial coverage only. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage doesn't appear to be significant enough to meet WP:GNG and he's nowhere close to meeting WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:17, 29 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. The other articles listed have already been deleted by PROD. JohnCD (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predestination paradoxes in film[edit]

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

example farm, no citations given, unlimited list IsaacAA (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, these articles suffer from the exact same issues:

IsaacAA (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research.Edison (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Safiel (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the main target of this AfD and the five additional nominations were undergoing the Proposed deletion process and in fact the PROD's on all of them had expired and they were ready for deletion at any time. The five additional nominations can still be disposed of by PROD. However, I was forced to remove the expired PROD from the main target article, so by nominating for AfD, you essentially extended the life of the article by at least a week. In the future, if an article has a Proposed deletion tag on it, don't nominate for AfD, unless somebody declines PROD first. Had this AfD not been started, all these articles would likely have been deleted today. Safiel (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for the main nomination: fails WP:LISTN: there are only short mentions of this concept in film, most relating to the film Predestination. However, it is of higher-than-normal reader interest, at 2,000 views in the last 30 days. Esquivalience ^t 17:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest should be deleted as they fail WP:LISTN. Esquivalience ^t 17:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If any of this can be sourced, it would be better used to enhance the main articles Predestination paradox or Temporal paradox rather than create a TV Tropes-style compendium of examples. (Since this sort of thing appears in serious philosophical discussions about time travel and causality, it's not unlikely that some examples have reliable sources.) Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia isn't TV Tropes. ~ Rob^Talk 17:25, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Vermeersch[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this composer is notable as the best my searches found were passing mentions here and here and one Highbeam result along with a WCA page here. My searches also found close results for a Peter/Pieter Vermeersch but that seems to be someone else but also from Belgium (I added details to my search but a simple News search finds other people with the name Vermeersch). Good sources may exist in French but I'm not a fluent speaker and I'm definitely not a speaker of Dutch and German. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely notable. International Representative Board Director of the International Clarinet Association.(1) President of the European Clarinet Association(2)(3) and formerly vice-president of the same association. Has published and co-published multiple articles, including "Kacheri: The Bass Clarinet Concerto That Unites Cultures" in Vol. 24 Issue 2 of the periodical The Clarinet Journal (together with Hans Vermeersch) and "Ever Buree: The Mongolian Clarinet" in Vol. 35, Issue 1 of the periodical The Clarinet Journal (together with David Gresham and Khishgee Nordog)(4). The Clarinet Journal is published by the International Clarinet Association. Has given several lectures and workshops, including at the Royal Northern College of Music (5) Translation of the title: "Knokke-Heist clarinettist Stephan Vermeersch in the UK" and at the International ClarinetFest 2012(6). For yet more sources, just look at this PDF: [15] Sure, it's hosted on his own site, but it's basically a compilation of articles he published in periodicals, articles published on him, interviews with him and music programme booklets he was listed in—the great majority of which are independent sources that he simply collected into a single PDF. The article is an absolute mess, though, I'll grant you that. I'll see what I can do about that if I can find some spare time. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Insurance Company[edit]

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

Nonnotable. No independent sources, only press-releases or company webpages Staszek Lem (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or at the very least redirect to Fairfax Financial. I'm seeing coverage (albeit not necessarily in great depth) over the years in books, magazines, and newspapers, e.g.: [16] [17] [18]. Seems enough to me to meet the WP:GNG. Page will certainly need a large cleanup if kept. mikeman67 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course this kind of business has lots of advertising and press-releases. WP:GNG requires independent in-depth coverage, not just PR babble. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe I've linked to any press releases or advertising. There's also the Toronto Star/Canadian Press and Bloomberg: [19] [20]. Seems to me there's enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. mikeman67 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've edited the page and removed a lot of the advertising from the page, and added in some sources. mikeman67 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Fairfax Financial for now - I wasn't sure because the article is neat and sourced now but I'm doubtful of solid notability and my searches (such as this and this with the same results at Books) found nothing outstanding aside from one press release. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life Ain't No Joke[edit]

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

Non notable mixtape. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion; sufficient coverage exists in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 21:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Sanford[edit]

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

Non-notable CEO of a company that has no Wiki article and searches here, here, here and here found nothing significant and notable and I would've suggested moving to the company's article if one existed thus this is better deleted. At best, the only good thing in this article is the Business Week "Top 100 Most Influential CEOS" but that's not going to save the article. This has never been significantly improved aside from multiple edits by an IP in September 2010 adding "prank calls" and later a mass edit of that; frankly there are no signs of improvement for this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this [21], Sanford did not retire at 40, as stated in this article, but went on to found another company and then sued his former company (the one in this article). The suit was dismissed [22]. The problem I see is that it will take some research and editing to turn this into an up-to-date, accurate BLP -- I have no idea where he is working today, for example. For sure this is a BLP that is inaccurate at this moment in time. LaMona (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has rushed in to defend or update the article, I'll !vote delete. LaMona (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:55, 29 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 Heartbreak Kid (1993 film). JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Halliday[edit]

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

My searches found nothing (aside from that same encyclopedia of TV reference) to suggest she has independent notability and it would be best to move to The Heartbreak Kid. I would've been bold and moved this myself but I wanted a consensus to support it. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at her IMDb she's been in alot of films/tv shows but my searches bring up nothing, Although she was in Wentworth Prison that was only for 4 eps so don't think she'd be remembered for that tbh, Personally don't see any point in redirecting so will have to go with delete. –Davey2010^Talk 17:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a shame. I can't find anything online, weird that one of the main characters of the top 3 shows in Australia during the 90s would not have any references but that's how the cookie crumbles i guess. The internet not being around did not help, surely. Redirect atleast redirect it. People from the 90's might want to follow up on their favorite tv show so it's a valid search term GuzzyG (talk) 00:30, 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 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Davey2010. My searches did not come up with anything, including one of Australian newspapers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 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 redirect to Meek Mill discography. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Philadelphia (Meek Mill mixtape)[edit]

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

Non notable mixtape. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Meek Mill~~ Meek Mill discography. Per WP:NALBUMS, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC) I'm also fine with a redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meek Mill discography. It's already mentioned there, no need to merge anything. Kraxler (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kraxler. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't evaluated the article itself, but I notice that Mr. Philadelphia already redirects to Meek Mill, so, assuming this ends up some variation of not a standalone article, I'm not sure how having this as a separate redirect makes much sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meek Mill discography#Mixtapes. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flamers 2.5: The Preview[edit]

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

Non notable mixtape. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meek Mill discography#Mixtapes. We need more than a tracklisting to justify an article but a redirect seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meek Mill discography#Mixtapes - it is something that people would be interested, but I see nothing that justifies a separate article. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:28, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Swayne[edit]

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

BLPPROD dePRODed after adding 3 sources. These soutrces are only primary sources and promotional pages for tgeatrical events. No other substantial Ghits found. Fails WP:ENT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Wicked_(musical)#Current_casts_of_English-language_productions where is she mentioned for the Australian tour - Although my first searches found sources for roles such as Wicked, there wasn't anything solidly significant to suggest independent notability at this time. I have no objections to drafting to userspace. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only primary sources used. fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has performed in several productions (including a year with Wicked; in at least three state capitals), described in reviews, and subject was a grand finalist in a national contest. Article now has more reliable sources supporting notability at both WP:BIO and WP:ENT.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of those roles are as understudy (including in Wicked) or some other minor role. WP:ENTERTAINER says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and I'm not seeing significant roles in notable productions. Adpete (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found a mention here and a mention here and a possible source here but that's about it in my Australian media sweep, possibly coverage in drama-focused or entertainment-focused Australian media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:42, 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 speedily deleted by User:Kudpung under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Culture[edit]

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

Few google hits. I dream of horses (T) @ 09:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As per WP:G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Culture Records. ~ Rob^Talk 09:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haptic medicine[edit]

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

There appears to be only one reasonable source for this, PMID 1974549 making clear this is a novel concept. It therefore lacks coverage in RS (let alone WP:MEDRS) and so sourcing is insufficient for it to pass WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (wasn't this sort of nonsense thoroughly debunked by a paper published by a child?) This article, per Alex, lacks RS and fails GNG. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 09:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable alt-med fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are numerous sources on the general topic of touch-based therapy a search shows that the term "haptic medicine" was coined by Cindy Mason at Stanford and is used by no one else. The article contains numerous references but only the one to Mason and Mason discusses "haptic medicine" per se. The conclusion thus is clear: delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D.Chahal[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 08:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 & G11. Non notable autobio. Could have been BLPPRODed for the same end result. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 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. Strong consensus for deletion. Some do not believe the subject meets WP:GNG, others cautiously think he might, but cite some variant of WP:TNT. An apparent request from the article subject to delete wouldn't be enough to override a consensus to keep, but it is certainly enough to expedite the deletion process when consensus to delete is as clear as it is here, so closing a few days early. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} _{(script run by —SpacemanSpiff 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Roger Libby[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources — none — for this bio; all the references are to the subject's own publications. For the "Early life" section, there's not even that, it's simply unsourced. Looking at the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, the subject needs to satisfy at least one of them, and to be shown by independent sources to satisfy them. No such sources have been provided in the three weeks since the "BLP sources" and "primary sources" tags were added to the article. On the contrary, the tags have been several times removed by a single purpose account, currently discussed on ANI with regard to possible COI, who protests that such tags are "damaging to the credibility of the doctor" and "deleterious to the patients of the doctor".[23]

(To go into a little more detail: the current note 13, the one reference which is not labelled as written by the subject himself, might mislead the unwary as it appears to cite a different author, Murray A. Strauss. But that's merely one of those academic formalities. Note 13 references a 1978 anthology containing an article by Libby; i. e., that too is a primary source. Or not a source exactly; it's a publication, an article. This is an entirely self-sourced bio, something Wikipedia doesn't do, because sources other than the subject are needed to attest notability.) Bishonen | talk 07:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 25 H-index 103.27.227.107 (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what? This is not a vote. Please log in to your account and give a non-cryptic reason. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

See h-index for context. Bosstopher (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. May be possible to create an actual WP article on this guy but I am not willing to put in the time. If someone ~~ones~~ wants to create an article following deletion, they can. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC) (fix typo Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per Bishonen. I find her reasoning here and on the AN/I thread concerning the sourcing of the article quite persuasive. When combined with the obvious fact that Seattleditor (aka Screenwriter, aka Seatlle24x7) is a SEO/PR writer for hire, it's quite clear that this is a promotional article only, and that Libby has no national reputation to support an article at all. BMK (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find one mainstream RS about this person ([24]). The h-index value indicates a lifetime of research, but is not large enough to indicate a major impact on the field per the first criterion of WP:PROF. Appears to not meet other criteria of PROF. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even that NYTimes reference is pretty darn weak - just a passing reference to his opinion as a "relationship therapist in Seattle". Hardly what we look for in establishing notability. BMK (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established, and cannot be established by sources that are not independent of the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: you mean are independent? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
No, I don't think he does, EF. Count all the negations! Bishonen | talk 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Groan. It sounded alright in my head but I can't make much sense of it now. I might add some parentheses later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I !vote delete per Jytdog and EGF. My initial reaction is to vote 'keep' and invoke WP:ARS. However, reading the arguments I'm compelled by Jytdog's argument, WP:TNT. Instead of citing ARS, I'm now forced to cite WP:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.

There is one condition I have here that I'd prefer we could tidy up: Per Talk:Roger Libby#Reads like a CV, I'd really like to hear @Flyer22:'s opinion on this (per EGF).

I do have a belief, based on cited primary sources, that there is enough for an article here (there must be somewhere, out there, secondary sources we can cite, I believe). But Seattleditor has gone over the top, claiming the individual is "America's premiere sexologist". Why should we delete an article, because an SPA is full of bull excrement (we tend not to consider the SPA's opinion anyway)? Well, Jytdog answered the question, and so I !vote delete. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin Sane, what I stated at Talk:Roger Libby#Reads like a CV is the extent of my opinion on this topic. Since that talk page will be deleted, I will repeat what I relayed there: "I wouldn't state he needs a Wikipedia article. And I don't see any WP:Notability regarding him. WP:Academic comes into play here." Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written and cited, does not pass WP:GNG or any relevant sub-guideline for notability. If there actually is significant coverage in independent reliable sources out there, I think it had better show up fast. Softlavender (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just fyi - i received an email from a person saying he was Roger Libby. Not happy about the tags on the article and among other things wrote: "In (sic - meant "if" i believe) my many publications, academic and professional credentials and references (including the links to professional associations which are publicly accessible online) are not sufficient, I would ask you to immediately remove the page entirely as it calls into question my professional standing given your editorial staff's lack of certainty in my credentials. Under the circumstances, I consider the "public editing" of the page to be damaging to my professional sex therapy practice and my reputation. Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation. It appears that on Wikipedia everyone is guilty until proven innocent." I'll also make a note of this on the ANI thread. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of @Jytdog:'s quote, can we move up the speed of this deletion process? I'm not comfortable with the defamation accusation, and it seems the article fails BLP policy in general, now. I just went over the criteria at WP:SPEEDY, and could not find a criterion for deleting on the basis of BLP violation, accusation of defamation.

It seems G7 does not apply, as many of us have seen that Dr. L. is not the author, instead Mr. S. wrote it.

I should like to point out, in response to the doctor's quote above, that WP did not create this situation, a "pompous and obtuse" marketroid (whether paid for this article or not), Mr. S., did. Some in the doctor's business have called this (an accusation directed at the wrong source) a form of "projection".

Since we started down this AfD road led by @Bishonen:, I'd hope she can get us to the end of it safely. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin, I can't close the discussion early and delete the article myself, but I've put out an urgent call for an uninvolved admin on ANI.[25] Bishonen | talk 19:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet GNG criteria and the SPA involvement is worrying. We do not exist to validate or promote people. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No sources or citations = no article. Cassianto ^Talk 18:53, 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rappoport[edit]

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

Conspiracy theorist with self-published books. All references are to subject's blog, websites, YouTube videos, etc. BlueSalix (talk) 05:13, 21 June 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 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be the sort of third-party coverage necessary to meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doesn't appear notable to me. Looking up the publishers doesn't turn up anything particularly impressive either. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - there's nothing usable as a BLP source, and it appears there hasn't been in eight years - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any decent sources. Ever. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 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. Davewild (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Rasmussen[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Playing in semi-professional American football does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails to show any measure of passing WP:GNG or any other notability measure I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:30, 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 speedy keep. See last comment --Anar chyte 03:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lyra Health[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no indication of importance. WP:CCOS. --Anar chyte 04:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I admittedly have a COI as Lyra Health's CTO. But I think the notability is clear from the extensive coverage of the company's launch in Re/code, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Businessweek, and San Francisco Business Times. There was a lot of public anticipation and speculation as to what former Facebook and Genentech CFO David Ebersman would do next, and the launch of Lyra Health is newsworthy as a result. --Dtunkelang (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtunkelang: In the article, all there is is the Re/Code mention, could you please list (in this nomination) those other websites that covered Lyra Health? --Anar chyte 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Here is further coverage beyond the Re/Code article: Former Facebook honcho’s new startup aims to fix mental health system (San Francisco Business Times), Facebook Ex-Finance Chief Starts Behavioral Health-Care Company (Bloomberg Business), Former Facebook CFO David Ebersman launches Lyra Health (Pando Daily), The Daily Startup (Wall Street Journal), Health tech start-ups target internet talent (Financial Times), Society stands to be winner in the race for digital health (Financial Times). --Dtunkelang (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I'm retracting this AfD. --Anar chyte 10:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: What's the next step in this process? The page is still marked as being considered for deletion, and my removal of the tag was reverted. -- Dtunkelang (talk) 03:24, 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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FS Nayeem[edit]

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

Only a single non reliable source. Seems non-notable. Arr4 (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My first searches immediately found nothing aside minor coverage here and as there's no target for moving elsewhere, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Arr4 that the Bangladeshi Entertainment blog is unreliable. If the article is kept, that source should be removed. I added one reliable source with a respectable depth of coverage. The only other sources I could find were three passing mentions and an interview, which as a primary source doesn't count towards notability:

"Agnila-Nayeem in New TVCs". The New Nation. 23 August 2012 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
"Nayeem-Momo First Time Together". The New Nation. 10 November 2012 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
"Prashun-Nayeem-Hasin in Same Play for First Time". The New Nation. 13 November 2012 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
Shazu, Shah Alam (23 August 2013). "New silver screen foray for Nayeem". The Daily Star.

In my opinion the sum total does not add up to the significant coverage required to meet WP:BASIC. With only one notable film in which he had only a bit part, he doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR either. If someone finds other reliable sources, perhaps in Bangla, I'm willing to reconsider. Worldbruce (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:41, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the notability guidelines are met. Davewild (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe No huge roles or awards, but a fairly steady 40-year TV career. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd give him a pass. His roles in Barnaby Jones and The Smith Family aren't minor. IMDB lists him as being in 103 movies/TV shows (and only 3 are uncredited). So yeah, good and long career, passes WP:ENT to me. (The article is pretty dire, but it can be improved). Nohomersryan (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This John Carter is not mentioned at Barnaby Jones. His brother Conlan guest-starred once. Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he should be mentioned, seeing as how he was in 89 episodes. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention "Lt. Biddle" and the size of the role. I haven't seen any episodes, so I couldn't tell. Kraxler (talk) 23:25, 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 03:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too, find that he had quite a long career, but I can find no articles about him. I hoped for obits and checked the NY Times, LA Times, Variety. Zip. Searching is complicated by a recent, very poorly received, movie titled "John Carter" so you have to wade through all of that. Still, after a moderate effort, I came up with nothing. As for the comments above, regardless of how impressive his bona fides in Hollywood, we do need reliable sources to keep this as a WP page. LaMona (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a paid death notice in the New York Times, actually given as a source in the article. But yes, we need RS, and the only two refs given in the article do not qualify. Kraxler (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT can supersede the GNG Nohomersryan (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one were the significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions? Kraxler (talk) 00:17, 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 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak, weak keep. He was a regular cast member of Barnaby Jones (good) and The Smith Family (meh). That plus his long career and extensive credits just barely pushes him into the keep category. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also recurring roles in two soaps: Dallas and Falcon Crest (plus he's been to Barsoom) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak Keep - This is one of those !votes where I follow WP:IAR - Poorly sourced BLPs usually end up being deleted but with this bloke .... Well he's been in over 100 tv shows/films since 1967 which is obviously an extremely long time and rather impressive so per NACTOR and the fact he has a long career I have to say Keep even if it is extremely weak. –Davey2010^Talk 20:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain why I don't go for a cumulative weak keep: this guy basically went to work. So did I - for decades. That his work was acting and mine was software development shouldn't mean that he gets a WP page. Yes, he's an actor, but honestly, unless you are famous it's a job. Now, we can all see how unfair it is that some jobs (actor, sports player, politician) get more media attention than others (school teacher, librarian, programmer) but that is just a part of the culture we live in. However, the WP policies don't say that anyone who is in the former list of jobs is notable just for going to work, and anyone in the latter is not. WP says that you are notable if others find you notable enough to write or produce reliably-sourced documentation about you. We mustn't confound the job title and the requirement for notability. LaMona (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per LaMona's statement here above, which describes very well the situation here. I asked for a list of his numerous important roles, but no answer so far. And no coverage, no in-depth sources. Kraxler (talk) 11:23, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Still A Hitta[edit]

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

Non notable mixtape. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 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 keep. There is certainly no consensus for deletion here and the keep arguments look to have the best of this discussion. However this does not prevent someone proposing a merge to see if there was consensus on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Model United Nations in the United States[edit]

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

Delete or Merge with Model United Nations. This page solely and obviously serves the purpose of promoting the website "Best Delegate", which is almost exclusively used to (inaccurately) source the claims made in this article. The Article has no analogy to a structure, organization or phenomenon in real life, except the artificially induced "American Circuit", coined by the website in question. It's therefore redundant in the light of the two pages Model United Nations and List of Model United Nations conferences. RestVind (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — RestVind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Looking at the list of references, I have to agree that the article seems fairly biased towards providing mostly content from a single source. Taking away all the BestDelegate references, the article would be left with only a few unique references. Perhaps it really was written with self promotion in mind? Maybe this article would better be merged with the main Model United Nations article while compressing some information so as to make it less dependent on a single source as well as reduce redundancies in information. HerpTheThird (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)— HerpTheThird (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note:This user admitted to being a meatpuppet of RestVind at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RestVind. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable organisation, passes WP:GNG, also Mid-Importance article in 2 WikiProjects (US and International relations). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article Model United Nations is already very long. Merging the content would make the article difficult to read. When an article is larger than 50 kb a size split is justified. See Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split. If the two articles were combined it would bring the size to about 48 kb.[26]That is close enough to 50 to consider the value of a size split. There is also some justification for a split due to different content. Wikipedia:Splitting#Content_split. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Model United Nations. I do not think that MUN in the United States requires a separate article, especially since the content in this article doesn't seem to be of an encyclopedic calibre, especially since virtually all sources appear to be from the Best Delegate website. Most if not all of the content could simply be placed under the "United States" section in the main Model United Nations article. Qasaur (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: plausible split article; notable: US Department of State (not independent of the subject, but at least received notice from a official branch of the US government), and a lot of coverage regarding Model UN events in the US. Esquivalience ^t 02:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young and in the Way[edit]

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

Nothing on this page but a discography and some obvious promotional text. And the band does not seem to meet the basic guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speed keep – A poorly written article ≠ not notable. Young and in the Way has been featured or reviewed by several major music publications such as AllMusic, Pitchfork, Exclaim!, Revolver, MetalSucks, The AV Club, BrooklynVegan and I'm positive if I dig through my stack of Decibel magazines, I'll find a full-page profile in there somewhere. The band also received some minor news coverage for an incident involving spilling a ton of blood during a live performance.[27][28][29][30]. These sources weren't hard to find either. Per WP:BEFORE, nominators are expected to conduct at least some research into whether or not a subject is notable before nominating. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by Fezmar9 show that these guys meet WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 06:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Hample[edit]

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

Vanity page. Non notable individual. Many passing notices, current news (non encyclopediac), youtube ,and blog sources. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't all the media coverage (including things that date back to the 90s) in fact evidence of his notability? Forget the A-Rod ball; he had already been interviewed on national network TV programs, had newspaper articles written about him, and authored 3 books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.134.101 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article does need a slight rewrite in some areas, but the individual is clearly notable. What do you mean by vanity? An actual reason may make an actual argument, but I don't see one. The person set records, is nationally covered, and an interesting subject of sports fans. Clearly needs to stay, confused as to why it was nominated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:08, 21 June 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 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Speedy Keep. He's been noteworthy for a while - received significant coverage after his back-to-back homer snags, game show appearance, three books - A-Rod snag/keep has just resulted in controversy. Controversy be eschewed, there's no need for his page to be whacked. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy has received a ton of coverage. Alex (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly enough coverage.--Yankees10 02:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like him and his antics or not, he's gotten enough coverage for GNG. Some cleanup is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy has been relevant in baseball for quite awhile; his books on baseball (one specifically) are published and have been fairly well-read; his accomplishments are very unique and surprisingly important in the baseball world. His recent newsworthy catch and reaction only make me think more that he deserves an article. Metsfreak ^(Hello!) 02:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Although the article does need some cleanup - for instance I just removed these links:
NPR Interview
ESPN.com article
Sports On Earth article
USA Today article
Sports Illustrated article (April 9, 2001)
Sports Illustrated article (August 16, 2010)
New York Times article
Associated Press article
People Magazine article
foxsports.com article
Orange County Register article
Baltimore Sun article
Philadelphia Inquirer article
Deadspin article
Ripley's Believe It or Not article
San Francisco Examiner article
Dallas Morning News article
Pioneer Press article
Sydney Morning Herald article
MLB Network interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.82.35 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This man has published three books about baseball, and been interviewed by various news media, which make him undoubtedly notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyske Ludder[edit]

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

I've really struggled with this one, and looked it over several times. I feel like it may meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, but I couldn't verify this, and nobody else has verified it in the more than 7 years it has been tagged for notability. I really hope we can get this issue resolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - as currently written, there are no reliable sources given to support any assertions.--Rpclod (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not a German speaker but my searches found nothing to suggest good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - checking for some German-language sources, I found [31] and [32], which look like OK sources for that style (note: I know almost nothing about the music itself). Additionally [33] and [34] contain reviews and [35] has a short interview. The reviews are all quite detailed and seem to be written by knowledgeable authors (at least no trivial fan blogs). There may be just enough information to establish borderline-notability (no idea, if the discography contains any especially noteworthy titles), but I am really not sure. Here is an archived version of the Side-line interview in the EL-section with additional details. I have added all links to the article for possible future usage. GermanJoe (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to defer to GermanJoe on this one. I have struck my recommendation. Hopefully someone will add references to and more context from the sources that GermanJoe cites.--Rpclod (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This band seems to have a big fan base in a very small minority segment of music which in Germany is associated with extreme right-wing political stances, and thus absolutely ignored by the mainstream press. (The name of the band refers to a Danish/Norwegian woman who cohabitated with Nazis during the occupation of their contries in World War II...) Kraxler (talk) 17:07, 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 03:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cactus[edit]

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

A direct-to-video film with no significant coverage in external, reliable sources (I was just able to find one possible critic review at TV Guide). The article also doesn't have much content, other than a huge paragraph of plot and a claim that, "[a]lthough criticized, it is one of the best movies in 1993." Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding stuff here and there. I've cleaned the article somewhat and found a mention in an academic text. I did find this, which in the beginning search contained the text "Wild Cactus, about a defenceless woman held captive by a lusty, fugitive couple in the desert, is one such film. Written and directed by Mundhra...". Of course looking at the snapshot was unhelpful since it doesn't give a large view of the text as a whole, but it kind of gives off the impression that there may be more. The TV Guide review would be usable since it'd have been written by a staff member, although it would be helpful to have more sources, of course. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the full news story. ([36]) It looks like it was briefly mentioned, although it does mention a potential USA Today review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've spent some time thinking about this and ultimately there's just enough here for this film to squeak by notability guidelines. If it were just the reviews from TV Guide and Allmovie I'd probably support a redirect but there's also an academic source that goes into depth about the film. Granted it's somewhat in relation to the director's work as a whole but the film is prominently mentioned. What really pushed it was the India Today source that mentioned a USA Today review. I can't find the review in question (not surprising considering it was pre-Internet era) but these lines give off the assertion that it was enough of a review to where Wikipedia would count it as a RS. ("Written and directed by Mundhra, it was named by USA Today as the best sizzler among the recent crop of erotic thrillers. Film world sources predict it could end up making as much as $4 million in profits through video and theatre rights.") I won't protest too much if this ends up getting redirected, but I'd argue that if it does then it should redirect with history in case someone does find the pre-Internet coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Tokyogirl79's analysis of the difficulty with pre-internet topics. Coverage is not overwhelming, but WP:NF is just met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 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. Davewild (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Keever[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:48, 6 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, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously, he hasn't established independent and significant notability yet and a look at his IMDb shows he's mostly worked as a production assistant; thoughtful searches immediately found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Directed Shorts[edit]

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

Personally, I don't feel that this episode of Uncle Grandpa is special enough to warrant having its own article, despite all the sources the editor provided. If it were an episode that was significantly ground-breaking for its show or network like Not What He Seems, or if it were a exceptionally notable TV show like The Simpsons or South Park, it would be a different story. However, if we were to catalog every episode of every TV show we have on here and give it its own article, we wouldn't get much else done. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 13:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on many single episodes of many shows, as long as they meet notability and verifiability requirements. This isn't about cataloging every episode of every TV show, just those with reliable sources. The proposed reason for deletion doesn't seem valid: we have articles on every geographical feature ever, seemingly, and pretty much every professional sportsperson, and still manage to get other things done. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Love Not Lisa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I couldn't find anything in my Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Doesn't fail WP:MUSICBIO though, does it? Two albums on EastWest and one on Tooth & Nail easily passes criterion 5 and the use of "Slip Slide Melting" in the soundtrack of The Crow passes criterion 10. These are clearly stated in the article and easily verified so why are we here? Because you didn't find much on Google for a band from the 1990s? Even though most of the coverage from the band's era is likely to be in offline print sources, Google still brings up a CMJ review, Option, Billboard, a book, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, Billboard again, Trouser Press, Allmusic bio and four reviews: [37], [38], [39], [40], Encyclopedia of Popular Music (via Oxford Reference). This should be speedily kept. --Michig (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- E of CCM is one paragraph that spans pages 335-6. CMJ is a brief mention. Option are bullet-point entries, nothing substantial. First Billboard "Also on hand" that's it, second is one sentence as well. One sentence in Majorlabelland And Assorted Oddities. Not even sure what Trouser Press is (a blog?) but it only lists them by name and no further details. AllMusic isn't bad and I did see that. Overall, not enough to meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you actually read WP:MUSICBIO? --Michig (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I helped write it, so yes, I have. Do you understand it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the CMJ article would count towards notability since it's a review of the third album (albeit a fairly negative one). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Option bit looks like a review and I've put it in the article, but without a better look I'm kind of iffy on that one. This book isn't usable for notability purposes since it's self-published through iUniverse. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Billboard mention is too brief to be used as a RS, although the Trouser Press looks like it'd be considered a review. Something to take into consideration with reviews is that they don't have to be exceedingly long. There have been multiple discussions on this on the various forums (books, films, etc) and unless it's a one off mention in an article that's clearly about something else (ie, an article talking about a film festival that mentions a film in passing), short reviews are usable as long as it's from a reliable source. In the case of the TP thing, it looks like it's meant to be a review of sorts for the music. Not the best source out there, but it looks to be usable offhand. A little searching does show that the band was on the Crow soundtrack, which did make the Billboard lists at one point, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Trouser Press if you'd like to learn about it. The content on the website is the same as in the book The Trouser Press Record Guide and if you look more closely you'll see that the last two paragraphs are about this band. GBooks only shows the first line of the Option piece about the band so I don't know how you dismiss it. No evidence yet that you've looked in print sources from the time the band was around. The entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music alone should be sufficient, but I guess you're going to keep arguing for deletion until someone closes this. I won't waste any more of my time here. --Michig (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the publications is not the question, it's whether they have a substantial amount of information about this subject. They don't. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 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 merge to Deseret Book#Shadow Mountain Records. Nominated for lack of independent reliable sources. Keep arguments that there has been coverage and that the subject met inclusion criteria were well met by evidence that coverage was skimpy or not independent, and that inclusion criteria were not appropriately met. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Weeks[edit]

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

Much of the content is a copyright violation from the subject's own website/Facebook page. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio was a recent addition and I simply reverted it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - The best my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found were this and this, the Books results are a little better considering they're from Billboard but they're not that good. I'm a little on the fence but I may lean towards delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources, a significant placing (top 10) in a Billboard genre chart, and awards that Billboard saw fit to report on. Coverage includes Allmusic: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], Billboard: [47], [48], Daily Herald: [49], and the Deseret News: [50], [51], [52], [53]. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage", not in number of small mentions, but in depth. Allmusic (as the name implies) should not be used to establish notability. They are so comprehensive that being included is not a mark of notability in the Wikipedia sense. The Billboard article from November 2011 is the best source here. The question is, is that enough? The Pearl Award is not a big deal, it only goes to LDS musicians and it was discontinued due to so much controversy in its awarding criteria. Deseret News is a reliable source, but not an independent one in this case, they published her albums. It can't be used as a source to establish Weeks' notability. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on what is available for sourcing online. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:MUSICBIO # 5 and 7. Shadow Mountain Records should qualify for #5; having been the first Mormon to get a place in the Billboard Top 10 Christian Albums Charts should qualify for #7; and there is the coverage required (as shown above). Kraxler (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" No one is saying Hilary Weeks has a notable style, just that she's Mormon, thus unique, thus has some news value for the media (especially Mormon media).

5. Shadow Mountain Records (SMR) certainly isn't a major record label and isn't "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Now, here's a rabbit hole to follow. The linked above article section on SMR lists lots of artists. First cross-reference with their current roster [54]. David Archuleta wasn't ever a SMR artist (the cite on his article is wrong [55]). Gladys Knight did release her last album with SMR, although they don't list her on their own website. Carmen Rasmusen is Mormon, but never recorded with SMR. Their biggest artist seems to be Alex Boye. The other artists' articles are very weak and almost exclusively sourced to primary sources or Mormon news outlets. Most would have a harder time than Hilary Weeks (listed second on SMR's list, after Hudson Lights) of surviving an AfD. Not a very strong entry for having many independently notable artists. SMR is a small, niche-market label for Mormon artists. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Deseret Book#Shadow Mountain Records. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Hasn't had a Billboard Top 100 album. Her two albums listed were on the Billboard chart for one week each. [56] Even looking at the Christian album chart, her best album was on that chart for three weeks. [57] From the best source I've seen for Weeks [58]: Her top album, Every Step, sold 4,000 copies in the release chart listing and went down from there. "Weeks' career has been forged making music specifically for Mormon audiences." Until she does something notable, at which point the article can be re-started, it will remain a WP:PERMASTUB and should be merged now. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sega AM2. The history is preserved, so if anybody wants to mine this for material to merge somewhere, have at it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hisashi Suzuki[edit]

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

Doubtful notability, man with a job The Banner talk 01:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass notability for a biographical subject, but it's possible to selectively merge information to Sega to ensure that the critical nugget is preserved -- that this man oversaw the electro-mechanical gaming division (pinball and the like). Hithladaeus (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least refactor to be about anthropologist ja:鈴木尚, and perhaps dab with the past Square (company) president (redlink at jawp) if there is enough to write about him. There are many possible ways to put that romanized name back into Japanese, and hence can refer to a lot of people. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC) (no relation BTW)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sega AM2 as a useful search term. Is this the same Suzuki affiliated with Square Enix? If so, that may be a better redirect target. As for what it is right now, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) He had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 15:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So while I think redirection is best for now (with no added effort), I would support anyone who wants to later overwrite this title with an article about the former Square Enix president or Japanese anthropologist. – czar 15:42, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shei baba[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic article about a Call of Duty player. Not sure that's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG by a wide margin. Even the ONEEVENT doesn't pass GNG, and the one event would only vouch for a team. Coverage of the team would only vouch for the pseudonym. Coverage of the pseudonym even would not create coverage of the real name user -- much less one without a capitalized last name. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax: no coverage by any source (even self-published). Esquivalience ^t 04:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible autobiography, with no notability able to be established (i.e. no hits on GNews). Note that the alleged real name "Chinmoy Roy" associates with multiple people, and a Bengali Indian actor currently takes its primary topic (though not at the best standing). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No references at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete failure of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 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.