Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 29

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Speedy delete. Deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Necropenis

Necropenis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I had a mind to put this up for speedy deletion, but I wasn't sure enough, so here I am: this article is probably a hoax. The name, "Necropenis", is bullshit. There is nothing that I can find that verifies it, and the only source leads to a a blog or forum of some sort. Even if it isn't a hoax, it doesn't have sources to support an article under the general notability guideline or the guideline for bands. ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as hoax - I tagged it as a hoax. I notice they took the names of two real musicians (Per Ohlin and Jørn Stubberud) and created "Jørn Ohlin" and "Per Stubberud" as the founding members. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - likely under WP:G3, but even if it's not a hoax, WP:A7 would apply. (Was going to tag it as such before the edit confict.) Inks.LWC (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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 Special relativity. There is no consensus for any specific outcome (delete, redirect, merge or keep), but there is consensus for the view that we should not have a separate article about this. So I'm closing this as a redirect as the least destructive "not keep" option, allowing any content deemed worthwhile by editorial consensus to be merged from the history to elsewhere.  Sandstein  21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Introduction to special relativity

Introduction to special relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is attempting the impossible: To provide a non-technical introduction to Special Relativity accessible to the general reader that still maintains rigor. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This article was started in March, 2005 with noble intentions. It was to be a mostly non-mathematical, introductory text written on a level comparable to a science article that one might find in the science section of the New York Times, that an educated "general reader" without a current background in math or technology should be able to understand.

Unfortunately, the nature of the subject makes such a idealized elementary treatment virtually impossible, and bitter complaints about the article can be found even in the earliest archived Talk pages. Here are some recent criticisms:

• "I think this article is close-to-useless "as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject." It mentions concepts such as affine spaces and fibre bundles that even most undergraduate students have no idea of, and say incredibly little of how special relativity came to be." -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• "...in the case of special relativity, there happens to be a demand for jump-in-introductions. So we find many in the literature. Unfortunaly, most are just rubbish and merely present the author's misconceptions and misunderstandings about the subject. The more correct you want the treatment of an advanced subject to be, the less accessible it will be for the lay person. That is why, in my opinion, this article should not be here. It will never serve its purpose." DVdm (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• "There is too much jargon in this article for it to be considered introductory. Where is RobotRollCall when you need her? http://www.reddit.com/user/robotrollcall" 93.172.56.90 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• "The article currently veers between elementary examples (eg passengers on a train) and mathematical proofs. While these two styles are suited to text books, though for widely separated age/competency classes, they are insufficient in style and gradation to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedic article." LookingGlass (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Since there is already an article on Special Relativity, which includes an introduction, why do we also need a separate article on "Introduction to Special Relativity"? This article is almost entirely unsourced. It seems to be just a place where people can come to present their own personal ideas about special relativity. I don't think there's anything in this article that isn't already in the article on special relativity (other than some things that don't belong in Wikipedia at all). Shouldn't this article be proposed for deletion?" Urgent01 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• "It's an essay, which has some virtues and some of its material should be incorporated into the main article. But the essay is completely unencyclopedic." CecilWard (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• "I removed the link to the intro article from the main article because right now the main article is far more accessible to the general reader. The intro is too technical and too incoherent. It's more like a garbled intro to advanced physics students, which makes this article pointless." 109.186.38.41 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• "It's been about 1 1/2 years since I last looked at this article, and it hasn't improved any. It is far too technical for poets and middle schoolers, and it offers nothing that is not covered better in the main article on special relativity." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The time has come for us to admit that the goal of this article is an impossible one. The main article on Special Relativity already includes an introduction which is every bit as accessible as this article, as well as being more concise. In Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Merge_analysis, I performed a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of Introduction to special relativity with Special relativity to see what would be salvageable in a merge.

My conclusion was that the only sections of Introduction to special relativity that were not duplicated in Special relativity were unacceptable for merging, since they were written in a non-encyclopedic, textbook style in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

I am thus

1. Nominating Introduction to special relativity for deletion
2. Recommending that Introduction to special relativity be submitted to Wikibooks in the Science section as a "Freshly started book" with the title Introduction to Spacetime Physics

• Wikibooks already has a Featured Book titled "Special Relativity"
• The "Special Relativity" Wikibook is divided into two sections, an introductory text and a more advanced text.
• I am not all that impressed with the "Special Relativity" Wikibook, and think it could use some competition.
• Although Introduction to special relativity is currently hopelessly muddled because it is trying to be simultaneously a textbook and an encyclopedia article, I believe that when freed from the constraints of being an encyclopedia article, it could shape up in a few years as worthwhile alternative to the introductory text part of the "Special Relativity" Wikibook.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question Are "introduction to" articles a recognized/accepted kind of things on ENWP? We have Introduction to general relativity, Introduction to virus and others for some of the science topics. If yes I'm gonna quote "AfD is not for cleanup" and !vote keep. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is are major differences between Introduction to general relativity and Introduction to special relativity. Introduction to general relativity is a featured article, extremely well executed and doing an excellent job fulfilling its mission to provide a non-technical introduction to the subject. Only two equations appear in the entire text: E = mc² and the Einstein equation, $\mathbf {G} ={\tfrac {8\pi G}{c^{4}}}\mathbf {T} .$ It is completely encyclopedic in its writing style, explaining the essence of the theory in non-mathematical fashion using simple explanations aided by well-chosen figures and insightful analogies that have long been standard in popular expositions of this subject, supported by 49 inline citations to high quality secondary and tertiary sources. On the other hand, only three sentences in the ten core essays at the heart of Introduction to special relativity (i.e. sections 1 through 10) are supported by inline citations, and the (rather unsuccessful) pedagogical tactics used to explain Minkowski spacetime are not ones that I recognize from any of my other reading. So far as I can tell, these ten core essays represent WP:ORIGINAL. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Mission creep, really, and duplication. Wikiversity and other projects are better suited for educational endeavors. This attempts a pedagogical goal, but in the end it doubles the efforts of an existing article. The usual thing would be "merge and redirect," but the nominator has discussed the implausibility of that. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

• Comment: Just to be clear, is the WP:DEL-REASON per #14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"? Specifically WP:NOTTEXTBOOK? Praemonitus (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, not a textbook, but I also thought one of the prime reasons for deletion was duplication of existing articles. If you have John E. Smith and John Ernest Smith, then one's gotta go, assuming they cover the same biographical subject. Well, if special relativity covers the "introduction" and sister projects cover the pedagogical element, then either this article or special relativity would be a duplicate in content. Perhaps it's convoluted reasoning, but it's what has been argued by the talk page, per above. More tellingly, it's a flaw in the concept of the page and not just its execution. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Reluctant delete from Wikipedia for that reason. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Had Introduction to special relativity been executed well, I would never have put forth my nomination. There are, after all, a number of articles on Wikipedia that have a significant textbook aspect, particularly in high school mathematics: Quadratic equation, Loss of significance, System of linear equations come to mind. But the mission of this article was never clear, and it suffered deeply because of this confusion. An example of what this article could have been is visible in our sister project, the Simple English Wikipedia, where the Simple English Wikipedia version of Special Relativity does not shirk from using the necessary math. The Simple English article explains the meaning of events, observers, and transformations, presents the Lorentz Transformations, then presents a few main results. Introduction to special relativity really should have been named something like Introduction to spacetime physics, in which case the appropriate level of mathematics would have been evident.

I understand your reluctance. Removing this article will remove Wikipedia's only real attempt at approaching special relativity from a modern pedagogical viewpoint. We have to look to Wikibooks for that, and as I've stated before, I'm not totally happy at the Wikibooks introductory presentation, either. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep No policy-based reason given for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete (strong policy-based reasons for Mark viking): An article with this title should be about introductions to special relativity, and sourced as such. Introductions to special relativity are nowhere mentioned. So it is not an article about introductions to special relativity. It is a personal essay, and thus a schoolbook example of wp:OR and wp:SYNTH. And it is rather poorly written, as abundantly evidenced at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Merge_analysis. And of course, more policy-based reasons at WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  This is wikilawyery. By that logic, "list of foo" articles should not list foos, but instead should be about "lists of foo" as a topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  Not the same logic, and no wikilawyery. List articles usually do not draw conclusions from various sources and don't clash with wp:SYNTH and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This article does. See the article and the merge analysis. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. These intro articles were a bit of a fad in the sciences in 2005-6ish. They're difficult to write and most look like they haven't been maintained all that well. It may be that they've outlived their usefulness with better resources available on other projects aimed at the same audience. I wanted to vote keep on this one, but on reading the article I don't think this is salvageable, even if the topic might be. Time for WP:TNT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• After reading your comments and WP:TNT, I have decided to strike out my suggestion #2 that the article could usefully be transwikied to the Wikibooks project. My original thought was that, once transferred to a project that welcomes tutorial submissions, I could do a bold rewrite of the article, completely reworking the explanations (which did have a few good points) and adding solved exercises. Thinking it over, I was overestimating my own capabilities and the time that I have available. So blow it up. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is important as it provides an introduction to the topic suitable for a lay reader, which the article special relativity does not adequately do. Contrary to the nominator's assertions, special relativity is not that hard to understand, and the article does not do a bad job of explaining it. To delete this, and leave only the main article which delves immediately into technical terminology, would be a mistake. As Mark viking points out, there is also no policy-based reason for deletion, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The WP:TNT argument is really a stretch, as the article is perfectly readable right now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Introduction to special relativity is perfectly understandable to me and to you, because we are already familiar with the subject. However, if we put ourselves in the place of an intelligent reader unfamiliar with physics, we would find much that is mystifying. Consider the following paragraph:

Since by definition rotations must keep the distance same, passing to a different reference frame must keep the spacetime interval between two events unchanged. This requirement can be used to derive an explicit mathematical form for the transformation that must be applied to the laws of physics (compare with the application of Galilean transformations to classical laws) when shifting reference frames. These transformations are called the Lorentz transformations. Just like the Galilean transformations are the mathematical statement of the principle of Galilean relativity in classical mechanics, the Lorentz transformations are the mathematical form of Einstein's principle of relativity. Laws of physics must stay the same under Lorentz transformations. Maxwell's equations and Dirac's equation satisfy this property, and hence they are relativistically correct laws (but classically incorrect, since they don't transform correctly under Galilean transformations).

The article only manages to avoid math by throwing a lot of undefined terms at the reader. What does a rotation in Minkowski space mean? What really is a "transformation"? What are the differences between Galilean and Lorentz transformations? What are Maxwell's equations and Dirac's equation about? What does it mean that they don't transform correctly under Galilean transformations? This article provides the naive reader a bunch of vocabulary words without providing understanding of their meanings. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I could answer a lot of these objections (e.g. "Minkowski space" is defined and thoroughly expounded on in the article, as are the differences between Galilean and Lorentz transformations, etc.) but really, there is no policy-based objection here. At worst, even if these objections were valid, they would be reasons for clarifying some of the text. The idea that special relativity is just too hard for ordinary people to understand and we should give up is unreasonably fatalistic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed that special relativity is too hard for ordinary people to understand. It is easy to explain what special relativity is all about, as evidenced by the excellent lede paragraphs of special relativity. What is impossible is to explain the how and the why of special relativity without math. The unsourced, WP:OR, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK essays making up the core of this article inconsistently jump between elementary examples and algebraic proofs. The use of algebra makes this article unsuitable for poets and middle schoolers, while the avoidance of math in explaining, for example, the Galilean and Lorentz transformations makes the article unsuitable for a reader interested in any sort of genuine understanding. Ten years of editing have given us an article which can't figure out what target audience it is supposed to be aimed at. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For a general audience it's appropriate to use high school algebra accompanied by ample discourse and explanation. This is what the article tries to do. I know it is possible for this to succeed, because I learned special relativity while I was taking algebra in high school, before I knew basically anything about physics. Your criticisms have to do with your perception of the quality of the article, and are not a reason for deleting. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

My conversation with Praemonitus brought up an interesting possibility. If the consensus goes towards delete, would there be any objection to converting the article to a redirect to the Simple English Wikipedia version of Special Relativity? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep - if this is not encyclopedic, then I don't know what we are doing here. The Wikipedia Foundation might as well just close down. This is exactly the sort of thing that Jimbo Wales was talking about when he co-founded this website. It's not so bad as to require WP:TNT. No good reason to delete is proffered. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Special relativity, but don't delete the article history. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 22:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• An article on Wikipedia should be an introduction in no small amount (by definition of an encyclopedia article), and the lead of an article an introduction to the article-proper. The deletion-leaning persons above convince me that this article cannot be saved. However, I think a redirect to special relativity should have no negative consequence, given the age of the article. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• I changed my mind to redirect after re-reading the discussion. I get it now. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. As noted by multiple people, this article is still too technical to be legitimately called an "introduction". However, this means that the article needs work, not deletion. These separate "Introduction to..." articles are not forbidden on Wikipedia (just type "Introduction to" in the Wikipedia search box). In fact, one is an FA. Also, as mentioned by some others who have commented here, the nom has not produced any policy-based reasons to delete the article, and I am not satisfied by the reasons put forth by DVdm. The main reason mentioned (i.e., WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) does not seem to be valid, since the point of these "Introduction to" articles is to inform via simplification. As far as I'm aware, WP:OR is not a stand-alone reason for deletion. --Biblioworm 21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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. As likely hoax. Note I am discarding the last !vote "Keep but question truthfulness as a possible hoax" makes no sense whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ross Money Mitchell

Ross Money Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Report of fake article. Noticeboard report Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#ross_money_mitchell First glance supports that or no real notability Govindaharihari (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. All existing sources are fake and nothing on any search. Article appears to have been here since 2010.Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a hoax. Refs are non-existent, unable to find any confirmation that this boxer exists. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as above; fabrication. Eagleash (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as hoax. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep but question truthfulness as a possible hoax. Internet search turns up some results but I thinm that they may have been published by the page creator or someone related because they don't seem like they're real to me. Article tagged with {{hoax}}. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

AnnRenee Nachwa

AnnRenee Nachwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The BLPPROD tag was removed from this, but instead of restoring it I'm nominating for deletion. Just a vanity bio, subject fails the notability guidelines for inclusion. The awards listed are specific to a school and not notable either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This bio is about myself as I am trying to start a career. Everything that is mentioned is factual and not false at all. Out of interest am I not allowed to mention awards that I have won through my school? Thank You for helping out as I am new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReneeRaymond (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReneeRaymond (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Writing an article about yourself creates a COI (Conflict Of Interest), which is not allowed in any Wikipedia article. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, @ReneeRaymond:, don't create autobiographies, per WP:AUTO. If you get famous/notable later in life, someone else will write an article about you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Pretty much everything out there on Google is useless; Wikipedia is not for the up-and-coming. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Even the most simple searches find nothing, not even the least good sources. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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. Not enough evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rodney Stich

Rodney Stich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There appears to be a total of one reliable source that discusses this person; all others are fringe sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLPFRINGE. Location (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete No real evidence of notability. The sources just aren't there and the article smells like a form of soft promotion. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands, though at least there's one more RS than most articles like this. It's possible it should stay, but needs the RSes added first - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: Added more wp:RS, so per wp:AUTHOR, clause 1, The person... is widely cited by peers or successors.The works of the author have been cited by a best seller, and other books one published by Feral House and the other by New York University Press, in a trade magazine published by Utah Fire and Rescue Academy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Being cited by others does provide some evidence of notability, but he's certainly not "widely cited by peers or successors." Pburka (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Defrauding America has been reviewed by the Conspiracy Digest, describing it as "Defrauding America by Rodney Stich is the Rosetta Stone for decoding nationwide criminal conspiracy. It's also an astonishing contribution to American history. And, without a doubt, it will be the most mind-blowing book you've ever read.". More citations for Defrauding America, Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A photograph in an article written by Ken Summers, has been attributed to him. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to take a closer look at those sources; Gyeorgos C. Hatonn is my favorite. Conspiracy theorists frequently cite or give kudos to other conspiracy theorists. I do not believe he has been "widely cited", but that is irrelevant. Implicit in "widely cited by peers or successors" is the idea that those peers and successors are reliable sources themselves. We don't allow fringe sources to dictate the notability of fringe subjects. This fails WP:BLPFRINGE. - Location (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your fringe description, his theories may be fringe, but they are popular, and that makes him notable. Also he has been quoted by mainstream sources too, as per above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking Hatonn off per Location. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking me to go through these sources one by one? Well, Conspiracy Digest is the self-published work of artist Uri Dowbenko. For Farrell, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph P. Farrell. Douglas Perez's work appears to be self-published and only notes Stich in his recommend reading list (which contains other conspiracy works). Larry Chin cites other conspiracy theorists to support a version of the October Surprise conspiracy theory. Ken Summers writes for Week in Weird; this is essentially the National Enquirer. John Barry Smith's www.montereypeninsulaairport.com is self-published. And as you've noted below, Flying Magazine cites Smith, not Stich. - Location (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

John Barry Smith in his Rupture at Midspan Latches of Cargo Door in Flight Probably Caused by Wiring/Electrical Fault uses a photo from The Real Unfriendly Skies, Saga of Corruption, Smith is an independent investigator who has been quoted by Flying (magazine). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Smith using a photo from Stich's book is hardly a citation, and contributes little to notability. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed one photo alone doesn't contribute to notability, but it isn't one photo alone, here is an independent investigator who uses a photo from Stich's work, how is a photo any worse than quoting text. Yes, Flying (magazine) doesn't quote Stich, it quotes Smith, so Smith is a notable investigator who cites Stich. Even when we take a couple of sources as bad, there still are seven that are kosher, as I see them. Stich has come up with fantastic theories that are taken cognisance, so what a few are National Enquirer type. His Spartacus Educational entry says he has done 2500 radio/ TV shows, internationally, which also makes him notable. SE isn't blacklisted, it is "use with caution" just as any other source better or worse, see this Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Mahabaleshwar it locates it completely wrong.[1] I had written them, yet they ignored. This is a package, a conspiracy theorist, an investigator, an author, if you sum the parts, there is enough to make him notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim is copied nearly verbatim from Stich's book advertisements: [2][3]. - Location (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Also Conspiracy Digest is "small but influential",Robin Ramsay (editor) mentions CD so does Adam Gorightly Mark Fenster Richard M. Gilman Richard M. Gilman calls it Small but highly influential. A Orion Publishing Group book also refers to a quotation from it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The advertisements mention reviews by West Coast Review of Books, Dick Gregory, Nexus (magazine) and American Library Association Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Given the lengthy back and forth above I decided to have another look at the article and try to take in the points from the discussion. Unfortunately I still am not seeing much. Once you take out the Fringe sources the case for notability is incredibly weak. Regrettably I stand by my Delete !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

References

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 Arab separatism in Khuzestan. Overall consensus is to Redirect, I have no objections to anyone reverting providing it's better compared to prev versions (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Iranian Ahwaz

Iranian Ahwaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails Wikipedia:Rs , WP:SOAP and WP:V. Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Arab separatism in Khuzestan, which handles the same subject from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 22:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect per teb. Obvious solution. ukexpat (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Cleaned up the grammar in the article. Redirect to Arab separatism in Khuzestan, for the neutrality which is not present in the article. Emboldening (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect for now as suggested, it seems there's not much and browser found the most links of my searches. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I cleaned up some problems with NPOV and made some other minor fixes.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I belive ArabAmazigh12 has a point the page needs some work but I think he's on the somewhat right track I vote against deletion.OrguzGoulum (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Brent Rivera

Brent Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:GNG requires multiple third-party sources and this article's subject has coverage here but even that article makes note of the fact that this individual has received no coverage at all. Aoidh (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom, this person is known for being unknown but getting likes on Instagram. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and I'm not optimistic about draft/userfy as I don't see any improvement anytime soon. My searches found nothing considerably good in the flood of links. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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. I was going to add a sentence to Tess of the d'Urbervilles#Theatre as suggested, but I could not find any independent reliable source (at the article or in a search) to verify the information. If someone else wants to add a sentence, be my guest. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tess (musical)

Tess (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails the "significant coverage in reliable sources" of WP:GNG with only one, unclear secondary source - something on a "local people, local stories" local radio show which is currently inaccessible. McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. A google news and google books search revealed no reliable tertiary sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Other than the one BBC interview that has now been identified, my searches revealed no independent sources about this project, or any indication that reliable sources have reported any public performances or recordings. I don't think a single example of local radio coverage is enough to establish notability for a not yet produced stage play. The deprodder also mentions "searchable Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media trails" that "confirm public interest", but these are not the kinds of independent reliable sources that we require to show that a subject warrants an article. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON: if and when the production receives multiple independent press reviews or other significant coverage, we can revisit this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient coverage. Could be mentioned in a sentence under Tess of the d'Urbervilles#Theatre, which lists other musical adaptations, but this content is too extensive for a straight merge. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and maybe mention at Tess of the d'Urbervilles#Theatre as suggested; my searches found nothing to suggest solid independent notability with the best of my searches here and here. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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. I'm willing to userfy if anyone wants it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Besh Korechi Prem Korechi (2015 film)

Besh Korechi Prem Korechi (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was speedy deleted as a hoax. While it was heavily edited by socks of a blocked hoaxer, the film exists; I have added some references that mention it. Whether it's notable is debatable, though, and my Bengali isn't good enough to clean up the article and make sure that the content is correct. Thus I'm bringing it here for a wider discussion. Huon (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete - thanks for providing those refs. Neither the official websites of the starring actors, nor the websites of the companies that are supposed to be producing the movie, mention it anywhere, even though the release date is said to be less than three weeks away. It also doesn't exist on IMdB (Prem Korechi Besh Korechi from 2005 does have an entry, however) but IMdB isn't exactly exhaustive in its coverage of non-Anglo films, so that doesn't have to mean anything. In any case I can't see any notability at all for the film. If it does exist, I'm sure reviews will appear in reliable sources once it's been released. Until then, delete it. --bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice, until such time reliable sources become available. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep will add reliable sources.Rajeshbieee (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment A review for Besh Korechi Prem Korechi has been added with a reference - except that the review was published in 2010 and the cast is completely different. While the review was clearly added to the article in good faith, I'm still not convinced that the film itself isn't a hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just as with the 2005 film of that name, the one from 2010 is simply the same name (commonly done with Indian films) and a different director and cast. Does not mean this current film by the same name is a hoax. THAT will require research. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Besh Korechi Prem Korechi Surinder Films Jeet Koel Mallick

• Soft delete or userfy. It's referred to as "upcoming", with a predicted July 2015 release,[4][5], and it being filmed has received some video news coverage,[6] and the is sourcable in English[7] and in Bengali,[8][9][10] My own thought is that we need some proper citations added to confirm filming, and we can then allow the article's return. July ain't over yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as per above Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Adler

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mark Adler
• Articles for deletion/Mark Adler (2nd nomination)

Mark Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article makes no claims whatsoever that would satisfy WP: NOTE or WP:BIO; all citations appear to be self-published. Rnickel (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, worth noting that in the previous AFD discussion, it basically turned into a "votes for deletion" with a bunch of "me too" comments that "he is so notable". Nobody made any persuasive arguments as to his notability other than offering their personal opinions, nobody produced any actual references to support the notability claim, and nobody has made any efforts to improve the article in the intervening 3 years. --Rnickel (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I think it is clear that Adler is a notable person in both the field and history of data compression (I doubt there is a computer that does not in some way use zlib or gzip, and PNG has pretty much become the default lossless image compression standard) as well as space exploration (misson manager for Spirit rover). I've added some third party sources describing his contributions which should serve to ameliorate the first-person nature of the sources. Avi (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  Just added STUG awardee; donating FLOSS compression algorithms certainly changed the way we all use the internet if not all computers. A quote from USENIX:

  Some corporations, such as IBM and Unisys, considered data compression so important that they patented certain algorithms useful for the task, and by the mid to late 1980s they began to look at those algorithms as technology that needed to be licensed or to be locked away and made available only to their customers. All of that changed on July 11, 1991, when the first version of a data compression algorithm developed by Jean-loup Gailly was made publicly available. Shortly thereafter he was joined by Mark Adler, who was interested in "zip style" utilities for use on his UNIX-based systems. Mark describes their collaboration as "one thing led to another." These simple but generous actions by Mark and Jean-loup mean that the industry now uses their code and algorithm—as we noted, more often than not without even knowing they're being used.

  --Avi (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for responding to the nomination, and for your efforts to improve the article. You make the point that his technologies are widespread, but that only makes the case that the technologies are notable, not that Mr. Adler himself is. I am a computer programmer and have written software that is probably embedded in devices you own and use daily too, but that does not make me notable. His technologies can be notable without conferring notability on him. Instead, what will demonstrate his notability is if you can show that he meets Wikipedia notability criteria. This does not mean that he is mentioned in multiple articles; it means he is the subject of multiple articles. My mom is on the town council and gets quoted in the local paper all the time; it doesn't make her notable because the articles are not about her. It also doesn't mean that he has written multiple articles; otherwise every newspaper reporter in the country would be "notable". Here is what I mean specifically; any of the following claims in the article, if backed up by reliable source citations, could show that he meets the test of notability:
  • "If he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic or individual directly and in detail." I was not able to find any significant coverage of Mr. Adler himself, only passing mentions in articles that are actually about the various standards/protocols. (You will notice I didn't submit the article Adler-32 for deletion, because a lot has been written about that algorithm: it meets notability.) (See WP:GNG)
  • "If he has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The STUG award you mentioned is a good start, but I am not sure if it is enough to convey notability all by itself the way that a Oscar, a Nobel prize, a Pulitzer, or a Fields medal would be. (See WP:ANYBIO)
  • "If he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Here we may be getting warmer, but again the devil is in the details: "Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I could not find any books, or even significant magazine/journal/newspaper articles, that were about Mr. Adler himself, in depth. (Again, see WP:ANYBIO)
  • Your best bet may be to treat him as a academic "whose research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Again, here you would need multiple independent sources meeting WP:RS that specifically state Mr. Adler has made a significant or profound impact on the field of computer science, and how. We cannot simply infer that from the fact that he invented technologies now widespread; we need multiple independent sources that say so, otherwise we are performing a novel synthesis, which Wikipedia classifies as original research.

The most important thing is, the article right now doesn't contain any language that even makes one of these claims. It mentions in the lede that he is best known for Alder-32 and GZIP, but then the rest of the article is basically just his resume. If the notability claim is that the field of computer science would not be the same without his contributions, then the article (a) needs to be about that, and (b) needs to back it up with independent sources that say so. Compare and contrast the article on, say Steve Wozniak, which unambiguously lays out his notability in the first two sentences: "...is an American pioneer of the personal computer revolution of the 1970s, who single-handedly developed the 1976 Apple I, the computer that launched Apple."

Hope that helps. If you are not able to establish notability for Mr. Adler himself, then maybe a fallback would be to merge the article into one of the articles about one of his technologies?

• Keep plenty notable. Being the lead mission engineering for Cassini-Huygens would be enough on its own, but combined with the rest this is a clear keep. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a reliable source (self-published) but I like the opening sentences: "Mark Adler just might have the distinction of having his code running on more computers than anyone else on earth. This is because Mark (in conjunction with Jean-loup Gailly and many more volunteers) wrote zlib - the free library that reads and writes streams compressed with the deflate algorithm." -- Avi (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I think the lede of the article sufficiently establishes notability. —Ruud 10:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment We keep running into this situation with software developers. It seems to me that a statement of policy is needed. I would generally use: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography, but it would be nice to have a clarification that having invented and/or created key software fits this criterion. LaMona (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep If he had only contributed *one* thing to one field, I could understand some people wanting to merge the material about him into the article on that thing (though I still wouldn't want to do that), but as it stands, he's done much more than that, and we would need the article for the lead alone. —SamB (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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/snow delete as a blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Carl Einar Brag

Carl Einar Brag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

sources do not mention subject and are therefore useless for notability. Web searches do not produce anything helpful. A quick search through the Montreal Museum of Contemporary Art exhibitions in 2012 reveals no mentions of him. Appears either non-notable or a hoax. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on further reading, the second paragraph appears to be about an entirely different artist. I will remove it. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete it's definitely a hoax. Just look at this Facebook post. Please delete this article. Thank you. Frabrunelle (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

After seeing this link, I clearly agree. I have blanked the page (which is perfectly allowed under the BLP policy since the entire thing was unsupported by sources and had been challenged). @Frabrunelle:, I don't want to influence you but, since you want the article deleted, you may want to change your "Comment" to a "Delete" if that is what you mean. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I performed the same Google search and found nothing. This is not only a hoax, this is a blatant hoax. Tagged with {{db-hoax}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC) ===Ldmp===}

Ldmp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I think the article serve no other purpose than to promote "Streambox". Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be a single company's proprietary protocol for their own video distribution service that has not been the subject of independent coverage in either popular or scholarly publications. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and as a copyright violation, tagged as such when initially created. One of several articles by the same author with promotional, copyvio and coi issues. 2601:188:0:ABE6:C97D:45FC:C8AB:394E (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now and I would rather not draft/userfy; my searches found nothing considerably good and mostly primary sources here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marcus

Mark Marcus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not even able to confirm his existence, since the name is not sufficient to identify him. I'm thinking this might be a hoax, given all of the odd and unrelated claims in the article. LaMona (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree as my searches found absolutely nothing thus this can't be added or improved beyond its current condition. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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 Medicine in the medieval Islamic world. Consensus, such as it is, is that content forks should be avoided. Any further improvement can be done editorially, e.g. by merging stuff from history or renaming the remaining article.  Sandstein  21:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Medicine in the Islamic world

Medicine in the Islamic world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I really do not understand a reason for an article like this. I think we already have Medicine in the medieval Islamic world. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect. The source is the Persian Wiki, and the Persian Wiki says that the English version of the article is Medicine in the medieval Islamic world. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Sa.vakilian: Since you wrote with certainty here that Muslim hygienical teachings could not be confused with science, you must have some equally certain opinions about the merits of this article.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• I also want to note that per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, "an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing" (compare article and: [11]).--Anders Feder (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep and merge @Anders Feder Thank for mention. I think both articles (Medicine in the Islamic world and Medicine in the medieval Islamic world) cover the same issue. However, the former article has broader scope so the later one can merge in it. @User:Wikicology, if you think at least one of them is deserved to remain, then merging is a better solution. In addition, while the source's name [12] fits to the former article it has a interlink to the later one!--Seyyed(t-c) 05:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it the case that the medicine practiced in the Islamic world today is generally different from the medicine practiced elsewhere? If not, it would not seem to be a notable topic.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We should merge one article in the other. I think it is better to choose the article which has the broader scope as the main one. There are some methods like Hijama and Circumcision which are common today in the Muslim world, while "Medicine in the medieval Islamic world" has historic perspective. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A broader scope is not inherently better; we should choose the more precise title.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. This is not a good place for this discussion. I propose to close this AfD, then discuss with those who are active in those articles to choose the better solution.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bitritrium

Bitritrium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is nothing that we can currently say about this predicted chemical element, and there are no efforts to synthesize it. WP has articles for predicted elements up to 120 where serious research is being conducted, but elements 121 and beyond redirect to Extended periodic table. shoy (reactions) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As the nominator points out, this article is basically unverifiable speculation. We can make exceptions for "certain scientific extrapolations", like elements 119 and 120, but I can't find any scientific sources describing element 233, so delete. If we follow past precedent, we could redirect to either extended periodic table or systematic element name, but I don't see the point of creating these types of redirects ad nauseam. Altamel (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and I'll add that I think a redirect is completely unnecessary as "Bitritrium" is a highly unlikely search term, I don't think many people are looking for information on hypothetical elements numbered that high. Not to mention, if we ever did get to a point where we were able to produce this element, there is no guarantee it would keep the name Bitritrium. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a systematic name. All newly synthesized elements get a temporary name, and then the IUPAC takes several years to decide the naming rights. Altamel (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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. as Withdrawn. I normally don't close if I participate, but there are no delete votes, it has been withdrawn, and waiting around for a close seems pointless when the outcome is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sad Book

Sad Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All information seems to be covered in main Michael Rosen article. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep A notable book, with coverage in major newspapers. I added a section on critical reaction and some details of the book's contents. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Thank you very much for the additions in the article! – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 15:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Now seems to pass GNG well enough on it's own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Empire State Demon Knights

Empire State Demon Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG as a non-notable semi-professional football team. The league doesn't even have an article and there aren't any independent, relevant sources. Most of the sources are primary and/or routine and prove that the team exists, but not that they are notable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete although the idea that the league doesn't have an article on Wikipedia isn't valid (that may just mean it should be created--Wikipedia is far from complete), I still land on delete for this one. Based on the sources held in the article, I see no independent third-party sources that speak to the notability of this organization. There are a few player bios from other leagues that may be considered independent third party, but those articles do not speak to this team, just to players on the team. I do not see this article passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I can find. I would change my position if such information were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My rationale for deletion is WP:ORG. While the league not having an article is not a valid reason for deletion, it's still a valid idea to be made known. I'm presenting what I know about the team in my rationale, and that's one of the things I know, so I included it. It is more of an FYI than anything... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think so, just wanted to clarify. Cheers. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Appear to fail both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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 revert to non-dab version. Anything further is an editorial matter.  Sandstein  21:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Auxiliary power

Auxiliary power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a proper dab page, but a grab bag list of very loosely related articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Revert to this version before it was merged to Emergency power system. I'm looking at the article that this information was merged into, and I'm not seeing much (if anything) resembles that. The concept of "auxiliary power" seems notable to me and it's different from any of the suggestions presented in the "disambiguation." It could definitely use some come clean-up, but that version is a good start. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Revert to this version per Tavix. Otherwise, redirect to Emergency power system. The DAB is clearly inappropriate, and I lean towards two articles for emergency and auxiliary power (as I understand it, emergency power is ideally never used, while auxiliary power can be used for maintenance or other regular operations). Tigraan (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Developmentaid

Developmentaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORP. The sources that work aren't significant coverage, just mentions, and it all smacks of promotionalism. Sources for the most part fail WP:RS. Standard search for sources produced nothing of value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep there are quite a few sources. See: [13], [14], [15]. The google search might have not provided many results because of the common name the company has. I think the page meets WP:GNG. User:Kircea1 - User_talk:Kircea1 09:14:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Those are directory type listings, not WP:SIGCOV in any way whatsoever. I found lists like that, they establish that the organization exists, but not that they are notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but for example [16] this is a top 10 of websites with jobs, not just a mere listing. This proves that the organization is notable in its sector of activity. Kircea1 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In your mind, perhaps, but not according to WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, which is what we use to determine whether or not it is notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - The cited sources are largely unreliable per WP:RS, and consist of trivial listings and brief mentions. I was unable to find any extensive coverage in any other sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX 11:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot find any RS. This organization is a membership-based jobs/message/info board for NGO's. The only third-party refs are announcements about its jobs services. In terms of categories, it should meet wp:corp, and it does not. LaMona (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 01:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Planetshakers

Planetshakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a weird article made up of three components: an Australian church, its band, and a former band member known for fraudulent claims to have had cancer. I can't see much evidence of any notice outside the walled garden of mutually self-congratulatory christian worship song fandom. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Weirdness is not a reason to delete. This is an obviously notable megachurch. StAnselm (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Coverage exists both from Australia ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) and overseas: Borneo Post, Cross Rhythms, Christian Today, and at least two albums were released through Sony/Columbia (via Integrity Media). --Michig (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? 175 unique Google hits, none of which look to be reliable independent sources about the group. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked Michig's links above? It looks pretty clear cut to me.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I've added content, they've are the subject of numerous independent reliable sources (per Michig) and had a nation-wide TV programme's segment on them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with all the points above, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Khari Willis

Khari Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCOLLATH John from Idegon (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - there were initially two "refs" attached to the article, both of which have been removed. One ([23]) was simply a link to Google search results. The second ([24]) was used as a source for copy/pasted content - so was removed along with that content due to the copyright issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Right now, not wiki worthy. Can always be recreated in future. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Unreferenced. As per Postcard Cathy the article can be recreated in the future. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an instance of WP:TOOSOON. The kid appears to have just graduated from high school last month and has not yet even begun his collegiate career. His "notability" at this point is limited to his efforts a high school athlete, and as per WP:NHSPHSATH: "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I am not seeing the type of "substantial and prolonged coverage" required by the guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Apple Inc. slogans

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Apple Inc. slogans
• Articles for deletion/List of Apple Inc. slogans (2nd nomination)

List of Apple Inc. slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Violates WP:SOAPBOX as there is relatively little information about the slogans, also relies heavily on primary sources and a lot of the slogans in this article are non-notable anyway. - TheChampionMan1234 06:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• iDelete Not notable in their own right and just a WP:COATRACK of trivia. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Apple Inc. advertising already covers the notable slogans, and nobody should think different. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 01:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Brown Gardner

Robert Brown Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Simply a college professor with some publications. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Simply a college professor with some publications" can be said of any professor... What is required for the article not to be deleted? He was influential in the mathematical community, and as such should have an article. Brazilian from Rio de Janeiro (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had access to MathSciNet, then I could find so many more references to him... He deserves an article on Wikipedia, but how can I convince you of that? Brazilian from Rio de Janeiro (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm newbie to Wikipedia, I first wrote the article and then started to search for references, but it's becoming hard without the adequate tools (also, I think that I need to repeat some references, because they need to be cited in-line for each fact or so it seems... and it's hard to write very differently but at same time it has to be interpreted in equivalent way, and so editing Wikipedia is very hard because of this: I can not write my opinion freely on this matter -- that he was very important in the USA mathematical community). Well, I'm going to sleep. Let what has to be to happen in this case I guess. Brazilian from Rio de Janeiro (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Wilkens ref is substantial coverage in a reliable source. PamD 08:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. A retrospective in a mainstream mathematical publication clinches WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
• Keep. The Wilkens reference makes a strong case for his notability (fitting into WP:PROF#C1). Backing this up, his books are also well cited on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - I added additional information about his influence and intellectual output. His contributions to the world of mathematics through his own work and those he taught continues to this day.Timtempleton (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:PROF for the reasons David Eppstein said. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that the article continues to fail to meet the notability guidelines are stronger than the keep arguments, which do not demonstrate why the wikipedia notability guidelines are met. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Jorge Gracie

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jorge Gracie
• Articles for deletion/Jorge Gracie (2nd nomination)

Jorge Gracie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I was going to send this through DRV, but I think that the end result would be that this should go through a second AfD due to the new sources and some added material. I have no opinion on whether or not Gracie passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This individual is one of the first person to master Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. He was one of the first fighters of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Significant coverage in many sources is considered by some to be the founder of BJJ. orge participated in the first organized BJJ event. He had the first undefeated run. He was for a period the only fighter in the Gracie clan. He set up a number of schools in different areas of Brazil. All of this should show that he was key in the development of BJJ.CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Per the above - he's a notable person in the history of BJJ, period. In an effort at full disclosure, I've worked on bringing this article up to wiki standards myself, but only did so after I randomly discovered the article, learned who this individual was and his significance to the art, then felt myself compelled to try and keep this article in articlespace, as I genuinely feel its addition is good for the wiki and good for our readers. Removing it would do a disservice to anyone utilizing the wiki to learn more about the history of the art. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing in this article to show he's any more notable than he was in the first discussion. Having had some fights is not enough to make him notable and almost everything else relates to him being a Gracie. Notability is not inherited and there's no supporting evidence that he meets any notability criteria. Passing mentions and family history aren't enough. The fact that he has zero accomplishments listed at BJJ Heroes means even BJJ fans can't point to anything that makes him notable (except being a Gracie).Mdtemp (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I only commented in the last debate but that one still holds true. One of the big issues is that every Gracie and his dog has an article and not necessarily because they are notable. The term walled garden comes to mind and no - just being a Gracie does not confer notability. I am still holding off my opinion on Jorge - but I do understand both the need for clear references and the difficulty in finding them from an era that was pre-internet. It has to be demonstrated that Jorge was key to the development of BJJ. I am having trouble seeing any improvement in the argument for notability since the last AfD debate.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment From reading the sources he is

(1) the first person to MASTER what is now BJJ,

(2) the first long term BJJ fighter (Carlos had only a few matches and Helio had more than Carlos but "retired" at 25),

(3) the first two spread BJJ outside of Rio de Janiero, and

(4) the first person to publicly feud with the Gracie and leave the fold (becoming the first Creonte
[25]) CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per Mdtemps reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing in this article that is any more convincing of notability than what was in the previously deleted article. I agree with Mdtemp's comments and stand by the reasons I gave at the first AfD discussion. The burden of proof is on those claiming notability and I don't see it. Papaursa (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Mentions of the subject's family and their relevance do not make it notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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 Diannaa per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Brian Lawrence (jockey)

Brian Lawrence (jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only referenced fact is that he came 16th in a race. I can't see why he is notable, and the article is just an informal reminiscence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NHORSERACING. Also WP:COI, as it appears that at least part of the article was written by Lawrence himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum. He did win the grade 3 Welsh Grand National in 1958, but NHORSERACING requires multiple grade 2 or 3 wins. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NHORSERACING, and fails WP:GNG as well- I looked for sources yesterday, and none seem to exist. Also COI although not autobiography (their username is Katielbennett, so probably family member). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Mr Wightman suggested I give National Hunt a try as I was too heavy for the flat. My First Winner was for Sir Martin Gilliat ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Ah yes, it's taken directly from the newsletter, as noted by Bcp67. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keepDelete per Bcp67, below: I've pinged WikiProject Horse racing, which has a bunch of members from the UK, and they can help determine if this is just a really poor quality article that can be salvaged, or if the individual is insufficiently notable. I will say that riding in the Grand National is a big deal, even if he didn't do very wll; he finished, which was saying something! I suggest that either way, perhaps userfy the article in the creator's user space so they can work on it more. I did find one additional source: [26] Montanabw^(talk) 08:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NHORSERACING. Riding a horse in the Grand National isn't sufficient to establish notability....William 11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, actually, I did find a few sources of adequate reliability. Not saying its enough, but... Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability as a jockey, and the article is pretty much a straight copy of the Three Counties Racing Club newsletter which is linked in the external links. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

YYT Bomb Threat Incident

YYT Bomb Threat Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Falls under WP:NOTNEWS, not a significant event worthy of an article. ///EuroCarGT 05:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 05:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 05:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 05:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Unfortunately bomb threats do the same to many airports at least a few times a month, and this one doesn't go beyond that regular threshold. Nate • (chatter) 08:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William 09:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• delete clearly not news. LibStar (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete This is not important,as it does not even have any info and bombing hoaxes happen 10 times a year--Planecrashexpert (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

David R. Anderson (Theologian)

David R. Anderson (Theologian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Questionable notability. 1 independent ref. lots of self published books. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd probably recommend speedying this since this is a pretty unambiguously promotional page for the theologian. The theological view section alone is pretty spammy since the use of quotes comes across as a promotional blurb for the religion itself. I'm also mildly worried that the two accounts editing the pages might be the same person (sockpuppetry) or two people working in tandem (meatpuppetry) since User:GraceTheology originally created these in the draftspace and then after they were all declined User:KeelanBilog signed up for an account and cut/pasted two of the pages into the mainspace. I may open up an SPI to this end, although I think that this is likely meatpuppetry more than sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm really not finding much out there. The thing about theology is that despite the amount of believers, it's a pretty lonely field that doesn't garner a huge amount of non-primary sources. For every 100 theologians there may be 2-5 that will gain coverage to where they'd merit a Wikipedia article, and this is likely being pretty generous. The mainstream media and reliable sources that would cover theologians and theological topics in a manner that would make them a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty few and far between. This doesn't mean that they don't exist or that it's impossible to get coverage, but there are only a few places that focus on this topic and many, many people jockeying for attention. As such, they are extremely selective in what they cover - far more so than in other disciplines like science, math, philosophy, and so on. It looks like many places that have covered Anderson has been places associated with him in some form or fashion or they're in places that really wouldn't be considered RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. Offhand I don't see where the journal of the Grace Evangelical Society would count as a RS, which is kind of an example of the issue with finding coverage for theologians. It doesn't mean that Anderson isn't well thought of or that he might not have done impressive things, just that so far I can't find anything to show that he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I just can't find anything out there other than press releases and trivial mentions in local press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Theology is not a serious academic subject but a joke. How can you study that which doesn't exist? Most of the "theologians" produce barely disguised pseudo-intellectual wishful thinking sold in volume to naive followers. What matters in religion is not how logical it is, since it is illogical, but how many people are sheepish enough to follow it. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• The closing admin should please completely disregard the above !vote, as it is completely off-topic. Agricola44 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

• Weak keep - I think his output as an author. Founding a series of churches also suggests notability. Taking these together there is just about enough to merit keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Books published by his (part-time) employer, no independent sources, except one mention in a local newspaper. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Kraxler (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Article is a promo piece. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Doeon X-Ray

Doeon X-Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable WP:PRODUCT Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure if this is a hoax or if there's a typo in the name since it is not a valid pinyin Romanisation. Either way as it stands there are is no coverage in reliable sources so it needs to go.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Couldn't find anything other than an Australian eBay listing with the exact same description, although the title above the image is slightly different. "One of 6" suggests that it is a concept car and the year should mean that it has done (or is doing) the rounds at motor shows, but I can't seem to find any evidence of that. Without reliable sources, it doesn't currently meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Fuebaey (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Morrissey Hospitality Companies, Inc.

Morrissey Hospitality Companies, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company with my searches finding nothing particularly significant and notable here (both News and Newspapers Archive found the same results), here and here. Some of the sources mentioning some of the properties could improve the article but I don't think to the notability level. I could've easily PRODded this but I wanted to give users an opportunity to comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Entry reads like an ad for the company with nothing notable or outstanding about it. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: Would you like to comment? I think it's an obvious case of non-notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• 'Delete not notable--only announcements are likely to be found. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Claret Samal Foundation

Claret Samal Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable foundation, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I only founded sources such as this, this, this and this. I'd say not notable, but I'm not sure. Mhhossein (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now (with no possible target for moving elsewhere) - Existing since 2009 with continuous issues including copyvios (without the slightest improvement such as better sources) is concerning and that fuels my thoughts of deletion but my searches also found no significant coverage here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was move to Banish (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Banishment (disambiguation)

Banishment (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Banishment" redirects to Exile. That page's hatnote should contain a link leading to the only article with the (almost) exact name, The Banishment. The other "entry" is a link leading to Banesh, a village in Iran alternatively spelled "Banish". "Banish" redirects to Exile as well, btw. Potential people looking for the film by its main word "Banishment" type in that word and end up at Exile, where they have to click on a link to take them to the dab page instead of directly to the article. People looking for the village by its alternate name type in "Banish" and end up at Exile as well, where they have to go to a dab page to finally get to the page they're looking for. Isn't disambiguation meant to direct readers to the desired page as quickly as possible? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep 6 valid entries (probably lots more), plus 3 very valid see alsos. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: For those moving to keep, how is "Banishment" a disambiguation for "Banish" and "Banished?" Is a Persian speaker likely to have "-ment" as a suffix for "town?" I get that there is a movie called "Banishment," but that's the only actual disambiguation on the page currently. That's probably enough for a "keep," but those others are a bit lardy. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment' Your above comment, Hithladaeus, is more an argument that the title should be Banish (disambiguation) (which redirects to the dab in question) rather than Banishment (disambiguation). With the page how it currently is, I'd agree, but not with the page as it was originally constructed. This dab is for the two similar words, Banish and Banishment, per WP:DABNAME: When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added if a primary topic exists for that term). Putting similar terms on the one dab is quite normal, and in this case, nothing would be gained from separating to two dabs, or adding to the already distracting number of hatnotes at Exile. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, having a movie by the same title would be an argument for "keep" anyway, so that's how it was looking. What you're suggesting is that we've got a dual dab with a hidden redirect. (That's also a reason why this might be a reason for this debate to not take place here. It's not really an article for deletion, is it?) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would the one entry be an argument for keep, since the hatnote at the page the term redirects to, Exile, would be sufficient? ps. it says at WP:DAB that AfD is the place to nominate these pages, so that's why it's here. Also, Boleyn kept insisting that was the way to go, so.. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I only count 1 valid entry. The others will probably belong on Banish (disambiguation)--provided the two people with the last name "Banish" even qualify (which they don't), since WP:PTM states that articles on people should only be listed on a dab page if they are reasonably well-known by their surname. Those two "entries" don't have an article of their own. Might as well search people on Facebook for "Banish" and starting listing them. Should we also include some black people with the name "Banisha"?

So to recap, one entry for an article that is ambiguous with the term "Banishment" and two entries for "Banish". Readers can easily be redirected to those pages with a hatnote on Exile. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Banish (disambiguation) didn't redirect to this page until it was created about half an hour ago by Boleyn.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, before I commented at the AfD I looked at ways to improve the page per WP:ATD, bearing in mind that Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather have redirected the page to elsewhere and put the one entry in the hatnote on Exile, but since you just revert everything and the discussion led nowhere I was left with no other choice. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is a surname and dab page in one, categorised as such, like many dab pages are. Therefore the surname entries are clearly valid, and both meet MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to Banish (disambiguation) per the discussion above. Most entries on that page are known as "banish" and it makes more sense to use the root word. Other than that, this disambiguation is fine per Boleyn. Tavix | Talk  03:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Rename Banish (disambiguation), and banish the film to See also. A redirect hatnote from Exile to The Banishment makes more sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment While were at it, shouldn't Banished be redirected to Exile and its entries merged to Banish (disambiguation) once it's renamed? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Sounds like a good idea. It bothers me that there would be no directly linked articles (if Banishment were to be jettisoned). Clarityfiend (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Should the contents of Banished be merged into this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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, per WP:CSD G5. — Earwig ^talk 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing... Dina Rae

Introducing... Dina Rae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album. I can’t find significant coverage of the album in independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC) —teb728 t c 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dina Rae (singer). The content appears to be there already. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect I am totally eff'ed the CD my friend gave me was on a Tesco CD-R and it don't even have a track listing so I am freestyling on (some of) the song names so if we redirect I won't be peed off but can we just please keep And? Kandiwell 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable album. Article created by sockpuppet of banned editor MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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 Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#G11. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mark A. McNay

Mark A. McNay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP that is unsourced that is also a possible hoax-the only Mark McNay I can find is a writer. Wgolf (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sky Beyond Time & Darkness the Motion Picture

Sky Beyond Time & Darkness the Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Soundtrack to a mini-movie of some sort? Barely any mention of such an album online anywhere. Not even sure of its actual existence.Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as probable hoax. I note that the article creator, Zlgiancarlo, was blocked for creating hoaxes, and this seems like a really unlikely group of songs and acts for a Pokémon soundtrack. Trivialist (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. No refs provided, and I cannot find reliable sourcing to evidence existence, much less notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Vine Balakrishnan Kakkarezhathu

Vine Balakrishnan Kakkarezhathu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There's only one source for this article, and that's IMDB (which is not a RS), and that only credits him with directorship of one short. Nothing else is sourced, and I can find no English language Google hits other than Wikipedia, IMDB, Facebook and things like that. Unless there are other language sources out there, I don't see the required notability. Mr Potto (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also, it appears his name should be "Vinu" and not "Vine" going by IMDB and the larger number of Google hits, but I have not moved the article. Mr Potto (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - My first searches immediately found nothing and there's not even much at IMDb (one film this year) and if there's nothing there, chances are very likely there's nothing for an article here. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, does not look like he has independently produced a film so far.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jo Perry

Jo Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC: subject created a notable band, but the only significant coverage on the subject I could find is [27], which is not enough. Esquivalience ^t 19:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICIAN. Quis separabit? 13:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per Quis separabit? - I can't find anything and the sources bar DigitalSpy aren't all that (and even on DigitalSpy she's not actually mentioned!), fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICIAN –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Not many sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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.