Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 June	23 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) –Davey2010^Talk 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Knight[edit]

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

Article does not meet guidelines for notability of college athletes NCOLLATH Name242669 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive guideline, not an exclusive one. College athletes may also qualify under WP:GNG, and Knight does so. He was (and may again be in 2015) Oklahoma's starting QB. He led the Sooners to an upset victory over undefeated Alabama in the 2014 Sugar Bowl and broke the Sugar Bowl passing record. He has been the subject of extensive and significant coverage in the mainstream media. Some examples are cited in the article, and see also The Times-Picayune, ncaa.com-Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, USA Today piece, CBS Sports, Orlando Sentinel, LA Times, The Advocate, etc. Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Starting quarterbacks in the Big 12 conference normally generate more than enough press to pass WP:GNG, and this one is no exception. WP:ABELINCOLN comes to mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Something odd about this nomination. The nominator's first and only edits concern this AfD. Does anyone else find it strange that someone's first and only edits are to create an AfD? Just doesn't seem like a natural first edit. Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Clearly, it's an odd first edit to nominate an article for AfD, but the mystery does not need to be solved. The subject is clearly notable, and there may be a WP:SNOW closing before we're done here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good eyes. And good reasoning--possible WP:SOCK, but we're close to WP:SNOW as it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable college football player with sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The ESPN and The Oklahoman articles, in combination with those linked by Cbl62 above, are more than enough to satisfy GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close this discussion per WP:SNOW. A college athlete can pass WP:GNG with sufficient coverage in WP:RS per WP:NCOLLATH. This subject clearly does. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:10, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting[edit]

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

As agreed in Talk:Charleston church shooting#Poll on retention of comments from Presidential candidates (participants notified), the quotes made by presidential candidates are not noteworthy or notable. Just because this page is a content fork does not make this respository of statements more relevant or notable. These candidates are not related in any way to the shooting or Charleston, rather these are statements expected of them and are nothing more than news. Discussion of statements, not the quotes themselves, is better suited for Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Display_at_South_Carolina's_state_capitol or United States presidential election, 2016]. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge- This incident has ignited a national debate on race and civil war symbols, and the remarks and comments of 2016 presidential candidates are not only notable but have encyclopedic and historical value. All the content is meticulously sourced, and notability thus asserted. It should be obvious that this is not a POV fork, but rather a subarticle that can be summarized in the main article about the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the article is still in stub mode, and I am improving the article as we speak. Some time needs to be given for articles to fully develop before submitting to an AFD. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources verifying that Person A said "This" and Person B said "That" do not provide notability or appropriateness as an article for the topic "People said things about something"; it provides further notability for the event itself. The comments already made on the talk page make clear that these statements do not provide useful context, nor do these people hold such a special place among all public figures who comment that there should be a WP:UNDUE article just for them. If what Donald Trump and Rick Santorum have to say has historic value, say why in the various main articles, not simply listed in this one. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not referring to such sources. I am referring to the many sources that are commenting on these remarks, this being an issue that has raised to a national debate level. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting snowy, so I join the chorus. I will edit the respective candidates articles to add these comments, and continue developing a longer section on this aspect in the main article. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: can you review and reply to my suggestion below? That seems a better solution than putting this into the individual biographies. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: that may be a good option. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gaijin42 and Ginsengbomb. Redirect and merge info to Charleston church shooting (prefer "comments" as opposed to "reaction"}. If it would be too much info for the article, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the info here, and making this the main article. I'd rather see the info there first though. Though the event sparked the conversation, "Candidates remarks on the Confederate flag" is really another topic altogether.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete/redirect WP:RECENTISM WP:10YT. Nobody is going to care what the various candidates said a year from now, let alone 10 years. To the degree that such opinions are notable and encyclopedic, the should be summarized in the main article. If its too much to fit there, its probably being covered in an WP:UNDUE manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above: In five years time, nobody will take notice of the statements made by uninvolved candidates on this tragedy. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Five years ago, I would not have cared all that much about Mitt Romney's views opposing the display of the Confederate Flag, but the pertinence of his statements from 2008 and 2012 were manifest during this past week. Similarly, if a bunch of 2016 candidates were all wishy-washy on this issue (which has become intertwined with the shooting incident) and then a few years later want to present themselves as having demonstrated "leadership" then I would like to have some references at hand regarding their initial comments in an article like this one. KConWiki (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a possible redirect, there is already a nicely summarized paragraph over at Charleston church shooting#Reactions regarding the candidates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The extent of this article is WP:UNDUE. The "candidates" are not particularly qualified to comment, their statements are no more than personal opinions. The current mention at Charleston church shooting is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this makes little sense as a redirect, and less as an article. WP:UNDUE. WP:10YT. Imagine the amount of articles every Presidential election season would produce if this were an article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's really no need to quote every single person who responded to the shooting. I think a generalized sentence describing all eighteen-plus candidates' reactions is sufficient enough. DisuseKid (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with content from Charleston church shooting#Reactions into a new article, Reactions to the Charleston church shooting, in which this article would form a section. The reactions section in the main article is already quite long, and a separate "reactions" article seems reasonable and with enough scope to be a good length consistent with WP:SUMMARY. VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reactions section is currently at a mere 15,275 bytes which under WP:SIZERULE lists it as "Length alone does not justify division". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: WP:SIZERULE refers to article length, not section length. That section has also been kept edited down to avoid overcoverage within the ~80kB parent article; there is plenty of verifiable content to expand it if there was consensus to do so. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per VQuakr. KConWiki (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The section Charleston church shooting § Controversy and debate includes four paragraphs on the "Confederate flag" issue, which is more noteworthy and encyclopedic than the list in the bottom of this article. The discussion of "the Christian Science Monitor, the shooting has become a precarious subjects for Republican presidential contenders, in particular in regard of the racial motivations" in the main article is already sufficient, and conveys the point without laboring the point with 16 quotes. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even accepting the premise that "election season" is a real two-year thing, this part of that season is tiny. An article about the candidates reactions to all disasters could make sense, or one on all people's reactions to Charleston. But this is way too specific, and isn't likely to grow. The news moves is cycles, and this one is almost through. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PERSISTENCE. While Charleston church shooting is likely to persist, the reactions of presidential candidates will not, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Including some of this information on an individual candidate's page, where it becomes a significant statement from the candidate, may be appropriate. ~ Rob^Talk 05:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, etc. A condensed version would be useful on the main Charleston church shooting article though.LM2000 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There already is over at Charleston church shooting#Reactions, I don't see what more there is to merge without giving undue weight to a candidate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Category talk:Charleston church shooting for discussion about the deletion of Category:Charleston church shooting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Way too many candidates and fluctuating opinions. It is better to do a brief summary in reactions with no redirect.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deserves mention at Charleston church shooting#Reactions but not its own article. Number 5 7 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POV FORK, COATRACK. This will end up being all about what Rick Perry and Hillary Clinton did or did not say. Presidential primary candidates' commentary is not relevant to this or any other tragedy or major event. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per clearly emerging consensus, as well as nom., WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, COATRACK & POV FORK.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete for the reasons given by many others above, eg: NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and suitable coverage already exists elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per historical and encyclopedic value. Should we really presume no future reader could possibly care about these reactions in two or five years? Who is to say, and why would that be a reason to delete? I'm an inclusionist and don't really see what Wikipedia policies this article violates. It is accurately written and sourced. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Not that notable, public figures will always give their opinion. Given the 2016 United States Presidential election, one can expect that most of the candidates to comment on almost any noteworthy event. Most of them said the same thing anyway, and its already addressed in the main article. Either the quotes and sources should be moved to the main article or this whole article should be deleted all together. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Parker (musician)[edit]

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

Don't believe subject has sufficient notability to warrant wikipedia page. There is lack of references, and it appears the subject just has a few songs released on various platforms. Not widely known, and only known for a singular event. Also unable to find any secondary sources such a news articles relating to him. ElijahTheYorkshireman (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be clear, Lewis Parker is primarily known for being a producer, not a performer. Article's sourcing includes a lengthy writeup in Billboard magazine, and Googling reveals quite a few less well-known pubs discussing him, a number of which reference him as being very influential in the UK Hip Hop scene as a producer. This source goes to influence. As does this. I don't think he's blatantly notable, but cursory Googling suggests he's a pretty influential figure in a significant music scene, at least among musicians. Suggestion: helpful to Google "Lewis Parker producer" as well as "Lewis Parker musician". ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC#5, through album releases on EMI and Virgin ([1]). In addition to the Billboard source already included in the article, there are a few online reviews of his albums from reliable sources floating around ([2], [3] & [4]), so I think he also meets NMUSIC#1 and the WP:GNG. I seem to recall that he was nominated for the 1998 MOBO Awards, which is mentioned here, but I'm not sure how reliable that is. — sparklism ^hey! 14:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, his MOBO nomination is mentioned in Billboard here. — sparklism ^hey! 14:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could be improved and aliases may not be wholly encyclopaedic, but he is notable on several levels already cited. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have searched the Guardian and Observer digital archive and Independent archive on Infotrac on the basis that these are the UK national newspapers most likely to have covered him, but can only find passing references - in club and gig guides, an article about Massive Attack, a review of someone else's album which he had produced ... but I still think he's notable despite this. RobinCarmody (talk) 17:08, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia[edit]

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

WP:EVENT that does not pass our notability guidelines. Appears to me to be only two papers which had somewhat peculiar results picked up in a few newspapers, but lacks the notability we would require for important papers or scientific studies. The papers themselves are simply one-off rankings according to a particular algorithm and would be different if run today, obviously. No objection to including some commentary on the papers in Wikipedia space. jps (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. First made aware of this article over at WP:FTN recently, so uninvolved in this. My argument for delete revolves around only one secondary source even giving a hardly passing mention of the book here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, @Kingofaces43:, while this AfD is a spin-off of the The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History which I also believe to likely be of questionable notability, this article is about a different subject. I'm not sure what's with the proliferation of such articles, to be honest. jps (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky article titles indeed. I'll strike my comment for now and maybe check back on this specific article in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oy vey. Somebody comes up with a cockamamie synthesis of rankings (George W. Bush listed first and second in two component rankings???) and has it published. That comes nowhere close to notability, just to ridicule. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there anywhere we can put stuff about Wikipedia that is not in article space? It would be handy to keep track of what people are writing about Wikipedia somewhere in the Wikipedia pages, but this article does not belong in the encyclopaedic part.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, if the study is notable it could be mentioned at Academic studies about Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All-but-worthless study, heavily tainted by WP:Recentism and likely to change from year to year. Not deserving of an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Although the study is promoted as identifying "the most influential people in 35 centuries of human history",[5] here's how random its results are: "Depending on the ranking algorithm these guys use, the most influential figure in human history is either Carl Linnaeus, the 18th century Swedish botanist who developed the modern naming scheme for plants and animals, followed by Jesus; or Adolf Hitler followed by Michael Jackson." --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This ranking is not a reliable one to rank importance of people. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 10:53, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Community Transport[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, The article is pretty much promotional anyway, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks like an advert of a small local bus hire company, which is itself non-notable. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 05:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable organization; whether it is a company or a nonprofit is unclear. (The article describes it as a "social enterprise", although it doesn't seem to offer any services other than transport.) In a search I could find only a couple of passing mentions, in stories about people who drive for it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe that this article satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NCORP at this time. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Office ergonomics[edit]

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

Does not comply with WP:NOTGUIDE. ABCDEFAD _✉ 21:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is also tagged as a speedy-delete, which it is not, but clearly notguide applies. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to guide rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the concept. Judging by the multiple accounts editing, and especially the one named KINE305E which looks like a college course name, this looks like a school project or collaborative research paper. Pinging Ryan (Wiki Ed) just to see if this might be one tracked by the WP Education Program. Crow^Caw 22:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crow: Thanks for the ping. "KINE305E" is indeed the name of a course at a number of schools. The class doesn't look to currently be involved with Wiki Ed, but left messages for the students. Hopefully someone will respond and we can bring the class on board. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This same text is being added with variations to other pages such as Massage and Waiting staff, again by multiple accounts. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious how-to guide is obvious. Occupational safety and health may be related, and has a few uses of the word "ergonomics" but I don't see it major enough to redirect. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaldo Aguirre[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Should have been speedily deleted, but the speedy deletion tag was inexplicably removed by a third party. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent/significant coverage after searches for English and Spanish sources. I notice that there is a Spanish WP entry, but it is just a translation of this one and turns up no new sources. The Spanish entry has been deleted and recreated twice in the last two weeks and is up for deletion again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'm pretty sure the English article (given its faulty grammar) is a machine translation of the es.wiki version. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even though the current Spanish entry is marked as a translation of the English, I do see what you mean. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the references listed in the article don't actually establish notability. They seem to be mostly links to the subject's music on YouTube and other sites, and a blog with a "mini biografy (sic)" of him, which is actually a copy of the Spanish Wikipedia article from what I can tell. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Thanks EricEnfermero (talk · contribs). The article in the Spanish Wikipedia was the reason for my confusion in my first encounter with the article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Isitt[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician and academic whose only substantive or sourced indication of notability is as a municipal councillor in a city not large enough to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on its city councillors (we extend that only to internationally famous global cities.) Further, the sourcing here is almost entirely of the primary variety — there's only one appropriate reliable source here, and it's just supporting a statement about his educational credentials rather than anything that would get him over a notability criterion (and was published nine years before he was actually elected to office, and is also an incomplete "publication + date but with no title" citation). So the sourcing doesn't even approach the volume or quality necessary to claim WP:GNG in lieu of NPOL. He might be able to claim notability as a writer, but that section of the article is completely unsourced (the one acceptable source in the article predates the books too.) Delete unless the sourcing can be massively beefed up onto his academic books instead of his city council seat. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have created stubs on 2 of his books; From Victoria to Vladivostok: Canada's Siberian Expedition, 1917-19 (2010) and Militant Minority: British Columbia Workers and the Rise of a New Left, 1948-72 (2011).--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For both of those, you still need to write a lot more than a single sentence asserting that the book exists — neither one of those articles, in its current form, demonstrates any reason why the books would actually merit standalone encyclopedia articles under our rules for determining the notability or non-notability of books. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:TBK says that a book may be notable because it was published by an academic press. In this case, they both satisfy that criteria. They also satisfy criteria 2 of BKCRIT and GNG with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Let me expand the book articles.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. Satisfies AUTHOR, and GNG and BASIC, with significant coverage in multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN but the book reviews are enough for WP:AUTHOR. On the other hand, the micro-stubs for his books should probably be merged back into this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 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 speedily deleted by User:Seraphimblade per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Delalom Kocuvie-Tay[edit]

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

Promotional. No reliable sources to prove notability. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 18:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11, a fairly clear cut case where this was written to advertise and promote the subject. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:23, 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'. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugoy Drilon[edit]

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

Delete: has not yet met threshold for notability as musician. Possibly TOO SOON Quis separabit? 15:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are better sources overseas, I found nothing (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) with the best being this and this. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:30, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold.[edit]

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

Film that lacks non-trivial secondary support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found - I wasn't able to find anything third party that wasn't just a listing, perhaps it's just too soon? Artw (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it it may well just be a question of WP:TOOSOON. It would have been better to have waited for the premieres, coming soon. Can this be userfied or turned into a draft article? It's not a bad little article and there's a decent chance we'll have a few reliable sources for it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah WP:TOOSOON, I'd support a move back to the draft namespace.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for being TOO SOON. It is admittedly difficult for short doc films to gain the requisite coverage even after release, and even with it soon-to-screen at short film festivals... July 4th in Berlin and July 5th at Mykonos Biennale in Greece, simply screening is not a notability. As it is beginning to catch some minor attention, it can userfied back to contributor Mike300578 with a thank you but a polite explanation that simply screening at even a notable festival is not a notability unless also receiving commentary and analysis in reliable sources... and even if lacking notability enough for its own article, it can always be spoken of in that of its filmmaker, Alexander Tuschinski. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:51, 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stevenson[edit]

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

As of 2006, this page was begun and remaines unaddressed. It is woefully outdated, even neglected.

Whilst I am aware that some of the content discussion on the last nomination for deletion in 2008 made reference to the general publicising of 'Heads of Departments in Universities' and resulted in a 'keep', this page should be considered as not part of this agenda.

Since beginning her work at DCU, Chris Stevenson embarked on a great deal of both professional and personal projects, worked in many different areas and with great success. She had a battle with Cancer for a year and a half and sadly lost this fight in November of 2014.

Whilst the merits of such pages should be considered and not dismissed. It should also be noted that attempting to updaet this page would be a massive (and possibly painful) undertaking and those wishing to argue a 'keep' on this occasion bear this in mind. Find another, more useful source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clothsnake (talk • contribs) 11:10, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Sad that she has died, but that provides the possibility that there is an obituary that would be a good source of information for her. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about the person, perhaps you can look for this and add to the article? As it is now, the sourcing is not strong. LaMona (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no further comment on the nomination itself other than to note that the nominator has no other edits under that account. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update The previous discussion resulted in a clear "keep", and the nomination does not clearly state why this should be overturned: our approach is "once notable, always notable". The fact that the article is outdated is not a reason to delete, but to carry out the updating. Please note that this may be done by any editor, and those who may prefer for personal reasons not to be involved are not required to participate: Noyster (talk), 09:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable in 2008 would not make her less now. Her death, actually makes the arguments for deleting less strong: one of the main points of the notability requirements is the difficulty of policing BLPs. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:33, 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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3 by Nyttend. Esquivalience ^t 21:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate Lubrication Syndrome (ILS)[edit]

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

Probable hoax. I cannot find anything about this. Most of the article is highly implausible. Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on internet and clear hoax; look at text. Irrelevant. CSD tagged. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: If nothing else, the list of celebrities at the bottom confirms this to be an obvious hoax. It's sure to be speedied as per WP:G3. ~ Rob^Talk 17:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, I did consider tagging this CSD G3, but decided to err on the side of caution. Maybe that was a mistake. Adam9007 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting, due to things like "former African nation of Humpbagdo in the early 1600s", treating it with "paste made of ear wax and tears", the syndrome being commemorated on the "sixth Tuesday in December", and seeking medical attention from a "semi-qualified expert". I'll be willing to undelete if someone wants to send this to BJAODN or Unencyclopedia, as I did find it rather funny. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carman-Ainsworth High School[edit]

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

The article is a content fork of the school districts, Carman-Ainsworth Community Schools, by trying to included the history of all high schools in the district, with some highly questionable information. Google and Yahoo searches only turn up routine coverage. The single sourced reliable sources, Mlive/Flint Journal, only adds trivial information about alumni - basically the school only gets passing mention. Thus the article fails Notability's WP:GNG. I have been told that just because it exist that it is notable, but that is contrary to WP:ORGSIG. Spshu (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a sizeable public high school, and the article already has substantial sourcing. As noted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we have a very long consensus to keep articles about schools like this one (recently reconfirmed, for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Esperanza Marquez High School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Livingston High School) and no sufficient reason is stated to vary from that consensus here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again source coverage is routine and/or passing coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason. Spshu (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is actually less than at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department, which still was deleted per the WP:ORGDEPTH arguments as the Mlive/Flint Journal (a single source for notability purpose) talks about the athletes and only mention that they are alumni in passing. NCES is a routine governmental statistic website. Michigan Football source is about Ainsworth High (now CA Middle School) which is not Carman High, the original name for the now, Carman Ainsworth and could be considered a personal website. --Spshu (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - As the nominator stated, he has been informed that high schools have automatic notability, per Arxiloxos and also per WP:Gazetteer John from Idegon (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This keep voter was informed that statement is completely false per Wikipedia:Schools. Per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features): "..are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable" does not mean automatic notability. As this "keep" vote must show notability now that it has been challenged. Spshu (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Gazetteer states: "And Geographical features must be notable on their own merits." Which does not grant any immunity from AfD or notability. Spshu (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes" (WP:WPSCH/AG#N) There is a citation from NCES on the article. The school exists. If you want to argue the guideline, individual articles are about the least effective way to do that. This will be kept, undoubtedly. What exactly were you quoting? And your quote from WP:Gazetteer is an out of context disclaimer on WP:INHERIT. Notability does not perish. An article about a predecessor school is certainly an establishing factor for notability of this school. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCES is not a publisher and since it is statistical information, it is routine coverage per your standard. Existence does not equal notability. You are arguing against WP:School. No, that is the full WP:Gazetteer section quoted (copied & pasted), please actually read what you are referencing. There is no predecessor school to Carman/Carman-Ainsworth and that would be inheriting notability, which is against WP:INHERIT. --Spshu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like with many topics such as population centers, the community wisely decided long ago that there's an inherent notability with high/secondary schools. Instead of editors having to vet and scrutinize the tens of thousand of such topics, time and resources of the volunteers are much better spent creating and improving articles and avoiding discouraging animosity between editors. --Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Note. Again voter ignores the totality of the argument here. Since, you mention it, we are here directly due to another editor's animosity and adversarial stance in his inability to allow the school's article to be redirect (per WP:OUTCOMES) to the school district for it to be incubated there and not find or look to see that the history section of the article is mostly false. Also, being told that AfD is the only place to discuss and that I should know it. --Spshu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only you in the eight year existence of this article that doesn't' want to "allow" this article to exist, this despite every other editor (including two during editing that only you have been reverting) weighing in so far agreeing with long standing precedent on the inherent notability of high/secondary schools. --Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an OTHERSTUFF argument in claim that I am the only one objecting to the article. As every editor is not summoned to weigh in on the article nor force to weigh in on the creation of the article. Every editor cannot review every article at every moment and that is what you are suggesting. You are using the false argument of WP:ARTICLEAGE ("Consensus can change, and an article that was once accepted under Wikipedia's guidelines or just by defacto practice could be put up for deletion.") as Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The number of editors that have edit the article is also a non-issue per WP:INVOLVE. Also, I have seen as pointed out else where here with two articles in the same wikiproject totally different outcomes because closing editors go apparently on and incorrectly on votes based on whether or not outside due to INVOLVE. Second, inherent notability of high schools is false per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." WP:NSCHOOL: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." So making it clear that the precedents have been made incorrectly per the various Notability guideline.

Consensus has long and strongly held that all high/secondary schools are considered inherently notable are are kept as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES. Finding a sub-clause buried in sub-guideline that contradicts consensus (see WP:GAMETYPE) isn't going to change consensus. While you've reminded us consensus can change, you've demonstrated zero evidence it has in this case as you are the only person who wishes this to change. While it might be shocking to you that there are exceptions to the Wiki-lawyering guidelines, they do exist. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You hit it on the head of what I feel has happened. "Bad faith wikilawyering" in proclaiming high school instead of properly "school districts" as inheritable notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#School_districts and "Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy." since NOR applies to schools not automatic notability. Gee that is how I feel the consensus was made, since it does not match up to what is written. So now the previous consensus is being cherrypick and wikilawyered against me as being gaming the system. --Spshu (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The history section could do with a good pruning but apart from that the article fits squarely into the time honoured precedent as documented at OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:OUTCOMES is same as arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF. But if you want to apply it then that it also states: "Schools that don't meet the standard (notability) typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America)..." Thus a non-notable outcome is allowed for schools under WP:OUTCOMES. Additional note, editors have reject my changing it to a redirect so information could be pulled from this article & incubated at the school district article. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, the difference between OTHERSTUFF and OUTCOMES is that OUTCOMES documents a clear precedenr evidenced by hundreds, if nit thousands of near identical AfD closures. That's a very strong precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, OTHERSTUFF also indicates "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty;" "However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS)." Just stating OUTCOMES as a reason is clearly OTHERSTUFF.

Look at who you can notify about an AfD and it is bias against the nominator as he cannot solicit even people that he feels would be neutral, while notification of bias parties like the School project is automatically. In one AfD (since they would not accept a redirect to a full sourced "list of" article, that was forced through an AfD with absolutely flying colors - luckily some neutral parties did show up), the stand alone article passed AfD based on a single primary source (the organization's website) and vague claims of large membership.

Additional, I have point to another OUTCOME where as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." WP:ORG was supposedly applied and even a regional newspaper with lots of direct coverage (some of which wasn't routine, just not apparent how to integrate those news article into the WP article) and an AP article could not help (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department), there is even less here for the CA High School. That AfD is still an outcome for an ORG which applies to schools. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, I'm not quite sure I follow your comment above, but I repeat: OUTCOMES documents a clear precedenr evidenced by hundreds, if not thousands of near identical AfD closures. That's a very strong precedent. That precedent is proven by consistent AfD closures while OTHERSTUFF relates to individual AfD closures or existing 'other' articles and comparing fire departments to schools is comparing apples to oranges. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

←It isn't apples to oranges as they all fall under the Notability for Organizations as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES & WP:NSCHOOL to show that the precedents are incorrect. There for citing precedents that failed to follow Notability for Org & WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a false argument. Claim other precedents under ORG notability don't apply is a false argument.

per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts, school district have inherit notability not high school. As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states: "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. |'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy." And I quoted this again, which you have clearly dismissed despite claiming this as the authority for keeping. Spshu (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES sentence applies to elementary (primary) and middle schools. The part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES you conveniently left out is: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."--Oakshade (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which you fail to note states "most" is not all "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools.." Is is the small part to the other quoted material which as you recommend to see WP:GAMETYPE as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly states WP:ORG applies to "schools and other education institutions" not inherited notability that school district have. Is that not cherrypicking at its finest? Spshu (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Secondary school articles are typically retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward James III[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure whose only substantive claims of notability are as an internal campaign organizer, and an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. These are not claims that satisfy WP:NPOL — a person must win the election and thereby hold office, not merely have their name on a ballot, to claim NPOL on that basis, and we do not extend notability freebies to campaign staff. All of the sourcing here, further, is of either the routine or blogspotty varieties, with not enough substantive referencing to claim a WP:GNG pass on the basis of the coverage itself. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when he wins his seat. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:USUAL caveats if he wins a notable office. Currently fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Coverage seems to be, at best, 'local guy makes good' type of coverage which does not make him notable by Wikipedia standards. Jbh ^Talk 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice, although I disagree with the nominator that all coverage is of a purely routine nature; a couple articles appear to be full-blown profiles, rather than matter-of-course announcements. However, a smattering of local media coverage does not (or should not) qualify as enough to pass GNG. This should obviously be revisited if he goes on to more notable things. TheBlueCanoe 01:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Stemplewski[edit]

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

Non notable film director which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one film, no awards, no coverage, searches turn up only social media. Kraxler (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Discount Centre[edit]

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

This page does not meet WP:GNG. DominosChamp2930 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are two routine announcements and a monthly non-notable award, nor are searches turning up anything beyond routine passing coverage, mainly in the Newcastle Journal which is local to the firm's operation. A firm going about its business, but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy promo advert, no independent sources. Kraxler (talk) 20:31, 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. Consensus is that this law journal is notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) as a non notable student edited journal Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tagged this for speedy deletion in an earlier incarnation, and it was deleted. In a subsequent discussion with the author, I said that the article needed "reputable third-party sources (NOT your website, or blogs, or a Facebook page) that support the journals notability." He has responded with four sources. Unfortunately, one is their website, and the other three are directory and catalog listings. The article asserts that one of the sources provides a ranking, but it's not obvious — certain the link being pointed to does not support the assertion. The article still provides no evidence to support notability. ubiquity (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For law journals, the Washington and Lee ranking is used to evaluate their relative ranking. The site is not very user friendly and one cannot link to search results, but if you rank journals here according to impact factor, this journal ranks 107 among 1640 journals, being way into the top 10 percentile. --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first, almost all U.S. law journals are student run and edited, including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Review. Whether it is edited by students or not is not relevant as to its notability. Second, being listed with an abbreviation in Bluebook in Table 13 means that the journal is used frequently enough in legal citations to merit having it listed. The same thing with being listed as a journal accessible via HeinOnline. This is clearly a notable journal. GregJackP Boomer! 16:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I agree with your "keep" !vote, I disagree with your rationale. Not all law reviews are student edited. The vast majority of US journals are, but even in the US there are exceptions. Being listed in the Bluebook is not generally considered to satisfy WP:NJournals, because it is not selective (it strives to include all law reviews that are cited from time to time). --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I amended my !vote to reflect "almost all U.S." instead of the previous language. I disagree with you on Bluebook, from the language at the start of Table 13, it states [P]rovides abbreviations for the names of select English language periodicals... (at p. 444, 19th ed.). In any event, this is still a notable law journal. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable law review journal. Minor4th 16:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the page to reflect that the Journal is ranked fourth for author submissions for 2013 in the category of "Law and Society," as indicated by ExpressO, a major submission platform for authors of material in U.S. legal journals. It's certainly notable by any measuring device. Tener311 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A relative ranking of 107 out of 1640 in Washington and Lee establishes notability. Whether the journal is student edited is irrelevant to its notability, as that is not unusual for notable (and reliable) US law reviews. James500 (talk) 18:19, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Runcton Priory[edit]

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

As it stands the article does not meet WP:NOTE. The article is unsourced so I searched online and, other then the fact that it existed, I could find nothing to add that would make the priory worthy of having an article. Now if anyone else can find and add info to improve the article I will be happy to withdraw this MarnetteD|Talk 14:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a bit of history on the British History website. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and a lot of siblings) unless expanded during AFD period. I looked at Category:Monasteries in West Sussex. It looks as if User:Starzynka (now blocked) created a string of place-holder stubs in September 2010. Six weeks later he was blocked and declared himelf retired. A few of the articles in that category have substantive articles, but there are a lot of similar stubs. The category probably needs to have a list created as its main article to replace the stubs. I am not saying that an article on Runcton Priory could not exist as a legitimate article, merely that this and its sibling stubs need converting to redlinks in a list article, until someone is prepared to write substantive articles. Material certainly exists to make this possible, but I do not have the time to do it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced stub, no sources to be found, except the abovementioned link, priory ceased to exist in 1260, so the subject may be mentioned in any article on some extant place or some notable succeeding/superior religious organization, if that can be determined. Kraxler (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a softie for historical articles, which IMHO, are what an encyclopedia is all about. Would rather have a wiki full of historical priory stubs than full of mindless articles about pokemon or porn stars. Anyway, found some sources in just a few minutes searching:

The Victoria History of the County of Sussex, Volume 2, [6]
The Victoria History of the County of Norfolk, Volume 2, [7]
Chinchester District Council, Runcton Conservation Area [8]

-- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about historical articles, but the sources you cite are trivial mentions, not in-depth coverage required under the guidelines. #3 has a few words about Runcton Priory but also only in context with the Abbey of Troam and the Priory (later Abbey) of Bruton. Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SoftDelete, nominate other one-liner stubs in the category for soft-deletion, and create a list of them all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete I agree with @Davidwr:, a list of all of them is much better than 1-line stubs. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the DO lectures speakers[edit]

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

List of speakers on a non-notable event, no independent sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 15:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. We do allow "list of" articles for some rather obscure things but we expect them to have an high proportion of blue-linked entries and the proportion here is not high enough. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is basically a disambiguation link farm with a lot of non-notable people. bd2412 T 18:46, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Diver[edit]

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

article maybe about a person or not who might possibly have existed or not and might be notable or not-and is written in just the same rambling tone. Orphan for 7 years. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A surprising number of sources can easily be found about her, starting with the drawing "A Woman in Battle: Michigan Bridget Carrying the Flag"[9][10] the paper Michigan Bridget: Discovering the Truth Behind the Legend (which may be the basis of the article), a half page entry for "Divers, Bridget" (c. 1840-c. October 1915) in American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection, edited by a VMI history professor, a couple of pages in Women in the Civil War: Extraordinary Stories of Soldiers, Spies, Nurses, Doctors, Crusaders, and Others, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the excellent information cited by above by User:Clarityfiend and the bibliography in the article. Because women's activities were in general poorly documented at this time, we should include the information that we do have. Many women felt just as compelled to do something meaningful for the war as men did, and here is important evidence that they did more than roll bandages, and put themselves at great risk to do so. Additionally, the fact that she was mythologized is an important social phenomenon that emphasizes her notability. Peacedance (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 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 speedied by Tomstar81 per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 14:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qymatix Solutions GmbH[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A7/G11 - the author is their marketing and PR manager linkedin.com. Bazj (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next-Gen Text[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage whatsoever. Also possible conflict of interest and advertising. Article author claims to be the developer and copyright holder of the game through the logo image description. The1337gamer (talk) 09:55, 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) The1337gamer (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software 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 unreleased.Dialectric (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of importance and has no references. --Anar chyte 08:30, 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 delete. No prejudice against recreation if the concerns can be addressed. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two stone mill Meibod[edit]

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

Badly translated, barely clear what or where this is, no sources or anything to indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 09:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, no indication of importance. WP:CCOS. (Note: In my revert in the edit history, I meant AfD not SD). --Anar chyte 10:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article appears to be about a horizontal wheel watermill, but fails to demonstrate notability by meeting GNG. No prejudice to recreation if this can be met. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE, either. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jmj (series)[edit]

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

Couldn't find anything on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 08:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Not on amazon or Google books. text is incredibly poor and does not mention why it is notable. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The author of the article wrote it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A speedy close is needed here, not further listing. Again, as I said above, the creator of the article wrote these stories. He made them up. They are really, really not notable. Please see his talk page to understand why. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:42, 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 delete. WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal-Eddeen Abubakar Saleh[edit]

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

Supposedly a "Professor of Public Health," but the article does not specify at which university. Was unable to find out myself in a quick Google search. Also, main author Manny2015 seems to be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 07:58, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Veres Royal[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E - obscure director of marginally notable charity, tangled up with the Clintons.

The article was created by obvious WP:COI editor, now editing as an IP. This particular article smacks of a WP:COATRACK by the article's creator to perpetuate publicity of her relative's accusations against her former employer - Bethbar5 (talk · contribs) has written numerous articles about Sue Veres Royal's family members including Gregory Charles Royal, George C. Royal ‎and added lots of material to articles affiliated with them. The Dissident Aggressor 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Happy Hearts Fund as her name is a plausible search term; agree with nom that there is no need to keep per WP:BLP1E. I would have made this same recommendation even without the whistleblower claims. - Location (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about what I may or may not know about Royals is irrelevant to the merits and facts and weight of the listing. If you delete a person majorly sourced as the subject of a topic of national importance for a variety a of obvious reasons , a person who is now - regardless of whether you approve of the source contributor- an important enough figure to meet the historical bar of a wiki entry then delete her with the thousands of other entries which meet an even lesser standard. Lastly the wiki entry is to memorialize the subject not to perpetuate publicity as arguably the New York Times and several other news sources have done that quite capably BethBar5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethbar5 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I said. The Dissident Aggressor 23:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. One time thingie. There are spotty references] here. Here's the BLP1E rule...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
— Wikipedia rule WP:BLP1E. (boldface by tws).

And I don't see the coverage as being persistent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per BLP1E, event has petered out, as has coverage.... Kraxler (talk) 20:49, 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 delete. Working for big names does not mean inheriting their notability. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treeline Catering[edit]

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

Fails GNG and CORP Sulfurboy (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could only find a single mention in secondary sources, and it's an interview with the owner. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clear advertising page, fails GNG and CORP, as per nominator. The only reliable source is this [11], but that is not sufficient to make a page. mikeman67 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as it seems the company is significant enough to do work for Facebook and a few other big names. At least it has a reliable source. Perhaps there's more if searched extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.22.146 (talk) 18:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Knapp[edit]

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

Knapp's milestone is certainly credible, but I question the ability to which his accomplishments merit an article of their own. As per WP:NPF, he is not known outside of Wikipedia to the point where an article is required. Userify?. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshineisles2: I will recuse myself from an actual !vote on the topic for obvious reasons but I will ask what you think is different for this nomination versus the other two or what you made of the consensus the first two times? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Justin -- the previous nomination(s) used a justification of "notable for one event", whereas I feel that while you have accomplished much, I don't feel like you're a very well recognized figure outside of the immediate Wikipedian community. Many users don't know that there is a running tally of individuals with most edits to their name, let alone who is #1.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:15, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPF is explicitly about people who are "notable enough for their own article" and is guidance for how to write in such cases. It is obviously not a reason to delete the entire page because the notable aspects remain. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Andrew, this is the third deletion discussion and the reason given for deletion is based on a misreading of policy. Bosstopher (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep Ordinarily I'd side with a one event delete, but being a gamer I just can't bring myself to delete and article about the guy who holds the high score. Dethrone him first, then we can talk :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BLP1E requires the subject to be low-profile. The subject was willing to be interviewed, which fails WP:BLP1E. There is quite a bit of coverage; meets WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 21:35, 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 speedy deleted as G7. Jenks24 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny: Hare Beyond Compare[edit]

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

The cartoons are notable but the laser disk release of a collection has no inherit notability. Fails WP:GNG - Unsourced WP:OR Flat Out (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the creator has requested speedy here Flat Out (talk) 06:33, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daffy Duck: Duck Victory[edit]

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

Non notable release, the cartoons are notable but the laserdisk release of a collection has no inherit notability - fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the creator has requested speedy here Flat Out (talk) 06:33, 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) 07:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Le (Computer Scientist)[edit]

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

Receiving best paper award at a single scientific conference is not notability. I do not consider that even a credible assertion of significance. I would have deleted this as speedy A7, but the speedy tag was removed before I got to it. As far as I can tell, he still has not received his doctorate. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe the page should not be deleted because Tuan Le is a formidable force of nature in delay tolerant networking. His accomplishments are profound, especially considering his young age. In my opinion he is notable enough to justify having his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.105.8 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — 75.161.105.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Does not meet general notability guidelines or notability for academics, award is relatively minor --CutOffTies (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a DTN researcher I strongly urge you to reconsider. Tuan has made numerous fundamental contributions to community based routing as applied to DTN. In the community he is know as the Claude Shannon of Community Networking. Mull over that for a second , please. HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mulled over Still say Delete --CutOffTies (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe the article should stay. Tuan is very young, but he is a titan in our field and his body of work constitutes notoriety, in my opinion. I previously worked with Tuan and, though I was fired, having nothing but utmost respect for his achievements. GanapathyONDABEAT (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — GanapathyONDABEAT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete There is nothing on this page that even remotely suggestions Wikipedia-level notability at the moment. The 10 papers are self published sources, which begs the question why a csd deletion on promotional grounds was not entertained in this case, and the only other remaining citation in his article at the time of this publication notes that he went to conference alleged to be notable but lacking substance, a fatal flaw for any article here since content apart from context is meaningless. Frankly, I've read obituaries that contained more information than this article, although I will concede that this second attempt to create an article on an at the moment unnotable collage student is a massive improvement over the original article, which was located at Tuan Le (Student) and was deleted on A7 grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, ICNC is aa top tier conference in networks. From their website "International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communication (ICNC), technically co-sponsored by IEEE Computer Society and IEEE Communications Society, financially sponsored by Technology Innovation Association, is a PREMIER conference in the computer and communications fields. ICNC 2015 is to be held in Anaheim, California, USA, during Feb. 16-19, 2015." It is unprecdented for a Ph.d student to win best paper award at such an esteemed conference(30% acceptance rate). Frankly I find your dismissal of Mr. Le's accomplishments both ignorant and condescending. HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally agree with Hayastan Guard (Ayo!). It is foolish and misguided to assert that a man who, having published the best paper at a PREMIER conference, is not notorious enough to justify a page on a 3rd rate encyclopedia. I can personally vouch for his formidable achievements. GanapathyONDABEAT (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HayastanRepublicanGuard and GanapathyONDABEAT: You have my apologies for any perceived personal attack but my comments stand: From where I sit, according to Wikipedia's standard for notability, your doctor in training isn't there yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am not in the field of computer networking, but I have a technical background. Even I think this page is not a glitch. Basically, I do not understand what all are you saying, as the achievements of this man are clearly enough for notoriety. I bet ten lakhs that other computer networking researchers would agree. Though he does not have PHD degree yet, he is a highly respected member of the community. It is not required to have a PHD degree to be a successful and well known researcher. Glitch glitch11 (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Glitch glitch11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
ADMINS BE ADVISE WE MAY HAVE A SOCK: Both HayastanRepublicanGuard (talk · contribs) and GanapathyONDABEAT (talk · contribs) are fairly new accounts concerned only with this article and this deletion discussion. Both also share a few other traits of similarity, including the absence of userpages, a failure to indent comments, and tendency to back each other up; the latter account also made a previous attempt at creating this article at Tuan Le (Student). There is presently insufficient evidence to make a conclusive case for socking here, however I urge the participants here to keep a watchful eye out on this discussion; if more new-ish accounts emerge or isp editors suddenly take a keen interest in this discussion it may warrant SPI-related action. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the SPI, I have struck all comments from sockpuppets. Be aware that the first comment from IP 75.161.105.8 may be from the same user. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still believe it should have been speedied as an A7, but clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I believe that because there is no clear consensus, the article should be kept as is. I see no reason to delete it, as Tuan Le is one of the true fathers of the field of Delay Tolerant Networking. Augia. Glitch glitch11 (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this !vote as user has already !voted above, one account = one !vote, that is the rule. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is the fact that the article on Tuan Le has never been challenged, yet he is not a notorious figure. While the father of socially-aware delay tolerant networkings page is under question, which is a shame. Glitch glitch11 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining about other articles or adding puffery to the article, you should make policy and guideline-based arguments that he meets the notability guidelines for academics or general notability guidelines. In answer to your question about the poker player, winning two World Series of Poker bracelets and two World Poker Tour titles clearly establishes his claim towards notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. His articles are too recently published to have significant publications, so WP:PROF#C1 seems out of reach, and there is no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Certainly a best-paper award is not enough by itself. In addition, most of his publications are with a single more-notable co-author, Gerla, so even if they were highly cited it would be difficult to disentangle their contributions and determine how much of their notability should reflect on the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice CV. Smart guy. But a grad student who, according to the link in the article, just passed quals a month ago is highly unlikely to be notable. No evidence that he passes the criteria for academics. WP:TOOSOON. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 would probably have been appropriate. Anyway, fails WP:GNG (couldn't find significant coverage) and WP:TOOSOON. APerson (talk!) 03:59, 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 speedily deleted by User:JzG as per WP:G7. (Non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 14:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road Runner vs. Wile E. Coyote: If At First You Don't Succeed...[edit]

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

No notable release. The cartoons are notable but the laserdisk release of a collection has no inherit notability - fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the creator has requested speedy here Flat Out (talk) 06:34, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meeples' Choice Award[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (awards)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirement. Prodded in the past, deprodded by User:Andy14and16 [12] with "remove prod, completely verifiable" rationale. As far as I can see it, this award, now defunct (?), received no independent, reliable coverage, and survives only through BoardGameGeek wikia, where it belongs - but is way too minor for us. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An award given out by an internet forum, that only seems to be mentioned (or regurgitated as listicles) on other internet forums and blogs does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG, specifically self-published sources. Most forums merely indicate these awards exist, but mere verifiability does not guarantee an article's retention. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:00, 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 10:09, 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 02:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no independent sources turn up in web searches. Kraxler (talk) 21:05, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aksi Cepat Tanggap[edit]

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

My searches only found News links and some at Books; Highbeam and Thefreelibrary found nothing. As I'm not from Indonesia or speak the language and wondered if the sources were enough for notability, I asked User:Crisco 1492 for his input and he doubted this was notable so I'd like to hear from other comments. Crisco 1492 You're welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been able to find very little on this organization, and none of it very detailed. If we had an article on the parent organization (Dompet Dhuafa) I'd recommend merging, but we don't. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 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 10:06, 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 02:01, 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. While participation is low in this AfD despite multiple relists, the consensus is clear that there isn't in-depth coverage for the subjects. —SpacemanSpiff 05:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aseem Ahmed Abbasee[edit]

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

The subject lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, independent reliable sources. All cited sources just name mention once or so only. sami ^talk 05:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:1 of the editor on this page is named as Aseemahmedabbasee and it is a clear attempt to gain publicity....original author of page is Myselfanwer and this user is responsible for creation of page Yaseen Anwer, further this user Myselfanwer is involved in creating pages about people linked with Poets Corner Group...it appears to be an attempt to gain publicity and advertise this group and people linked with it....further no independent notability can be established for this person/page...Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 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 02:01, 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 merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Space Shuttle Programme[edit]

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

This page just gives the information about the already present RLV-TD and also some unverified reports about a "Hyper-Plane" project. The Indian Media Reports the RLV-TD as "Indian Space Shuttle". This could have led to confusion and therefore the creation of a separate page. I thus think this article is worth for deletion. M.srihari (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Comment: RLV Technology Demonstration Programme, the target of one of the links above, is in an even worse state than the article under discussion. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, That's true. Serious Repair work need to be done in that page. Perhaps, with some government Approved Data(http://www.isro.gov.in/technology-development-programmes/reusable-launch-vehicle-technology-demonstration-program-rlv-td). And, Your views on Indian Space shuttle?(http://www.pc-tablet.co.in/2015/05/23/9082/india-builds-indigenous-reusable-space-shuttle-test-july-2015/)M.srihari (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

Delete Indian Space Shuttle Programme. The articles Indian Space Shuttle Programme, RLV Technology Demonstration Programme and Avatar (spacecraft) are highly confusing and an ordinary reader cannot perceive the difference between those projects. If Avatar and ISSP are two different projects, there has to be more than a source suggesting that one of the project, apparently ISSP, was abandoned. But there were no such news of such an abandoned project and to add to this, the word Indian Space Shuttle Programme is the name of a non-existing program!?
In the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s India had plans to develop the small Space Shuttle named Hyperplane that would to be orbited by non-reusable launchers. Then plans differed to project Avatar (spacecraft) as a single-stage system.
are the only lines in the article which suggests avatar is different from ISSP. If that's the case, the first sentence doesn't have a source, and the second sentence is highly confusing. I suspect a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Avatar will also be a single stage system after the test flights. ISSP, as stated in the source, is noted as a vertical take-off vehicle. Coincidentally, RLV-TD is also a vertical take off vehicle. Avatar is an SSTO and RLV-TD is an TSTO. But even this could be challenged by the primary source (ISRO) which states,
RLV-TD is a series of technology demonstration missions that have been considered as a first step towards realizing a Two Stage To Orbit (TSTO) fully re-usable vehicle.
since RLV-TD is the first step towards Avatar, does that mean Avatar is a TSTO? The images used in the sources of ISSP are identical to the Avatar or RLV-TD. As only one source suggests that ISSP is different from Avatar which does not coherently explain the aspects, I consider this a WP:CRYSTALBALL and support the deletion. P.S, I reserve the right to change my decision if someone comes with a better explanation/source and clears the dubiousness. --JAaron95 (Talk) 08:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC), edited--05:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no knowledge of an Indian space shuttle and so I have no !vote at this time. Note though that this is not a space shuttle, it is an article on a space shuttle, and it is not about a space shuttle itself, it's about the programme around one. So it does not matter if there was a space shuttle or not, there can still be a an article about it. If "Let's build a space shuttle" became a topic of debate in the Indian parliament or ISRO, then that's enough for an article. If it then turned into no more than a political scandal (with no aerospace work at all), but maybe some bribery or pork-barrelling (these things happen a lot around large government programs) then it could still be a notable topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme and possibly rename Indian space shuttle programme. This project/ship appears to be commonly referred to as a space shuttle, and that is a better descriptive title than the generic "RLV technology demonstration." [13] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme, it one and the same. Don't need two redundant articles. N2e (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles since there's a bit of non-overlapping content, once that's done, the title should be that of this article since this is the more generic name while the other is project specific. —SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles. No reason for essentially redundant articles, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable; effectively something that never actually happened. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was never more than a concept, thoroughly fails WP:GNG, no actual content in article. Scr★pIron^IV 17:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as some users suggested because the program itself is not notable. This topic is closely related to "Avatar" project and RLV-TD, so it is better to merge. Supdiop ^talk 10:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; this article is about something entirely theoretical, but still possibly contains some nuggets of information—not enough for an article, but perhaps for a section of an article, such as noted above. Or, as SpacemanSpiff suggested, merge RLV Technology with this article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page may be created out of good faith instead of vandalism, but is highly unnecessary.Mao Martin (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Mao[reply]

Note - The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet of M.srihari (nominator). Supdiop (talk) 15:50, 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 09:36, 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 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RLV Technology Demonstration Programme. The information here doesn't need to be in a separate page. APerson (talk!) 18:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is a duplicate of an entry in the the World Heritage Encyclopedia: INDIAN SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAMME. Which is released under CC by SA. I don't know enough to say if there is new content here, main new thing is suggestion "In the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s India had plans to develop the small Space Shuttle named Hyperplane that would to be orbited by non-reusable launchers." Can't find any evidence yet in a google search that it did. If it did, then presumably not a major initiative. If that's so, I'd go with merge, and mention this in one of the other articles. If it didn't, then there doesn't seem to be any new content here at all. Users may search for "Indian Space Shuttle Program" - so I wonder if a redirect might be better than a delete if there is nothing to preserve. Robert Walker (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note though that this page is an entry in Template:Indian space programme so if decision is made that it is no longer needed, a redirect would be better than a delete, or that template should be edited.
Comment Another thought - this title is better than the other two as a general article on the Indian space shuttle program, as it covers them both rather than just one or the other project. Maybe this article should be edited to summarize the other two projects, plus any information about a previous space shuttle plan if there was one? Basically take the ledes of the other two articles and merge them back into this one. They are all rather "stubs" - depending on some enthusiast with detailedd knowledge of the Indian human spaceflight program to expand them. So maybe we should just keep them all separate but improve this one in that way... Robert Walker (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robertinventor:: World Heritage Encyclopaedia is a mirror of our article(s). A merge and using this title does appear to be the best option.—SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the name "Indian Space Shuttle" is a media buff. Using it as the name of a page or a section might be confusing as the name space shuttle belongs to that of US RLV. So, naming the section as Indian TSTO might be helpful.Mao Martin (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Mao block evasion[reply]
Merge with RLV Technology Demonstration Programme, which is not a great article, but if the two concepts are one and the same, that other title is more neutral. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 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 merge to Nathan Moore (U.S. musician). – czar 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise Me Mr. Davis[edit]

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

This article is nearly 5 years old and there is still not a single reliable reference. No indication of notability, and fails WP:NMUSIC. mikeman67 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rather lavish attention for a group/record that Allmusic only indicates existed (i.e. no write up, no rating, no review). It appears to be either vanity or fan writing. The references are, at their best, to an interview. Otherwise, they're gig notices and reviews in small press. Therefore, I have to agree that the band/record does not pass notability for musicians. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nathan Moore as it seems he is always mentioned with the band with my searches finding this, this (some more magazines, though I'm not familiar with them) and this. There's nothing to suggest this has significant, notable and independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Could you clarify if you mean Nathan Moore (U.S. musician), or Nathan Moore (English musician)? And when you say, "move", do you mean "redirect" or "rename"? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean "merge". Kraxler (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 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 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nathan Moore (U.S. musician), this band is not independently notable. Kraxler (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and request that the closing admin turn the page into a redirect immediately, without waiting for the content to be merged. The page history will still be there for editors to merge the content from. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's so urgent that the usual process of simply tagging for merge isn't sufficient? It's been here for 5 years. Another few days won't hurt anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Twists[edit]

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

Created by SPA, article has list of non-reliable sources. Appears to be advertising type page and my own search came up with no significant coverage. mikeman67 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not familiar with some of the sources listed and my searches found nothing significant here, here and here. The only possible move target is Pentland Group but it seems they're only a minority stakeholder so deleting may be best for now. SwisterTwister talk 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 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 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional advert, no coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 21:26, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travertine Mart[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. All references on the article are either unreliable sources that are very promotional in nature, or simply passing mentions of the company, separate from the substantive content of the story. There only seems to be one potentially reliable source, and a story about a company being used in a single episode of a DIY Network show is not enough to establish WP:N. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Unfortunately, there is no significant and notable coverage and my searches provided no help here, here, here, here and here. The article is neat and sourced but there's not much solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 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 02:00, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitraser[edit]

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

Article cites two sources, one is a recycled press release and the other is nugatory. There is no evidence of the significance of this product. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Though this product is relatively new in the market, so source of evidence require some time to put on the page. Also what other kinds of evidence require to prove notability? Please suggest so I can find some of those. Amitpandey21 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a guide to Wikipedia:Notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from some links at News. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more references to make authenticity of this page, please review & suggest. Amitpandey21 11:55, 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 01:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Africa Command#History (2000–2006). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magharebia[edit]

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

Redirect to USAFRICOM. Not notable. It was a news website operated by USAFRICOM and ~~could be~~ is now included in that article. Current article content is not worth merging. Website blanked early 2015. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC) updated Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website magharebia.com was created in 2005. It is currently blank, as in the domain is active, but there is no HTML or any other code on any page. This was done sometime between January and April 2015, see Internet Archive. There are have only been a few minor mentions in The Washington Post over its entire existence: WaPo search. The website could be a small mention at USAFRICOM, but the current article is not worth merging. I found only one Google News mention of the closing of the website here, dated February 13, 2015. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply mention at USAFRICOM and move to that - My searches here, here, here and here found nothing to suggest solid and in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 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 01:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added material to United States Africa Command#History (2000–2006). This should be sufficient coverage of Magharebia and allow for ~~deletion~~ redirection of this page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:57, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Langoor (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. All references on the article are either dead links, unreliable sources that are very promotional in nature, or simply passing mentions of the company, separate from the substantive content of the story. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest solid notability aside from some of the current links. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 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 00:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Thanhoffer[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Other than the Bangalorean article, written by the user who created this article, there are no sources that discuss Thanhoffer in a reliable manner in anything more than just a mere mention of him. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 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 01:46, 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. The subject meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Cafasso[edit]

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

Subject of biographical article fails general rules on notability. Commenters are reminded that merely having reliable sources is not enough for a biography. This particular individual appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT and fails both WP:PERP and WP:PERSISTENCE due to lack of coverage beyond contemporary news sources. Legitimus (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Legitimus (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to demur from the nomination, because this appears to be a serial fraudster whose career in these matters may not be over. In other words, he got RS coverage for frauds, but then he got them again. Further, I can see, thanks to the Outfoxed role and the ongoing conversations about parallel worlds of "experts" employed by left and right "bubbles" in the US, his being a searched term. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:08, 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 01:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cafasso inherently falls under fringe rules. His comments in "Outfoxed" are clearly an example of fringe. His other involvements have almost all been fringe. There is not the sourcing to establish notability against those rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person's commentary being fringe, which I'm granting for the sake of argument, does not mean they are not notable enough for an article. Can you quote the rules you are referring to? Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the subject of a long profile in the New York Times meets WP:GNG by itself. There is other coverage in RS as well. The article needs work, but Cafasso is notable. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:43, 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 merge to Girl Scout Cookies . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Brinton[edit]

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

This article is highly promotional; many claims contained in it do not appear in the source material, and there are no inline references. I do not believe the subject passes WP:N. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Girl Scout Cookies#Sales as she's obviously best known for her time with the Girl Scouts with my searches finding multitude links here and here but nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Merge proposal? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not, it's probably better as a simple redirect as the current info at Girl Scout Cookies suffices, I think. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous sources here but I agree article seems WAY too long, please trim 90% of the fat; basically should only be a few lines saying EB holds record. If article is not trimmed maybe it should be merged as above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has good coverage, as above, but a lot of work needs to be done to use these in the article matching sources to unsourced statements and removal of information that goes into too much depth without reliable sources, which I have started. If it comes down to it I also support merging to Girl Scout Cookies#Sales but more than a few sentences as some information relates to her record being beaten. — Jordan Mussi ^Talk 16:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge -sourcing is great. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girl Scout Cookies#Sales, as that is what she is chiefly known for. If kept, the article needs a complete rewrite because it reads more or less as hagiography at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or Merge. There's no doubt the sources are sufficient, but this is written more like a promotional essay than an encyclopedia article. If kept as a stand-alone article, needs a lot of editing for style and trimmed to a fraction of the current size. But, a merge to Girl Scout Cookies isn't out of the question either. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Blackwell[edit]

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

This article needs to be deleted because it lacks notability, and fails to meet the guidelines for that aforementioned issue. This article is just an example of unwarranted sense of self-importance. Why don't we go ahead and make a Wiki page for every person on the Earth too? Everyone's pets, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.98.207 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. No opinion. ansh 666 20:48, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she has received some coverage as shown here and here but there's nothing to suggest she has independent notability aside from the company (further searches at Highbeam and Thefreelibrary found nothing of course). SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no additional references and thus nothing that would contradict the conclusion reached by SwisterTwister or support a finding of notability. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current "sources" really don't meet WP:RS -- further, the article does not say what, if anything, LB is notable for. My news sweeps did not reveal anything much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Although there is some support for pure deletion, none address why a redirect would be inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natchitoches Parish Detention Center[edit]

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

Another editor thought this absolutely empty article about an obviously non notable government organization did not qualify for speedy A7, so here we are. John from Idegon (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed. Absolutely no notability as per WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE. BTW, who was it that thought did not qualify? I see no interaction on the page- just you adding then removing the CSD tag!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It had been listed for CSD in May by another editor, and then the tag removed as inapplicable.[14] I agree that it doesn't fit into what we mean by "organization" in the criteria, because (AFAIK) we don't consider units or agencies of governments within that term, and even if we did this is a facility. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable lockup belonging to a sheriff's office of dubious notability itself. RS interest is limited to routine and incidental coverage from the local papers. (Arrested people are booked there). • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, which already mentions it, and broaden the "prison" section to law enforcement generally (and also redirect Natchitoches Parish Sheriff's Office there). postdlf (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a plausible redirect to the parish or the sheriff's office, this is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). Content is mergeable. A7 is absolutely out of the question. A prison is clearly a building. A building is not an organisation. Might well be notable. Not opposed to actually keeping this. The "find sources" links above do not produce all the sources, firstly due to it having other names, and secondly due to Google's problem with speech marks. For example, a search for Natchitoches Parish Jail (without speech marks) in GBooks produces quite a few relevant results that don't come up when speech marks are used (including some that should come up). Reliable coverage is not limited to newspapers, local or otherwise. There is stuff in GBooks, in particular. Had a capacity of 67 in 1981: [15]. (Presumably that means 67 inmates). James500 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact, in view of the coverage in more than 120 results in GNews for "Natchitoches Parish Detention Center" alone, and the coverage elsewhere, I am positively in favour of keeping this. James500 (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of these ghits are passing mentions, usually saying suspect X "was booked into the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center." No in-depth coverage about the facility. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A statement to the effect of "X was detained in the prison" is coverage about the prison. It might even be worth mentioning in the article if X is sufficiently famous. Significant coverage is more than one trivial mention, but hundreds of brief mentions might contribute something to notability. I would have thought that the fact that something was constantly in the press was an indicator of notability. It suggests that the prison is impossible, or at least difficult, to ignore. "Overwhelming majority" isn't all of them, so what about the others? The coverage in GBooks looks detailed. For example, the National Jail and Adult Detention Directory contains what looks like an encyclopedia article on the prison. The material in The Last Hayride is not a trivial mention, which, to me, means something like an entry in a phonebook. Neither is the coverage in Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, which gives statistics, over no less than four pages, about the inmates who claim to have been sexually abused there. James500 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of those news sources being "about" the jail is not consistent with consensus interpretation of GNG. News stories saying that suspect X was detained there don't become more than trivial and incidental mentions just because there have been hundreds of them because that doesn't in any way help us write an article about the jail itself. And judging from the Gbooks view, the National Jail and Adult Detention Directory is just that, a directory of all jails, which just lists contact info, year of construction, and the names of the sheriff and warden. That's far from an "encyclopedia article". The Last Hayride material talks about the jail only regarding a former sheriff's policies there in the context of a single parish sheriff election. I don't think that or statistics from a national DOJ survey (Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates) provide a basis for a standalone article on this jail, not when you imagine what a spotty and ultimately trivial article would result. I'd expect all state or federal prisons to merit articles, but this is merely a county jail (LA calls counties "parishes"), which the aforementioned Directory said had a mere staff of 5 in 1995 (while prisons may have hundreds). Given all of that, the level of appropriate coverage for this jail would seem to be one or two sentences in an appropriate article noting the jail exists and relating core facts such as capacity, and/or inclusion in a list of prisons/jails/detention facilities for the state. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus interpretation of GNG. If there was any consensus, it would by now be included in the guideline in express words. And where would this consensus come from? Show me the specific RfC in question if there is one. What the news stories have done is to compile a lengthy list of people detained in the prison, and the circumstances of their detention, presumably because they consider it important. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it? It would be technically feasible for us to reproduce that, thereby providing a means of expanding the article. BLP might prevent us from including that immediately, but (barring major advances in medicine) it won't apply forever (because, in the present state of things, people do eventually die), and it doesn't affect the notability of a place for which there are other sources. The National Jail and Adult Detention Directory also includes, in addition to the things you mentioned, rated cap, number of staff, number of COs, planned changes (namely a new facility), size of "op budget" (nearly a quarter of a million dollars), "pop" (presumably population/number of detainees), size of cap budget and total admissions: [16]. That looks like a detailed encyclopedia article to me, and some of the articles in the book (for bigger prisons) are even more detailed. For our purposes, a "directory" is a bare list with no annotations other than contact details, like a phone book. It will not mention age or size (whether in terms of numbers of people or the amount of money). Just because a book labels itself as a "directory" doesn't mean it is one for our purposes. Whether The Last Hayride "talks about the jail only regarding a former sheriff's policies there in the context of a single parish sheriff election" is irrelevant, as GNG says that the topic need not be the primary subject of the source. That book discusses the prison directly and at great length. I can't see any grounds for excluding the DOJ statistics either (which I note were republished by a commercial bookseller). I am not convinced that coverage of criticism based on the presence of pornography in, or the absence of religious services from, the prison is a trivial subject (even if federal law is the cause). Statistics on sexual abuse certainly will not make for a trivial article. I don't think that an article based on the available sources would be "spotty", but in any event, I don't see that as a valid objection, as there are many historically important topics for which only "spotty" information is available. And there are other sources in GBooks. I think an adequate description of this jail would take more than one or two sentences (unless they are unusually long sentences). I don't think the number of staff is the relevant number. I think the relevant number is the maximum capacity (which seems to have been 67 prisoners in 1981). James500 (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As the nominator, redirecting to the Parrish would be a completely acceptable outcome for this. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I don't even see the need for a redirect —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R, our guideline, we only delete plausible redirects if they are positively harmful. This doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion. It does however satisfy many of the criteria for keeping, including navigation, facilitating accidental linking, avoiding creation of duplicate article, preserving useful page history etc. James500 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster High characters[edit]

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

Basically, commercial and fan trivia of no encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Nothing particularly commercial, info verifiable, and fans are people, too, and deserve to be informed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three sources in the article, all WP:PRIMARY from either the doll line's website or a YouTube channel promoting a paint-by-numbers YA tie-in? For such a long article, this is beyond unacceptable. This has managed to get much worse than it was in 2013. At most, redirect to Monster High#Characters, where the main characters that actually appear as more than vague in-jokes three people would get are sufficiently summed up rather than 100 words about some mummy cat a septunary character may have owned in webisode #149. But as it is, three primary sources and no others in an article would guarantee delete in most cases. And in response to Staszek, Monster High fans are well-informed; there's an entire wiki about the franchise; we're not here to be the only source about Monster High minutia. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge The list can be trimmed to the six original release characters who get prominent marketing on the official website, and whoever else is designated as main from the TV series and videos, but that can be summarized on the main franchise article. However, the franchise does have 70+ characters with dolls, and has grabbed a notable share from the Barbie franchise. And since I placed the primary and secondary source on this article, I would like that to be retained as useful information. You can exclude the youtube video or convert that to a cite episode. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 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 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't merge. It is common in articles to spin off "List of ..." to keep the article from becoming too big. This is a popular doll franchise. We have List of Barbie's friends and family and List of Bratz characters. As Wikipedia attracts more female editors, there will be more articles about female interests. Dolls are an active area for adult collectors. Wikipedia is already home to everything you could possibly want to know about the 721 Pokemon characters. See Category:Lists of Pokémon. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing them with briefer descriptions as with Barbie's friends and family could work. I would still limit the list to the ones with actual dolls and the main characters from the novels and cartoons, which my 2015 edits have done. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is a good page to list the characters of Monster High regardless if either of them have dolls or not. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be limited to the ones with dolls and major characters from the books and cartoons. It should not be an exhaustive list of guest stars, pets and parents. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn following finding of reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Durdondo[edit]

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

~~Non-notable navel vessel. Two of the three refs are link dead and the third doesn't mention the subject. Some stuff in google, but nothing reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdraw per reliable source found by User:Worldbruce. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three links are now working. The sources describe pennant number P-8128 as BNS Dordanda, so the title of the article may be incorrect. It may be a case of different ways to transliterate a Bengali name. Worldbruce (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the links are repaired, article should be kept. And for spelling controversy, Dordanda and Durdondo have the same pronunciation in Bangla. Sf-000 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The problems seem to be fixed so I suppose there's no need to delete the article. I'd suggest a rename if the website seems to be using BNS Dordanda. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note the links have been repaired to https://web.archive.org URLs, but none of these sites are reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 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 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the absence of a deletion sorting for ships, I've pinged WikiProject Ships for their input. Worldbruce (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precedent suggests a strong consensus favoring presumptive notability for named warships. I cannot remember an AfD that resulted in the deletion of an article about a named warship that was proven to exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ad Orientem I'm happy to withdraw my nomination if there's a reliable source which can be used to prove this ship exists, but I'm not seeing one. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stuartyeates. See this list. The website appears to be pretty authoritative on all matters pertaining to the Bangladesh Armed Forces. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page 11 of this US Department of State budget document for 2014 includes a line item for one student from the BNS Dordanda taking the course "OJT-Cutter Transfer Training (High Endurance Cutter)" at Coast Guard PACAREA Alameda, California. Worldbruce (talk) 08:15, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corbet Woodall[edit]

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

Non-notable newsreader and actor (who mostly played newsreaders) and my searches found nothing significant here, here, here and here (all passing mentions and the last two Highbeam and Thefreelibrary have the same results and Newspapers Archive search found nothing). As a possible move target, the only possibility is List of The Goodies guest stars. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 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) 07:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Woodall was "known to millions in the early 1960s" as this obituary states. This gives some detail on his posts as TV and radio presenter, and this lists appearances in The Goodies and in films. This reminiscence contains information on his later broadcasting career. He figures in a work of fiction as a "familiar face". The article should stay and become better referenced: Noyster (talk), 14:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; agree with Noyster, a familiar face to Britons in the 1960s and 1970s, even if we didn't always know his name. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have said - a prominent face on British national TV in the 1960s/70s, definitely meets notability requirements. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Supermarket[edit]

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

No assertion of significance, notability is vague (or nil, as no references are included). If the article is about a well known landmark, it does not emphasize on the land mark rather than the subject itself. Delete, as a proposer. JAaron95 (Talk) 05:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG per ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. Also, I feel that an assertion of importance is existent in the article, as the market/mall being one of the first supermarkets in Petaling Jaya. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Landmark neighbourhood mall in Petaling Jaya to reopen its doors". The Star.
^ "Nostalgic new mall launched". The Star.
^ "Malls start refocusing on suburbs". The Star.
^ "Jaya Supermart Collapse: 'Something not done right'". The Star.
^ "Jaya Supermarket demolition done without approval". The Star.
^ "Firms charged over lack of safety in supermarket collapse". The Star.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:04, 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 01:30, 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) Kraxler (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muvizu[edit]

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

Promotional article of non-notable product. A quick google search doesn't come up with any reliable sources. All references (other than the ones that 404) point to their own site. Been tagged for notability for two years. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A google source found five references. ([17][18][19][20][21]) While 3 of them are from the same website and I'm not certain about the reliability or usability of the last one, I believe there are enough references to support a semblence of notability. Pishcal — ♣ 01:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 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 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Pishcal's findings appear to demonstrate notability. --Jpcase (talk) 23:15, 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tachikawa-ryu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has serious reliability and verifiability problems. The overwhelming majority of this article traces back to John Stevens who is not reliable. Mr. Stevens believes that Tachikawa-ryu persists to this very day as some sort of secret underground sex cult. Additionally Stevens’s “Tantra of the Tachikawa Ryu” is a work of erotic fiction and certainly not a reliable source. The Tachikawa-ryu article on Japanese Wikipedia may or may not have reliable sources, but they aren’t doing this article any good, and there’s no indication that they ever will.

Additionally, parts of the article are written from such a ridiculously in-universe perspective as to be totally incomprehensible. This article has been tagged for years; it’s high time it got deleted. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adds Japanese {{Find sources AFD}}, and definitely reveals multiple books and news dedicated to the school (on various stances, I might add). It should be noted that I find after a cursory read that sourcing here is much deficient compared with the vast amount of text in the body. I have no objection to a WP:TNT to start over if editors with expertise here thinks so. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument was made during the last deletion discussion four years ago. Since then these allegedly reliable sources have not found their way into the article. If there are no editors with the language skills, willingness, and competence to fix the article then all the sources on Earth aren’t going to help. Should we really keep a bad article around indefinitely because it might get better? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added two external links and three literary sources, one of them by the renowned Buddhologist Faure. Otaku00 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read those “two external links and three literary sources” before you put them into the article? In the PDF you linked to the author argues that the manuscripts which can definitely be traced to Tachikawa-ryu do not include any “perverse” teachings. He argues that the skull ritual and other sexual elements attributed to Tachikawa-ryu were wrongly attributed to it and that they should, instead, be attributed to a different unnamed school. The PDF that you linked to directly contradicts the article as it currently exists. It suggests that virtually nothing is known about Tachikawa-ryu except its name, the name of its founder, the date of its founding, and that it was heterodox. If anything this seems to make an even stronger case for deletion because the current article doesn’t describe Tachikawa-ryu, instead it describes the unnamed school that Tachikawa-ryu is wrongly conflated with. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to withdraw the nomination. The article is in terrible condition, but I now believe that the state of the scholarship is such that it might permit a small but encyclopedic article to be written about Tachikawa-ryu. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to West_Nyack,_New_York#Landmarks_and_places_of_interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland Center for the Arts[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 NY Times sources, unfortunately there all just notices about events, so show they had a few events, not any actual notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 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 03:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to West_Nyack,_New_York#Landmarks_and_places_of_interest or mention at Maxwell Anderson as an alternative to deletion. The best my searches found (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Nyack, New York § Landmarks and places of interest. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I'm also okay with a redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Nyack, New York § Landmarks and places of interest. I added info on Maxwell Anderson and citations there. Nothing else noteworthy in current article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:58, 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 speedy delete. Creation by blocked sock, with an AfD that was clearly headed for delete. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Even C It[edit]

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

Non-notable song. I can’t find significant coverage of the song in independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 00:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) —teb728 t c 00:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's because it was a promotional song, that Motown sent to for radio air play ONLY Kandiwell 10:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per admission by article's author that the song is not notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have a look at Ciara's That's Right it's a promotional single too; if Can't Even C It goes so should That's Right Kandiwell 20:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason "That's Right" is notable is because of its reviews. (What reviews does "Can't Even C It" have?) I bet that "That's Right" was not "sent to for radio air play ONLY". Ordinarily the title of a non-notable song would be redirected to the article on its notable album, but Introducing...Dina Rae is even more insignificant than "Can't Even C It". —teb728 t c 21:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have the single but it not really as known as And? or the Eminem + Dina Rae Superman collaboration but IF and only IF you (Kandiwell or anyone) can find more information IE background + shizz then yeah keep it Losthirsty (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Losthirsty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note The author, Kandiwell, has been blocked as a sock of banned MariaJaydHicky. I suspect Losthirsty as well, but there hasn't been anything official done. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The song exists, and that's about all that can be verified. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable song. Article created by sockpuppet of banned editor MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5, sock of User:MariaJaydHicky. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Sadharan Bima Corporation[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all primary or unreliable and thus unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article references two books published by the University of Dhaka. The company is also covered in depth in Karim, Muhammad Rezaul (2012). "Sadharan Bima Corporation". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh., which I've always found an excellent indicator of notability for Bangladesh-related topics. It's also covered regularly in the press such as in this series of reports about the reintroduction of crop insurance:

Jahangir, Rahman (23 February 2013). "Crop insurance: A blessing for our farmers". The Financial Express.
Jahangir, Rahman (26 April 2013). "Motivating farmers for crop insurance". The Financial Express.
"Special allocation for crop insurance sought". The Financial Express. 2 June 2013.

The article needs improvement, but the topic meets WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep , company is notable, ^[1] is large state owned corporation. topic meets WP:CORP Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "SBC warned as Tk 4.0b premiums lie in arrears".

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

[1] "Landmark neighbourhood mall in Petaling Jaya to reopen its doors". The Star.

[2] "Nostalgic new mall launched". The Star.

[3] "Malls start refocusing on suburbs". The Star.

[4] "Jaya Supermart Collapse: 'Something not done right'". The Star.

[5] "Jaya Supermarket demolition done without approval". The Star.

[6] "Firms charged over lack of safety in supermarket collapse". The Star.

[7] "SBC warned as Tk 4.0b premiums lie in arrears".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]