Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 June	4 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Bigpoint_Games#List_of_games_developed_by_Bigpoint . (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceInvasion[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources. The1337gamer (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Anar chyte 00:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bigpoint Games#List of games developed by Bigpoint, include a sentence or two. --Anar chyte 00:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and this qualify as significant coverage. Clearly notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Both of these sources appear to be completely unrelated to article and game in question. Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the topic first. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those links are not about this game. – czar 15:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, a college student project page would not typically be sufficient sourcing to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Bigpoint_Games#List_of_games_developed_by_Bigpoint as the best choice when subject is non-notable and alternative to deletion; my searches found nothing particularly good with one at Books and and a few at News with browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary finding nothing as well. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dev, as above. No meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Redirect to dev is cheap. I think the title is spelled with a space. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 15:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dev, per above. Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple RS sources, but developer is notable enough. Dialectric (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fili Arden[edit]

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

Possible fictional character that doesn't merit an article TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleting under A7. Glen 06:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomee[edit]

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

Unremarkable application with very few references ~HB ^{Chat ♽ Contribs} 21:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - it's defunct anyway, note their "webiste" goes to archive.org —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Northey[edit]

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

This article is about a person on social media who, if I understand correctly, curates a hashtag. That doesn't seem very notable to me. There is also some writing and radio work, which seems closer to notability but I don't see this quite making it over the line. Forbes seems to like her but I am not sure if that is enough as their coverage consists of a bunch of silly list articles. She gets other hits in Google News but the coverage is all thin stuff as far as I can see. The average journalist who doesn't merit an article probably has more in Google News. The article has been deleted at AfD before. I don't know how much more notable she is now than back then and this is aparently not the same text that got deleted before. DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator was ranked as number 8237 of the Forbes List of The 9,000 Most Tedious Berks On The Internet ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she's in a lot of lists apparently, but the only "coverage" of her is a ridiculous HuffPost interview that seems like it was written by her mom/press agent: "You forged a path and became a social media trailblazer for country music, similar to how Oprah became a pioneer for television talk shows." LOL!!!!!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not any solid sources and those "awards" are not that significant; my searches found some results at News and some at Books (one author calls her "prominent" in two different books) but thefreelibrary and highbeam found nothing. Essentially, it may be too soon. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. With a search bringing up nothing other than merchant sites, I can't see this AfD closing any other way. I will reopen this if enough people want it to run for a full week, but I think that deletion is inevitable here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alenka: A Novel of Budapest[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Unable to find any third-party coverage. But for the literature exemption to A7, I would have nominated for speedy. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage whatsoever. APerson (talk!) 20:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can we do snow delete?! I don't know why literature is an exemption ... it's on Amazon; this is a self-published book! —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article has altready been G-5 speedy deleted as contribution from a banned or blocked editor. So I am closing this discussion as moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tumsa Koi Pyaara[edit]

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

Song with no notability to be found-I would say redirect to one of the artists or the film. (I believe this is also a SPI) Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I belive, we should redirect this to Khuddar and describe it here briefly. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy move to most trophies in European football and redirect to European association football club records#Most trophies ever. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most Trophies in European football[edit]

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

Pretty sure there was an article like this before, that got deleted at AfD. We don't need a list of European football clubs who've won over 30 titles, mainly because the big 5 European countries already have articles about this. Plus, it's misleading to count winning the Belarusian or Moldovan League the same as winning Premier League or La Liga. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Crane[edit]

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

Contested G11, spammy article about non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article on likely proper level, but it seems to be promotion. Notability is disputable. Delete Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crane's role as CEO at NRG Energy, described as the "nation’s biggest nonutility electricity producer, with $12 billion in annual revenue" is a credible claim of notability and there is appropriate coverage about him, notably the Forbes 2014 profile, to meet the notability guideline. If the article is "spammy", then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of an S&P500 company, and profiles in Forbes and Bloomberg, passes WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the tone of the article needs work, but it's not at a G11 level. The sources in the article are sufficient evidence to meet the GNG.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Lodge (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NHOCKEY as he hasn't played in a top-level professional league. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to delete the article for James Lodge. He has signed an entry level contract with the Winnipeg Jets of the National Hockey League. WpgJets4Life (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)WpgJets4Life[reply]

Lots and lots of players sign contracts with major teams and never play a single NHL game. That is why we have the standard of WP:NHOCKEY which clearly states that they must've actually played for a team in a top-level league. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as failing NHOCKEY, with no evidence the subject meets the GNG. I'm also nominating four other articles created by WpgJets4Life that likewise are mid-level prospects who fail NHOCKEY and with only routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE to show. (Three other articles passed NHOCKEY.) I urge WpgJets4Life to read WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY for a better understanding of the criteria for notability for potential articles. Ravenswing 21:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:HOCKEY. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete in the intent if not the letter of "if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page was added by its author".

@WENVIR:
@Marklapus:

please feel free to contact me about this. Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wenvir N. Leyson[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources to prove that this person is notable. Contested speedy deletion arguments fail to address the issue of notability of the person. The person and the area of study need to be considered separately per WP:NOTINHERITED. Drm310 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - total fail —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Original author blanked the page, so I have nominated it for WP:G7 speedy deletion. --Drm310 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Thompson (fitness)[edit]

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

Most of the sources are primary, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are sources, these net out to puff pieces that mention the individual, rather than in-depth coverage about the person in reliable and verifiable sources that would meet GNG. Alansohn (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately - This is actually one of the best known trainers in the fitness world and he's best known for the "Insanity" videos similar to P90X but unfortunately my searches aren't finding good coverage of him (here, here, here and here). As I recall, he tends to stay in the shadows and doesn't get much in-depth coverage; enhancing these searches with more words provided no help. SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article was previously agreed for deletion at AfD but I don't think it was ever deleted. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. Flat Out (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (Non-admin closure).--Antigng (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Mountain (dog park)[edit]

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

Non-notable park, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received enough coverage over the years —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Joseph2302 ,why was this even nominated? The nom gives zero rationale as to why they think this topic "fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE" when soruces sources already in the article show it passes those guidelines. I'm wondering if the nom even bothered looking at the already provided sources. It even has national coverage from NPR. [1] A textbook example of why WP:BEFORE needs to be an absolute rule. --Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Passes WP:GNG: NPR, The Washington Post, VPR, The Dog Lover's Guide to Travel. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RS coverage cited in the article plus RS articles found in searches satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. This dog chapel/dog park/art gallery gets non-trivial coverage from media all over North America. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that sufficient sources have been found to show notability.Mojo Hand (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sidra Stich[edit]

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

Not notable for any of the things they've done, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chief cur for BAM could help, but it's not documented. Otherwise, this is just a CV. Agricola44 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sourced the curator job, added an admiring profile from the San Francisco Chronicle. The article was written by a now-banned sock, cuirous to understand the motivaiton for such a thing. Nevertheless, she is notable: the profile in the Chronicle, the write-up in the New York Times, the position as "chief curator" at a major museum. User:Joseph2302, User:Agricola44, you might want to come back for a second look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Not only are her scholarly books notable; she is the rare writer of guide books whose books are purchased and shelved in the libraries of major fine arts museums and university libraries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published author (Google book search yields 23,700 hits), international fellowships, work profiled in The New York Times, clearly notable Kraxler (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Davis (criminal)[edit]

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

Known only for leading a train robbery, fails WP:1E and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately - Searches here, here and here found results but nothing at highbeam and thefreelibrary. So although there are several results there's nothing in-depth and basically he's best known for that one train robbery. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - train robberies were pretty much run-of-the-mill in the old West. Only source is self-published, other searches yield at most a trivial mention. Kraxler (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Cunningham-Brown[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The pseudo-sources largely don't mention Cunningham-Brown aren't independent of him, or are merely trivial coverage. The content is unduly promotional, with the worst parts not even supported by pseudo-sources. Huon (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a claim a company he is connected in will change the way houses are built. This may or may not be true, but it has not achieved its goals. Until we have reliable sources that demonstrate the company has had broad economic impact we do not have a credible claim for notability. Even then it is unclear if Cunningham-Brown is notable, or just the company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources in the article do not mention the subject, most are somehow related to his activities but don't show any content, like his degree from Manchester University is sourced to the MU website's main page without a link to a list, or him personally. A typical coat-racky spam promotional article of a non-notable person. Google web search leads to business directories, news and book searches yield zero results. Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarai Sierra[edit]

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

Person know only for being murdered, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Also not enough sourcing for such a controversial topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This case doesn't seem to have achieved the required impact or lasting notability for an article here. Wikipedia is not the news. BTW we don't have articles about murder victims, because they are not notable in themselves. We have an article about the crime, if it meets the criteria of WP:CRIME. So this article should be retitled Murder of Sarai Sierra if it is kept - which I don't think it should be. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, the crime is run-of-the-mill. No lasting impact, no extended debate/coverage. Kraxler (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already deleted, but debate just not closed. Davewild (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kretchmer[edit]

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

Notability tags on it for 11 months, and I agree it fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This jewelry designer did not achieve notability during his life, as far as I can tell in a search. He got a few notices in minor publications because of his untimely death in an accident, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ironically, my searching for his name suggested that his father may have been notable - if his father was Norman Kretchmer. [2] Norman had a son named Steven, and Steven had an unnamed father who was a "pediatric biochemist". --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL, fails WP:ARTIST, google searches lead to business directories and jewellery sales outlets, fails WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple electric car project[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL re-nomination after "no consensus" followed by "keep". Policy states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."

This event is not almost certain to take place, and while it may be WP:N because Apple is a large company and rumors can spread quickly through news, Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors. See AFD discussion on an article for the Samsung Galaxy S6 before Samsung had officially announced the S6, and the S6 was just a rumor. Appable (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I had to admit wondering if the speculation itself from generally reliable sources isn't itself notable. However, per WP:CRYSTAL which states "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content," specifically in regard to products, I have to lean toward delete. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @Appable: Per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, shouldn't you have waited at least six months before re-nominating? --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an essay/recommendation. There's no required waiting period - WP:RELIST. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - first, the subject of this article is a product, not a WP:EVENT. An event is the 2018 Tour de France. Second, subject easily meets GNG by extensive coverage that overcomes any complaint about "rumors" or WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is a very significant difference between articles based on "rumors" and articles based on sources whose names are not published for obvious reasons. In this article, The Wall Street Journal printed specifically that Apple has hundreds of employees working on the electric car for a project named Titan. Not "rumored to be" working on, or "considering" working on, or "it would be great if they started working on", but they are currently working on, as in fact. They didn't read that on a message board or hear it from someone who knows someone in Cupertino who has a really strong hunch. I don't know anything about the Samsung Galaxy S6, but I'm guessing that at the time it was deleted, the S6 was not the subject of articles in the WSJ, the BBC, Time, Forbes, Reuters, the Sydney Morning Herald, and Bloomberg. And those are the sources already in the article - I didn't even need to look for others. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." There are many different sources reporting conflicting news about the state of the electric car. It might be notable, but at its core it's all "speculation and rumor" since the company has never released any statement about the product. Therefore, it's not "appropriate encyclopedic content".Appable (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apple does not need to release any statement about the product. Where does it say that until a primary source releases a statement about a subject, everything printed about it is all speculation and rumor? That's silly. Nor is this a "short article that consists only of product announcement information." And as I pointed out, the WSJ has clear details that in no way are positioned or described as a rumor. If you personally choose to doubt that it's true, that is your choice, just the same way you could disregard anything that's printed anywhere, but that's not relevant to Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Insisting the WSJ is not accurate because nobody else has that same information is also not the way Wikipedia operates either; there is no guideline that says any piece of information must be confirmed by two or more reliable sources before it can be included. And really, The Wall Street Journal? I really can't think of a more solid reliable source out there, especially when it comes to an American business. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Samsung Galaxy S6 had the same sources discussing it. However, consensus was to remove the article because it was still backed on speculation and rumors or "insider reports" that may or may not be legitimate. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source, but it's still reporting on facts which can't be verified easily. Appable (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfortunately I can't view the original Samsung S6 article, so I can't see if the same sources discussed the Samsung S6 with the same extensive coverage that would have also met WP:GNG. I did notice that not a single person in either AfD claimed GNG. It would seem like, if Samsung Galaxy S6 had been the source of any particularly significant coverage, somebody who created and/or worked on either article would, over the course of those AfDs, tried to claim it had some solid sources. Nobody stood up for the article at all: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S6 (closed October 6, 2014) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S6 (2nd nomination) (closed 00:09, 1 March 1, 2015, ironically the day the Samsung S6 was officially released and the current article was created). So I tried my best to search for this pre-March coverage you said exists at what I think are the two strongest sources: Time and WSJ. For Time, this article from September 2014 on "Best Phones for Fall 2014" was the only mention before March 1, and it was a brief mention (list of phone makes and models, and noting Samsung people might want to hold out for the S6 that is "likely" to come out in 2015). I searched WSJ.com and there was nothing before 8 January 2015, and only a handful of hits before March 1, most of which were just about Samsung's financials, quarterly earnings forecast, business with Qualcomm. You can see for yourself. However, there was one article on 2 February 2015 that was very specifically about the Samsung Galaxy S6!!!! The article they published was: "Samsung Is Going to Launch a New Galaxy Smartphone on March 1". Not Samsung might be going to release it, not Samsung is rumored to be aiming for March 1, but a matter of fact: Samsung is going to launch the Galaxy on March 1 so let the rumors end. Of course I haven't seen all the other articles before March 1 in the same sources you say gave the same coverage to the S6, but if I had seen that second AfD, I probably would have pointed out the obvious like I'm doing now: the WSJ is not going to publish "speculation and rumors" as fact. They published that article and the Apple electric car article because they have verified the information they were putting their name on and have verified it to be fact. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—nothing has changed in the article since the last AfD to warrant a new nomination. In fact, looking at what's been added, we have more sources confirming the notability under WP:GNG. Even if Apple tomorrow issued a press release to say that the project were cancelled, it would still be a notable topic of discussion in the news media suitable for inclusion here. We have articles on proposed roads like County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan) or Illiana Expressway that haven't entered construction and are only under study or development. An electric car under development by Apple is really no different than a road under study. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy High Risk Area[edit]

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

Seems to be sourced primarily from one website.

"Piracy in the Strait of Hormuz" is seems more like a recentism. Mootros (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there are other articles like this, such as the Maritime Security Patrol Area for the Gulf of Oman, Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, Piracy in the Strait of Malacca. The article includes events going back several years, so I don't see how WP:RECENTISM applies. It doesn't seem to be sourced from one website either, and there are plenty of additional sources, [3], [4], [5], [6], which note this particular area is a gold mine because of the oil tankers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article asserts, essentially, that facts of today are always and forever the same facts. Look at the article title: "Piracy High Risk Area." That's an absurd title, because the area of high risk for piracy is an absolute. Isn't the Caribbean still "the" high risk area for piracy, if we take all acts of piracy together through history and combine them, or is it the Mediterranean, where the Romans were constantly chasing pirates? Well, this article asserts "the" area of "high risk" for "piracy": it's an absurd concept in an encyclopedia. It's fine for a governmental news release, for a newspaper, or for a morning briefing. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hithladaeus: Obviously you didn't even look at the article. It has clearly been renamed Piracy in the Strait of Hormuz and is only about piracy in the Strait of Hormuz. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination is mislisted, you're saying? I will happily strike. I wonder if there are perhaps any. . . other actions that might need to be taken besides that? No? Hithladaeus (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm, I'm not sure of the current state of the article, and whether it needs to be improved in any way. I also make it a policy to never read articles before I decide whether or not they should be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, the angels above are already singing your benevolence. I was only wondering if the listing might benefit from some of this surplus virtue. Apparently not. I'm sure you would know. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it would be up to the creator of this AfD to update the description - I really don't know what Mootros is talking about in regards to recentism. There aren't any pirating events there recently. There was this incident with Iran but it's not related to piracy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this probably should have been a retitling / moving discussion rather than an AFD as the main concern clearly related to the title and all other issues flowed from that. There were certainly strong arguments in that regard but with that issue resolved, there doesn't seem to be any outstanding policy-based reasons for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination must be considered withdrawn, after Joseph changed his vote to "keep". The only delete vote's rationale is "per nominator" but the nominator changed his mind. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hanlon[edit]

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

Being science editor of the Daily Mail doesn't imply notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this at the Guardian says he's the author of five popular science books - could he pass WP:AUTHOR? I noticed you also flagged one of his books for deletion.... —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia is correct, Hanlon easily passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some sources. Animus here may stem from the fact that the creator of the article is a sockpuppet - and there are few species Wikipedians hate more than sockpuppets. However, This is a notable journalist, editor, author and now - entrepreneur.[7]. User:Joseph2302, the page was void of sources when you found it, but you may want to take a second look. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep. On closer inspection, he does seem to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Also, he seems to be involved with Jurassica which has quite a bit of coverage, and if it actually gets built will probably produce lots of national coverage. Bad nomination. I would withdraw but can't, since someone else has voted delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greenfield[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another one of these vanity author pages. Absolutely no indication of notability, no reliable sources. mikeman67 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No established notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liis Windischmann[edit]

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

All the sources say she exists, but nothing else. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject of at least two articles from reliable sources: Montreal Gazette and Fort McMurray Today. Looks like there a bunch more online. mikeman67 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per [8], [9], [10]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017 AFC Asian Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced SPA article about a future amateur event. Maybe notable then, but currently no sources except Wikipedia mirrors and crawlers found. GermanJoe (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checking the AFC's homepage in English [11], not even the AFC itself has an announcement of this tournament up yet (looked for "2017" and "Singapore"). GermanJoe (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a hoax. This "amateur championship" is not listed anywhere at the AFC website. Kraxler (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Able[edit]

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

Non-notable artist created by PR sock. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ARTIST by a long way.TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A7 (article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alice's tea party[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Pishcal — ♣ 17:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and revert back to a redirect to Mad Tea Party, which is what the page originally was ([12]). I can't find anything to suggest that this band is ultimately notable. I've tagged it as a speedy, so it may not need to run the full week's AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Insurgency weapons and tactics. This should preferably have been listed at MfD, but the outcome is the same. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency weapon[edit]

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

This is not a useful disambiguation title, because there are no categories of weapons that are categorized in reliable sources as specifically being "insurgency" weapons. Any weapon that happens to be in the possession of insurgents could be called an insurgency weapon, from sticks and rocks to tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs. If there were a discernible category of "insurgency weapons" then the appropriate treatment would be to have an article on the topic, but in reality "insurgency weapon" basically just means Weapon. bd2412 T 16:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Insurgency weapons and tactics - I agree it has no purpose as a disambiguation page, but it is something someone might search for. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Insurgency weapons and tactics per nomination. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per previous comment. The term "insurgency weapons", apparently popularised by gun designer Robert Hillberg to refer to simple, cheap and reliable firearms,[13][14] doesn't seem very notable, although it's valid as a description of weapons used by insurgents. The Hillberg concept is already under Insurgency_weapons_and_tactics#Purpose-built_insurgency_weapons, and the more general concept is discussed in the rest of that article (certain weapons are strongly associated with insurgencies and guerilla movements, most iconically perhaps the AK-47 [15][16]). This is not an appropriate disambiguation page, since the topic only has one meaning and disambiguation pages shouldn't normally list examples. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Insurgency weapons and tactics is the best option. Also, the Insurgency weapons and tactics has links to the other 4 pages listed.--RAF910 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have no objection to redirecting to Insurgency weapons and tactics, per all above. bd2412 T 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, since it's very solidly in favor of redirect, I think you can go ahead and just boldly do that and close the AfD —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the proposer, I would be uncomfortable being the closer. bd2412 T 18:46, 8 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Bunce[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as actor, model or athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:RUGBY. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Yong[edit]

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

Known only for being CEO of a company not notable enough to have Wikipedia page, and most of the article is just an advert for that company. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. Even if we assume that this transcription is unique, there are multiple 張勇s listed at ZHWP but not this one. Feel free to take this and refactor to any one of the more notable ones (like the footballer or the ancient generals). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - no indication of notability, pure self-promotion. Kraxler (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Seale[edit]

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

Non-notable person, article written in a promotional way. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in Science is enough to convince me of notability, but we also have a second obituary providing the multiple reliable sources needed for WP:GNG. And judging by Google scholar his works are still well cited despite their age, so I think he also passes WP:PROF#C1, even though that criterion is aimed more at current academics than at long-past ones. When we have articles on people known for their expertise on something, and these articles have proper sources saying that they are known for their expertise, it is not promotional to call them an expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable ichthyologist. Linked from 87 other articles on fishes (most (all?) of which he described scientifically, and there are many other fishes he described that lack Wikipedia articles). Tone of article is a little promotional, but that being poorly written isn't grounds for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Sourcing is good; obituary in Science and pdf on California Academy of Sciences. Has been dead for almost 60 years and the standard of sourcing is appropriate for a scientist of his time period. The nomination is about as absurd as they come. Le petit fromage (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Day of the Pelican[edit]

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

Non-notable book, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was ready to !vote this down due to the article's ugly origins. Plenty of UCC such as [17] [18] [19]. However there may be enough legit reviews to establish notability:

[20] CS Monitor
[21] Vermont Public Radio
[22] Publishers Weekly

Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the claim to have won the Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal is true, that probably meets WP:NBOOK by itself. — Brianhe (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and had some trouble pulling up the site. I found this cached version of the page that doesn't list the specific book but does say that the author won the award. The WP entry for the award gives off the impression that the award is for an author's entire set of works, not for specific individual books. I looked on the author's entry and got this cached version of the specific awards page, which does not mention this book at all. This backs up the idea that she was given the award for her work overall and not for one specific book. In other words, the claim that this specific book won the award is erroneous. However I do think that there are enough sources out there to otherwise show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now of course the ALA site comes up. The information still backs up the assertion that this is for an author's overall works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not have won any specific awards (see my comments above), but it still received quite a bit of coverage- enough to where it'd merit an article on Wikipedia. I did find some evidence to suggest that it is used in some classrooms, although not really enough to where I'd say that it'd qualify under that criteria. There is some coverage to assert that its author would probably qualify as someone who is so notable that their works would be considered notable as well, although I know that this is often highly debated. Regardless of that, there is enough to show notability for the work as a whole, independently of the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient reliable sources have been found to establish notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Garbage's Outrageous Bathroom Book[edit]

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

This was kept at AfD over nine years ago. However, notability standards for books were not well developed at that time. The subject of this article appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Safiel (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to suggest a redirect to Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, but I can't see where this is an official entry in that series. A search brought up nothing to show that it would pass notability guidelines and a look on the book's Amazon page shows that the only review it ever received was from a site called "Poop Report".(Which I'm only mentioning here so I can write "Poop Report", which for some reason I find hilarious at almost 2 AM in my time zone.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the 'keep' rationales in the 1st AfD had anything to do with notability criteria and the article would never have survived at AfD today. Pooped! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches yield almost nothing, certainly not notable. Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Nance[edit]

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

Illustrated 2 books and won a local award, not notable enough. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe if the BOB Award were known, there would be something here, but no. — Brianhe (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a local minor celebrity, but nothing that passed the SC state line yet Kraxler (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Cohen (businessman)[edit]

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

Created a non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not indicate notability. Some speech writers are notable, but no evidence exists to suggest that Cohen was such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Muslim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article on website that self-describes as a magazine. However, the only RS I can find is the 2012 The Oxford Handbook of Religion and the American News Media it describes New Muslim not as a magazine, but as an "outlet an outlet that has used new technologies and a changing media environment to reestablish itself," as described in article, it had once been a quarterly put out by Sheila Musaji, whose article is also up for AFD. Website lists Musaji as the sole editor, and specifies that in the former, hardcopy iteration all staff were volunteers. The problem with all of this is that I can find no sources beyond that single listing in an Oxford book (and even that is unsourced except that it quotes Musaji, in a book that sources other publications.) As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable, self-described "magazine" of admirable longevity. It does publish articles and opinions by multiple writers, but there is no indication that the material is edited. Click "editors" and only 1 name appears, Musaji. There was an AFD in 2007. 5 WP editors weighed in, all voting "keep". Problem is, only 1 of them bought a source, and it is a dead link. This is the problem: I have searched and can find no sourcing that does not lead directly back to this 1-person website that calls itself a magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to this page on the website, it was a print (quarterly) magazine from 1989 to 1995. It seems it had many contributors and many editors. After 9/11, it was recreated as an online source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It says that they were all volunteers. But so far, I am not turning up notability in any period; searching is hard because "The American Muslim" is a common phrasing for many things other than this journal/website. This page and Sheila Musaji were started by the same SPA in 2006. Here:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_American_Muslim&oldid=148084237} is the page as the SPA created it. Not much to go on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am not denying that it existed, or that after a gap of several years the same editor continued online. It's just that anyone can start a magazine, but to have a page on WP requires sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too, have had a hard time finding reliable sources. The print edition has had a six year run ending in 1995 yet I find no references to articles from that journal. The online revival is run by one woman who while articulate and educated seems write the bulk of the articles and republishes many others. All the references seem to point to the existence of the online magazine but rarely to the content. I added the Oxford reference; but the Oxford book has many religious journals, notable and obscure. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't know if it is about a magazine hat is not notable, a web site that is not notable, or a thrid party unconnected publication that is also not notable. Plus the fat that its editor's article , Sheila Musaji, has also been deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antal Kerpely Dormitory[edit]

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

Entirely unremarkable building.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite the contrary, Antal Kerpely Dormitory is much more significant than for example St. John's Lutheran College Girls Dormitory (built in 1950), Cabin Creek Ranger Residence and Dormitory (big wood-frame house) or Indian Dormitory (which has just about 20 rooms), and the three too late dormitory is not really prodigiously well written articles. We will keep it. --Boys of Chatting box (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'd say that the above user is a newly created SPA, but they have also created three articles on moths, which share features with a demented editot who keeps creating new acounts, writing a couple of suck articles, & then I assume getting blocked as a loudly quacking sock.TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute not intresting your are dealing with articles of moths, and not focusing about the Antal Kerpely Dormitory article. The Subdomain is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antal Kerpely Dormitory , your problem was "unremarkable", and I proved you are absolutly not true compare the Antal Kerpely Dormitory with a big wood-frame house in Sierra Nevada. --Auto1080p (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources that I can see and doesn't appear to meet WP:GEOFEAT. Sorry, but this really doesn't look like it can be included here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College hall of residence built in 1971. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ass the Boys of Chatting box wrote it down, we will keep it anyway, I mean anyway. Do you understand the word: "anyway"? It necessary to repeat, and repeat at 10AM. and 5PM again. St. John's Lutheran College Girls Dormitory built in 1950, College hall of residence built in 1971. the same. We won't accept Necrothesp hang of an argument. Necrothesp said nothing. The sources can be added later. --Auto1080p (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although your English is execrable it sounds as though you're saying it will be kept no matter what anyone else's opinion may be. Wikipedia doesn't work like this. You clearly haven't realised that all the American buildings you mention are on the National Register of Historic Places, which qualifies them for inclusion. Is this building on a similar list? No? Then it doesn't qualify under the same convention. Buildings aren't just notable because they're there! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill building, no history (except being in existence), no indication why it is notable. Kraxler (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G5 by Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohobbat Buri Bimari (Version 1)[edit]

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

A song I can't find notability for. I would say redirect but not sure to what-probably the film. Wgolf (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This song is a superhit in India. So no reason is valid for deleting this. Wgolf, wikipedia isn't the place for showing your intelligence and putting your own observations. This is Non-Notable song!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It has received a 1.5 million watch on youtube within a month. check plz and plz evict this fake deletion notice. Here goes the link. I think you aren't blind, 15 lakh watches! : http://m.youtube.com/results?gl=US&client=mv-google&hl=en&submit=Search&q=mohabbat+buri+bimari Amyra Dastur (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please... the deletion notice is simply an alert to this discussion, placed by an editor who wishes it determined if the song is notable enough for inclusion under our guideline. While a lot of YouTube hits might be a determinant if it is a viral video, showing reliable sources speaking about the song and listing it as a "hit" would meet WP:NSONGS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD Mohabbat Buri Bimari

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really, there isn't much choice at this point. The lodging of the article is self-defeating, for one thing (song name "(Version 1)"). If the song had demonstrated sales, discussion, and longevity, then we'd need to ensure about half a dozen redirects simply to cover all of the potential look-ups. The content covers a single fact (it is a song from a film), plus lists singers, and then we have violations of NPOV. (Shrug) It could be "Wind Beneath My Wings" or "Candle in the Wind," for all I can tell, and it might turn out to generate as much press and use, but not now, and not like this. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Losh[edit]

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

Notability Ucsd1234 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing general due diligence as described in the article deletion page, Losh has written a few books, but no other books really mention her. She is the author of multiple academic articles in Google Scholar, and they are good. However, these articles are not substantive enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. She does plenty in femtech, but the article was written at a conference where she played an integral role, where someone likely felt her presence was more powerful than her impact outside the conference.

User:Ucsd1234, Welcome to WP. It is unusual to see a new account apparently created for the sole purpose of nominating an article for deletion. And intriguing to have a SPA named ucsd created for the purpose of deleting the newish page of a UCSD professor. If you are Elizabeth Losh and are using this as a method of deleting the article because yo would prefer not to have a WP article, you should know that deletion can be requested by academics who, like Losh, are not household names. If, however, you have a personal grudge....E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is promotionally written — e.g. the pull quotes from the reviews appear to be chosen as quotes that make the books good rather than ones that tell us anything useful about their content — and that should be fixed. But getting reviewed at Times Higher Education is something of a coup, and although I can't find quite as high profile reviews for her other book Virtualpolitik it also has some published reviews [23] [24]. That may be enough for WP:AUTHOR, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What User:David Eppstein said. Plus this review [25] in Nature (journal). She clearly passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why her multiple academic articles (here) are not considered enough for her to be kept. Some of the articles have been cited 20+ times. I think it's impressive for someone who is still early on in her career. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fas as I can see, this does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Dismal citation record (even for someone who is early career in a low citation-density field), but David Eppstein makes a good case that this squeaks by AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article, which was created during an edit-a-thon needs the help of more experienced Wikipedians. The reasons for keeping it include it came out of a Feminism edit-a-thon and it is obviously a stub which needs fleshing out. The subject of the article passes notability tests. Let's try to help this new Wikipedian by making this a better article as it is demoralizing for new Wikipedians to have their early attempts at contributing to Wikipedia AfD. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete.~~ You can't vote twice. Kraxler (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Original deletion recommender.) Thanks for the comments -- I am fine keeping the page as long as someone improves the page. As far as a grudge goes, I do know her, but I don't hold a grudge -- I am a huge Wiki advocate and would love her to have her page, but I know this was promotional, and I don't think it's right for promotional material to be put up. I definitely do not want to demoralize the original author, who is probably a fan of Losh. The whole reason that no one is commenting on the delete page (and this is going on for more than the usual 1 week) is because she's not notable outside this narrow field. So far, we have a few commenters, including a "vintage feminist," and David Eppstein, who is a UCI computer science professor and may (or may not) be in the same knowledge space as Liz Losh. I mainly think that many of the people in this small intellectual space think she's bigger than what she is. But improve the page so that it's not promotional, and I think it will be a good contribution. Ucsd1234[reply]
- Please comment on the article, not the other editors participating in the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was responding to accusations in above comments. All of the people in this discussion are great people. The article needs to be gutted and completely rewritten because it is shrill and promotional -- for a respected but relatively not well known academic. She is not WP:NOTABLE Ucsd1234 — Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a hint: using the word "shrill" for a female professional is no longer the preferred nomenclature. It comes across as sexist. You might want to update your vocabulary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wvdial. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME-PPP[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable bit of software. I declined a WP:CSD#A7 and decided a redirect to Wvdial would be a compromise, but was reverted. Bringing discussion here to see what other options we've got. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As kppp has a separate article, then GNOME-PPP should also. So deleting this article is a vandal POV. Fsfolks (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kppp has also been nominated for deletion here for the same reason. Personally I think we should have fewer good articles on this topic area, rather than lots of stubby ones - that would be better for the reader wouldn't you think? The term "vandal POV" makes no sense, different people have different views and life would be incredibly dull if we all had the same opinions. Also, vandalism has a very specific term on Wikipedia - it means deliberately making the encyclopedia worse. Like this, for example. Having a different viewpoint to somebody else and enforcing it aggressively can certainly be disruptive, but it's not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that this is a good idea, since the WvDial article will not be enough to contain all detailed infos about kppp and GNOME-PPP. Fsfolks (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wvdial Thanks Ritchie333 and Fsfolks. I would like to apologise first for applying the incorrect tag to the article. That being said, I cannot see much of a reasoning keeping the pages. As of right now, I cannot see how merging content from the two articles to Wvdial would cause much of a trouble. In addition, I do not believe the article meet WP:NSOFT. While I acknowledge the presence of the review at http://www.osnews.com/story/7253/Quick_Review_Introduction_to_Gnome-PPP, it would appear to me that it failed to assert GNOME-PPP as being significant in its particular field. The article also failed to claim importance in its content. If you have further details to add for GNOME-PPP and kppp, you are welcomed to add them to the articles and expand them. If further references are added then obviously it would help to convince people that this software is indeed notable. - Andrew Y _talk 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Articles about non-notable end-user front-ends belong on blogs or Wikia. I'm really dubious the notability of a lot of these Linux software articles, as most of them are just manuals. But I'll go along with a redirect for the sake of consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town drunk[edit]

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

(withdrawn) Original research. A dicdef plus a bunch of examples plus more original research. I am not saying that such archetype does not exist. I am saying that I don't see it described in reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

changed to keep, based in the idea which came out of the discussion that the article may be salvaged by rewriting it to be about a social stereotype rather than about a stock character from literature. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete There is no media or reliable coverage that determines what a town drunk is. I searched the internet to find some but had no luck. Wrightie99 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Despite a town drunk being a well known stereotype, especially in Irish folk law but I'm not sure it is 'important' enough for an article. That being said any reliable sources and this article could be viable.

Comment. There's a fairly substantial discussion in this book. This book also seems to have some critical commentary. I'll look for more later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs references, but this is a typical stock character and I'm assuming that sources will be found. There's at least one book on alcohol in movies [26], and many with the subject heading "Alcoholics in literature." It will be hard to avoid OR, so this is going to require a lot of digging. LaMona (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems not to have considered alternatives to deletion. Anyway, the topic is obviously notable - see On Town Drunks, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you did not read the link you provided. The term is used about real town alcoholics, not about stock character. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I read it. The title of the topic does not confine us to fiction and it seems good to cover the reality of such folk. Andrew D. (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, actually it looks like a good idea to rewrite the article (definition) so that it is about a social stereotype rather than about stock character. In this case I agree there are enough references. Sorry, I didn't think about this earlier. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these book mentions [27][28][29], IMHO needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of these mentions discuss town drunk as stock character in reasonable datail? Do you think I cannot google? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one said you can't Google, I'm simply !voting Keep based on the mentions which to me with the above sources are sufficient enough for an article- As for the "Stock character" mentions - I'd imagine there's a few stuff offline somewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French Canadians in the Political Life of the Province of Alberta[edit]

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

Article about a book with no properly sourced evidence of notability under WP:NBOOK, sourced only to its sales profile on Amazon.com and not to any reliable source coverage at all. The mere fact that a book exists isn't what gets it a standalone Wikipedia article — it takes reliable source coverage demonstrating that the book passes one of our notability criteria for books, and there's none of that here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Slicing and sluicing the pie a bit thin. We don't really need "Persons greater than six feet in height who serve on the Essex Council." There must be a need for the distinction, then the assemblage. Neither is met here, and that's independently of the poor sourcing. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zut alors, Deletez per nom. Unnotable, unreviewed book about a very narrow and obscure topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Oshunloye[edit]

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

Autobiography. DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: No evidence of notability, the article lacks any reliable independent sources concerning the notability of the subject, fails WP:BASIC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - FYI he removed the AfD tag. I put it back on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know what's going on. Admin moved the article to Alexander Oshunloye, which is redirect to itself. All the history is gone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He continues to remove the afd... this needs to be salted —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article with no notability. WWGB (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable person, vanity piece. Snappy (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article lacks any reliable independent sources, not notable, nothing on google news or google web that's not social media based Reggiegal (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uke til U Puke[edit]

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

No references and has been hanging around a long time. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rockwell Center. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proscenium at Rockwell[edit]

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

How is this residential apartment block different from all other similar developments around the world? The creator has a clear COI (and has been blocked). Non-notable. JMHamo (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant media coverage aside from standard 'this was built' stories. WP:NOTDIR applies. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 14:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rockwell Center. This mixed-use complex is a significant component of the expanded Rockwell Center.--RioHondo (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rockwell Center. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. There is some coverage - the Wikipedia article cites 2 newspaper articles about the Proscenium, another that mentions it, and an interview - but this is not enough to clearly establish notability separate from the main Rockwell project, and it can easily be treated in the main article on the project. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety[edit]

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

No real context, a single source and non-notable department Zackmann08 (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From my understanding, single departments of an entire territory (for example, Northern Mariana Islands) are automatically notable. This isn't the police department of a single municipality or even county. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However I would like to merge this with Law enforcement in the Northern Mariana Islands, which I just discovered. However I think "Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety" should be the article title. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Preposterous nomination. Does not lack context. Number of sources is irrelevant, but is much larger than one. (Hint: use a search engine next time, as this is required by BEFORE). State-wide (including province-wide, territory-wide etc) government departments are inherently notable. This one clearly satisfies GNG, though that isn't necessary. Merger would be inappropriate as there is plenty of coverage, it would reduce clarity of presentation and ought, in principle, to be to a parent unit of government, not an article on an activity that isn't the department's only function (in addition to "prevention of crime", the departments functions also include "protection of life and property" and "preservation of peace, order and safety" (Governor's Report, 2000, p 50: [30]), neither of which necessarily involves enforcing any laws. James500 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if Law enforcement in the Northern Mariana Islands redirects to Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that article should be merged or redirected is irrelevant to this nomination as that article has not been nominated. If you want to redirect/merge that article to this one, and I think that is what you propose, your !vote here should be "keep". James500 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I voted keep :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Law enforcement organisations which cover entire territories, however small, are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is long overdue for closure or relisting. It should be closed immediately as "keep", that being the clear consensus. James500 (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smth must have happened, because I do not see it transcluded. Will transclude it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil McCoy[edit]

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

Article is a WP:HOAX. There is no Burlington nature artist named Phil McCoy. The two book sources are bogus. The ISBN for the first book actually belongs to "Playboy: Redheads", and the second ISBN doesn't match any book. A search by title turns up no indication that these books exist. The third reference purports to be a book about the environmental crisis of the 70's and a NY Times bestseller. The link leads to a set of PDFs for NY Times fiction bestsellers which makes no sense for what would be a non-fiction book. For somebody who was such a prolific and well known artist, there is no trace of him in a google search. Whpq (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete good catch - based on this note I thought this was just a crazy person desperate to get a Wikipedia article for their relative; but user's talk page shows they have created numerous nonsense and should have been banned months ago. I cannot believe this has existed for so long - the first draft of the Phil McCoy article included a painting by Hitler credited to McCoy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. DBaK (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KunLun fight[edit]

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

Notability not established. Claims aside (not supported by references) this is not a notable kickboxing organization. The article was PROD'd and also speedy deleted a number of times. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable fighter that does not pass the notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is from the organization. My search found the usual routine fight announcements and results, but not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see passing mentions in news media but no solid coverage that is about it as a subject in itself. Does Chinese language Wikipedia have an article on it? If it does then it isn't linked If nobody in its native country cares enough to write about it then I doubt it is notable globally. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Kunlun Fight（China）" has recently been created with the same content by the same author. I have put it up for speedy deletion as a duplicate. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the number of creations I mentioned above have all been under variations of the name. Definitely persistent.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion has been provided in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

44 Medical Task Group[edit]

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

TeaLover1996 (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont see why this should be deleted and you dont give any reason either. There are tons of articles on military units on wikipedia. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason for deletion given? It needs referencing but that's not a reason for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disinfect (band)[edit]

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

Band does not meet notability per WP:BAND. --Non-Dropframe _talk 05:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found only basic listings. The corresponding article in the German Wikipedia was created in March (though they've been around since 1999) and has no real sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough reliable sources to establish band as notable. Saw some listings here and there on MTV, but that's it. Delete. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the notability of the sources, they are real sources, not notable as it seems (because they don't seem to mete mainstream criteria, maybe?). So shouldn't magazines (both print and online) not be used at all? Or is there a certain subscriber base required? One more question, for future articles: Why/how was it accepted as article in the first place? Looking forward to any help and thanks in advance.• Chrisnb

To answer Chrisnb's question. Whether a source conveys notability is not related to its popularity or its specificity, but rather its reliability. In short, if a source has editorial control it is usually reliable and conveys notability. Looking at the sources in the article (which none of the above comments seem to have done):

Metal.de is an extensive review and the site appears to be a reliable source - conveys notability

Perun.hr is a modest length review and the site's reliability is possible, but unclear - doesn't add much

Eternity Magazine is an interview (semi-primary source) by a publication with unclear reliability - adds nothing

Voices from the Darkside (Chris Infect) appears to be a reliable source - adds a little, but not as much as a review or other non-interview would

Blabbermouth does not appear to be a reliable source

The-pit.de does not appear to be a reliable source

The rest of the sources are trivial mentions (tour dates, track listings, etc)

Overall, I would say that adds up to some minor notability: weak keep --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. I took my examples from similar articles, but this helped me a lot. • Chrisnb

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Merron[edit]

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

WP:BLP, clearly created for promotional purposes, of a writer whose debut book is still a month away from a future publication date, and whose article is sourced entirely to promotional content on the websites of the book's publishers. As always, the qualification that gets a writer into Wikipedia is "the writer is the subject of reliable source coverage supporting a claim of notability that satisfies WP:AUTHOR", not "the writer exists". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when RS coverage starts showing up. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I may have done something incorrect with this page. My apologies if I have, I am only an occasional Wiki editor. However, I did some research and thought that I was following Wikipedia guidelines. So, in the spirit of assuming good faith I'll try and address your obvious concerns. Firstly, this is not 'clearly' created for any purposes other than to highlight the writer of a forthcoming book, with a major Worldwide publisher. I don't work for them and there is no promotional content on the page. I am/was not aware that a book had to be formally past its publishing date, before it was mentioned. With regards to the sources linking to the publisher, I added these after another editor pointed out that at least one source needed to be added. I followed the guidelines under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources where it mentions "The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". Anyway, I'm not going to argue this point further and am happy to leave it up to more experienced editors to decide about this. But please, let's keep this civil and not jump to conclusions about people's motives. Bonzobonce (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a rule that all works of literature have to be past its publication date before they can be mentioned on here at all — if the writer has previously published other works and thus already satisfies WP:AUTHOR, then announced future works are allowed to be added to their article. But if the basic claim of notability is resting entirely on a debut work that hasn't been published yet, then the author hasn't yet satisfied the basic criterion that would allow them to have an article to mention the book in — the basic notability criterion for writers does require that at least one book has already been published and garnered media coverage (or that they already qualified for an article for other reasons independently of publishing a book.) And while the website of the book's publisher is a valid source for verifying the fact of the book's publication, it cannot confer notability in and of itself — it's not an independent source which demonstrates that he's received coverage for the fact of the book. It's valid for confirming the fact of the book's existence if enough other sources are already present in the article to cover off the notability issue, but it cannot satisfy the notability issue in and of itself — sources that are reliable for the confirmation of facts, and sources which can actually demonstrate that the topic satisfies our notability rules, are two different things. I'll grant that promotion may not have been your intention, but there is a longstanding pattern on Wikipedia that such things are usually contributed by the publisher themselves or a public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. I don't agree it's created for promotional purposes and editor's history shows nothing that would indicate a connection with subject or book. Sounds like an interesting book, but we need to wait until it's released or has enough material to warrant an article on the book or the author. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that the book passes notability guidelines, and that is the only thing that it is asserted Merron might pass notability guidelines for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Therapontos[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Singh SAAVM[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources not established. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real claim of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means with searches finding no significant and notable sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLPNOTE fails.--115ash^→(☏) 09:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LDN Noise[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion via WP:A7, but the association with notable performers is enough to where they'd squeak by speedy standards. However a search doesn't really bring up anything that would really assert notability for this production duo and I also need to note that while the article asserts that they are "Grammy-nominated", this statement refers to a Grammy nomination for Chris Brown- which is not the same as LDN Noise actually receiving a nomination themselves. They have worked with international artists so there's potential that there could be sources in another language, but offhand I'm really not seeing any true notability here enough to where they'd pass notability guidelines, especially as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by them working with notable persons. It can make it more likely, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just couldn't find anything but mentions. Seems like they also work with K-pop musicians but again I only saw mentions in Korean articles. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock of Gregagentx. Mike V • Talk 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable The grammy nomination is indeed for the album "Fortune" which included "turn up the music" a song written by both members of ldn noise. all reference's are there to be seen and from notable sources such as mtv, allkpop, grammyawards etc. i think theres more than enough evidence that the duo work with many artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalielouise87 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable the references seem genuine, a quick scan of their social media sites show them to be working with a lot of music artists in different countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregagentx (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 May 2015

Comment: Just a quick note- please be aware that AfDs are not decided on a vote and if you were asked to come vote on this AfD, you need to look over Wikipedia's policy on canvassing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tokyogirl79: I think you should think of nominating Agent X created by Gregagentx above as well as it suffers from similar problems where notability is asserted by association with notable people. Cowlibob (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at it later on tonight. I took a small vacation this weekend so I need to catch up on some stuff first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite their success, there is no in-depth coverage of this team in reliable sources; the most I can find is very brief mentions either in lists of "X has worked with Y, Z, and LDN Noise..." or in credits for specific records "the single, which was produced by LDN Noise, is released on..."; so I can't see how a detailed Wikipedia article can be created. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a fairly borderline decision. The main objections to the article is that the subject is not quite notable enough, as the sources are not reliable and/or do not discuss the subject significantly enough beyond trivial mentions. This objection has been challenged. On examining closely the sources, on the whole they are not directly dealing with the subject, but with other matters to which the subject is related (ie, they are about material he is selling, and he is mentioned in passing). However, there are, as pointed out in the discussion, mentions which go beyond the incidental, and which are interviews, such as the juxtapoz one, and the New Lenox Patch. However, also brought up was the local nature of the coverage. What is certain is that the article is verifiable, and that Kelly Hutchison does exist, and has gained some attention in local media for selling murderabilia. What is not certain is if the amount and quality and significance of the sources meet our inclusion criteria. Seeing arguments balanced on both sides, it's not the closer's role to take any one side; so, as the argument is balanced I can either take a count or close as no consensus. Given that the deletes are three, while the keeps are one, there is a clear consensus for deletion. However, given the amount of work the creator, Crystalh1982 has done on the article, I will WP:Userfy on request so Crystalh1982 can continue working on it, or merge the material into murderabilia as suggested during the discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hutchison[edit]

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

Delete: as pure copy/paste, promotional OR hagiography. Quis separabit? 11:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the original author of this article and I worked very hard on it under the advice of a seasoned editor on Wiki that also wrote articles on visual artists. I am not affiliated with the artist, and I understand it has been edited by various others since it's creation, but I am familiar with the sources that the pages cites and know it is not a copied/pasted article. It is not of my opinion that it displays information in a biased manner as all information is cited, however if there is something specific that would need to be changed I will volunteer to do so. The page was not created for any promotional purposes. If there's something there now that should be fixed along those lines I will volunteer to do so.Crystalh1982 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to Murderabilia, possibly adding some content from these references. The article suffers from cite spam, unfortunately. There are no articles listed that are about the subject, although there are mentions. Some of the links, however, do not mention the person at all (e.g. #16, #21). Other cites are to blogs, individual web sites, etc., and no reliable sources have an article about the artist. In fact, the thrust of the articles is almost exclusively the phenomenon of "murderabilia". LaMona (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the full length article in juxtapoz counts as an article about him.©Geni (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that interviews may be considered primary sources and thus original research. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-3 I don't know how to know when they are not OR. LaMona (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ Geni, I agree the full length article in juxtapoz counts as an article about him. @ Lamona, I disagree that the interview is considered primary research after reviewing cite note 3 mentioned above. My understanding is that it would only apply to an "oral history interview", such as an interview about an accident that took place and referencing an interview from a witness. I can see your point that perhaps the murderabilia info isn't valid within the artist page, however many articles mention personal information about the subjects, and I can see why someone may have thought to add it because it is a big part of his life/what influences him(#21 does mention the artist by the way). However you claim that the murderabilia section is the main part of the page. It is actually a section only titled "personal collection", the rest is about the artist himself, no? As far as the individual web sites, blogs, etc.: What about Thrillist Media Group? They made upwards of 100 million in 2014 with more than 300 employees according to Wikipedia. Per WP:BLPSPS "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". Therefore, just because it's a blog, doesn't mean it's not legit. Also, Reference #2 may appear to just be a "personal website" but it's actually a local newspaper that is printed, and the articles just happen to be reposted in blog form online. I also obtained a copy of Inked Magazine (Reference #12) and indeed the article does exist about him as listed - so although it's not available online for free I believe it's still a valid reference. I also have for example, an article about him in print from San Diego City Beat that isn't on this reference list, and I'm not sure why local publications are not valid? I really respect all of your opinions, and am trying to figure this out. As I am sure you can understand, I do not want my hard work going to waste and again volunteer my help if something can be done to prevent deletion.Crystalh1982 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I'm satisfied by the number of sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC) -- delete comment by banned sockpuppet. Quis separabit? 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you to those that have relisted this in hopes of reaching a consensus, which I hope can happen soon. I am very concerned about this article being deleted from Wiki and my offer still stands to help improve the article if it can be saved. I noticed the link to sources above only searches for the artist's name which is a very common name, and while he still pops up first and in many entries, most artists are better found when adding additional search terms such as "artist", etc. just a thought. I am hoping others can weigh in here and express their opinions, and most importantly some ideas on how this article can be saved/ improved upon. I can't remember the shortcut to sign my name and it's not providing it on this mobile device so this is user crystalh1982 at your mercy, signing out, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalh1982 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist. Nakon 02:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor local celebrity in San Diego, with minor local coverage. Otherwise, "sources" in the article are related to the subject, or interested in selling his stuff, or reporting on murderabilia in general. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG, there's no "significant" coverage in whatever sources. Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janos Delacruz[edit]

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

This was deleted via prod a day ago, but was resurrected. Deleted prods that are resurrected. are sent to AFD, so I'll be using the reason I used in the prod: all sources fail WP:RS. –H T D 15:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom regarding sources. Article is largely written like a resume. I have a feeling this is an WP:AUTOBIO. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did the proposer or anyone look for other sources? He has coverage in major Filipino publications: Manila Bulletin[31], Filipino Reporter[32], Filipino Daily Inquirer[33], and a group show covered in the well-known UAE newspaper The National[34]. I'm not quite certain that's enough but it's something. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has sufficient references to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think, based on Colapenisula's sources plus another substantive 2012 article in the Manila Bulletin [35] or [36]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit/cleanup. Meets WP:BASIC: [37], [38], [39]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found as well as these [40][41], Was WP:BEFORE even followed?. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with that sufficient references to meet GNG Shad Innet (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cell membrane#Lipids. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral diffusion[edit]

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

appears to be the common name for osmosis and fails GNG as social media reference; article has been around a long time and seems to be the source of online descriptions for this term. Not sure if I should just do redirect or propose deletion. Same editor created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lateral media and Lateral communication that seem to support each other. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cell membrane#Lipids. With 84,700 hits in GScholar, lateral diffusion is a highly notable topic. Lateral diffusion is an important topic in membrane biophysics. We don't have an article on the biophysics topic, so I suggest to redirect this to Cell membrane#Lipids, where it is mentioned. It doesn't seem to be a notable concept in sociology or social network theory; I could find no reliable in depth references on the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I knew it was a real scientific term but didn't know to where it should be redirected. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. An important topic shouldn't be deleted if there's an article on it with a different name. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Worship Band[edit]

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

Non-notable group, doesn't meet WP:BAND, no substantial independent coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete doesn't meet any notability criteria.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidence has provided that they meet GNG and also WP:BAND. While consensus is not a vote, I must change my vote upon review of the evidence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received significant coverage in Hallels.com (here and here) and Cross Rhythms (here and here). The album Paradise has charted on a Billboard chart, but I don't know which one, as the Billboard entry is incomplete (as the entries often are on that site).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the Billboard charts I can't say for sure, But I note that the article came out on March 31 and Billboards shows it on the charts for 9 weeks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GNG above by 3family6, as well as, the song, "Echo", by Newport charting on two Billboard magazine charts.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NBAND, among various other shortcomings. Quis separabit? 12:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already voted keep based on some reliable sources that I provided. I would add this feature on a local radio station as an additional source. With three different reliable sources talking about this band, I believe that notability concerns should be satisfied. I'm sure that there are more sources, but those sources might be difficult to find with a Google Search (a lot irrelevant info comes up in the searches I've done, so that makes it even harder).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose - I was contemplating a few minutes of what to say and I suppose for a religious group local to an area the sources are acceptable although there could be better (the album is new so maybe future projects will get coverage also). SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone who wants to merge any of it elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh[edit]

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

Duplicate article/content, Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY . This article is essentially a dictionary or concordance of the Epic of Gilgamesh, definitions of everything the editor feels is important. Of course, it's entirely redundant with our existing article on the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the important "persons and things" are already explained, and with the existing articles we have on related subjects (which are also already linked from Epic of Gilgamesh). I have suggested that the editor take this to Wiktionary, the appropriate project for definitions and concordances (see Wiktionary:Concordances), but they're continuing here. Woodroar (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this sets a new bar for failure —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not everything i feel is important, it's based on words of which the meanings are not apparent. In any case the whole discussion seems redundant to me since firstly, and for example, List of people mentioned by name in the Quran has existed for number of years already and nobody has contested it's existence, but more importantly, there are already too many articles of "Lists of..." for me to spend time counting > List of lists of lists, really a significant number. Why ever would there be a hurry to discuss deletion though? since, Woodroar already having contacted me, that the article might be given time to develop in any case. What is the hurry? What actual harm is the article currently doing? It might serve to add something to understanding and scholarship, wikipedia as we all know is about learning, you both seem so eager to dismiss this for reasons of policy, but the reason wikipedia exists is to help people to learn, how is the article failing to do that? and how about other policies which might contradict WP:NOT#DICTIONARY < this policy isn't all encompassing, which the Lists of Lists of Lists page demonstrates. Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

by the way what currently is the bar for failure? I'm learning gymnastics so I'd like to know Мандичка, you go tell me (next time we see each other at the gymnasium eh?) Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually see explanations of < the important "persons and things" > in the article Epic of Gilgamesh I think you just presumed that these explanaitions existed Woodroar, without checking. In any case, the List of article offers an easy and concise way for people to look through important "persons and things" (which you've so helpfully identified is the actual subject of the Lists article), instead of going through a some-what lengthy main article. There isn't anything more to say on the issue unless there is another additional relevant criticism from someone I'm sure, unless I've missed something about this discussion, if so then someone please enlighten me. yes, a new bar for failure, is that like, 2 metres or like .... what ? Whalestate (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It fails every possible criteria. I thought about creating an article called "List of things that fail harder than the article list of persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh" but then I realized it would be blank. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whalestate: that problems exist in other articles (also called "other stuff exists") is a reason to fix those other articles, though, not a reason to keep this one. Ultimately, WP:NOT is policy because there is one thing that Wikipedia is—an encyclopedia where we summarize what reliable sources say about subjects—and many things that Wikipedia is not. We don't do definitions (that's Wiktionary) or reproduce texts (Wikisource and Wikibooks) or quotes (Wikiquotes) or tutorials (Wikiversity) or media (Commons). (You can see our full list of projects at Wikimedia project.) We do have some lists, but they primarily serve to direct readers to articles, and there's even pushback against the fact that we have lists at all. (See WP:PROSE, for example.) What we don't have are duplicate articles where one is a list of important keywords. So we're discussing this rather than letting the article develop because this list is fundamentally outside the scope of what we're doing here. If you'd like, you're welcome to add content to Epic of Gilgamesh, to flesh out the plot or add more details about the more important people or places or things, keeping in mind important policies like WP:DUE. I hope you can understand why this is an issue. Woodroar (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar We do have some lists... I included copy of the article (below) to demonstrate your error in thinking some and not a seemingly vast number (numerous, a great number, a forminable number).Your whole argument on the basis it is a list, as you can see, the number of main heading of list articles alone is really extensive. You think because there is currently a discussion about the validity of list articles (there's even pushback against the fact that we have lists at all), that it would make a difference to the number of list articles already? So, the discussion might result in every single list article deleted in order to follow policy, that's what your claiming ? What we don't have are duplicate articles where one is a list of important keywords - I doubt if it's possible you have surveyed the entire set of List articles or wikipedia to know for yourself if this is true, tell me if you have. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be considered on it's own merits, and not on the basis of policy, since, firstly policy is fluid to some degree, and secondly, wikipedia representing an encyclopedia using the internet allows for a looser interpretation of what might and might not be allowed under the definition such a thing. Wiki, meaning quick, would certainly indicate as a absolute surety, that to speed the access to knowledge is the defining feature of this encyclopedia, and so allowing some-one to see all the words detailed in the list would contribute to acceleration of learning. Plus, there are red-links in the list, which might indicate further investigation is needed (which is being hampered by this discussion slightly I might add)

In any case, I might in the future move the article from a title including list, if that is your problem, but let me reiterate, how could it be considering the evidence I've provided, irrespective of what-ever this or that policy you might consider proves it isn't encyclopediac, the reality of wikipedia is certainly something different to that which an absolute observance of policy should allow.Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions > "Just unencyclopedic" which I think is the main thrust of your detailing various projects above, but really is easily summarized as fulfilling the WP:UNENCYC policy inclusion I've given as evidence from Arguments to avoid. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In-as-much as lists aren't really acceptable per policy, if the name were changed after a period of re-working then it might serve a purpose beyond that which is identified here as insufficient grounds for inclusion, since wikipedia is infact a work in progress. Your rigid observance of policy is stifling the development of the article though, wouldn't you say so? If it transpires that in attempting to develop the article under discussion, there results in something found to be unacceptable, then better at that time to discuss deletion, wouldn't you agree? Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still keeping to the evidence of the number of lists alone as sufficient grounds for retaining the article under discussion. Considering the proportion of relatively trivial and more obscure articles included below (please refer to the original) I would think something as important as the subject under discussion would warrant further attention, whether or not anyone has identified some grounds for deletion. The article might fail, at this time, but later move beyond the scope of failing. I don't know of reasons underlying policy as to why anyone would want to harry the progress of an article for reasons of policy, to sacrifice the possibility of greater good. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK: On its own merit, this article has none. I'm not sure what the point was of listing all those lists... do you mean that because they exist, all lists are therefore valid? Sounds like it's time to finally create List of people who have never been in my kitchen. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't know you had such a popular and interesting kitchen! perhaps you might just make that article, well, how about starting now to compile the list, and tell me when you've finished? I'll be waiting eagerly for your reply Мандичка, no need to contact me before then, since you've so much work to be getting along with. Thanks! Whalestate (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whalestate: some decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, which is why all articles have a Talk page, and why we have a discussion-based deletion process such as this one. But we also have policies and guidelines determined primarily by WP:CONSENSUS (but sometimes handed down by fiat from the Wikimedia Foundation). WP:NOT has been a consensus-based policy since 2001 and it enjoys broad support across the project. (Consensus can change, of course, but you'll have to bring that to our Village Pump for policy, not here.) Our policies and guidelines allow any editor who finds an article about the perpetual motion machine some crank built in his garage or about how world leaders are actually lizards to mark that article for deletion and have the full support, by extension, of the project itself. So no, we don't let you write a dictionary because that's not what we're trying to do here.

And just a couple quick responses:

I haven't used the "just unencyclopedic" argument at all, and I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.

The possibility that this list may become a full prose article is irrelevant. Pretend for a moment that every term gets defined, then gets context added to it, and all of a sudden we have another article on Epic of Gilgamesh. No, we don't do duplicate articles. That level of detail, if reliable sources support it, already belongs in Epic of Gilgamesh or the separate article about that term.

Yes, we have lists. I have never denied that. But lists fill a niche role, and—here's the important part—they don't overlap with existing articles. To use the top two examples from your list of lists: we have Lists of academic journals (which also contains its own sub-lists) but we don't also have a prose article about every academic journal for which we an article; and we have a Lists of important publications in science (again, with sub-lists) but we don't also have a prose article about every important publication in science. Do you see where I'm going? List of persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh currently violates WP:NOT and has significant overlap with Epic of Gilgamesh, but even with an astounding amount of work it could only ever become Persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh which is closer to our scope but would still fundamentally overlap with Epic of Gilgamesh.

So, to make a long story short (too late!), if you're interested in the Epic of Gilgamesh, your efforts would be appreciated at Epic of Gilgamesh, not a list that not only violates policies but duplicates our efforts. Again, I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar Okay, I appreciate your candour, and I see your argument has support, but it has a flaw also, this being as I see it, that there is an overlap, but I have mentioned already the presence of red links...so the chance of new development of articles not covered in the main article. Whalestate (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. If you (or anyone) starts a new article on, say, The Revered Cow, then we may link to it from Epic of Gilgamesh. (It's not like Epic of Gilgamesh or any other article is truly complete, after all.) But here's the thing: our content is determined almost exclusively by reliable, third-party published sources (WP:V). The threshold for notability—that is, whether a subject warrants an article at all—is that multiple reliable sources must have written about that subject "directly and in detail" (WP:N) and that the subject isn't excluded by WP:NOT. But even within articles, we write in proportion to what reliable sources say (WP:DUE). So let's use the Revered Cow as an example. If multiple reliable sources—in this case, reputable scholars—have written about the Revered Cow, then it's probably appropriate for someone to start that article. When we look at sources, full-length books about the Revered Cow would be great, but chapters in books or articles in journals would be good as well. If these multiple sources exist, then red-linking to The Revered Cow is probably okay because the subject is notable, it's just that nobody has gotten around to creating the article yet. (It used to be more like this years ago, but not so much anymore. Most notable subjects already have an article, even if it's a WP:STUB.) If there aren't multiple sources, though, we shouldn't be red-linking because the subject isn't notable. And sometimes so few sources mention a term that Wikipedia shouldn't, either. If we were to pick 100 sources about the Epic of Gilgamesh and they all mentioned the Revered Cow in passing, then we should probably mention it in Epic of Gilgamesh. If the majority of those 100 sources went into some detail on the Revered Cow, say a few sentences or maybe a paragraph or two, then we should follow suit. But if only a handful of those sources mention the Revered Cow at all, then the subject isn't important enough to cover, even as a passing mention. What it comes down to is that we're like good journalists: we always follow the sources, summarizing what they say in proportion to what they say. Woodroar (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true. My kitchen is amazing. I'll get to that article after I finish my pièce de résistance, List of yellow things in Memphis, Texas. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

General reference

Culture and the arts

Literature

Art and the arts

Performing arts

Visual arts

Lists of comics
- Lists of manga

Entertainment and recreation

Lists of festivals

Games

Sports

Food and drink

Mass media

Geography and places

Natural geographical features

Countries and regions

Places

Settlements

Mathematics and logic

Natural and physical sciences

Biology

Physical sciences

People

Religion and belief systems

Society and social sciences

Linguistics

Social institutions

Infrastructure

Economy and business

Education

Government and politics

Law

War

Technology and applied science

Medicine

Lists of hospitals

Military

Technology

Miscellaneous

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I don't entirely think that it's inappropriate to bring up other list articles. While no, the existence of another list does not mean that everything merits a list, there is merit in having a page that lists the various people mentioned in the EoG. There are other articles about religious texts that list the people mentioned in the work like List of Book of Mormon people, List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, and List of biblical names starting with A. (I'm aware that EoG was originally handed down orally, but for argument's sake I'm classifying it as a "text" for the sake of brevity.) However if this is to remain as a list page it should be a list page that only covers the people mentioned in the work and it could be re-worked to be something like List of people and names mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The idea of themes or concepts in a religious text has the potential to be a very, very weighty topic and could easily overwhelm a page, which is why it should not be combined with a list of people. It can also be fairly esoteric and can rely very heavily on personal interpretation, which is why it's typically encouraged for people to write sections about the concepts or themes that summarize the information as opposed to creating lists. Basically, themes and concepts can be theoretically infinite (or at least too numerous to include on a page) while places and people are finite. I can see the merit in having a page similar to this, although I do think that this needs to be refined to fall more in line with the list pages for people in the Bible, Quran, or Book of Mormon. I'm sure that you could probably find someone at one of the varied WikiProjects listed on the EoG talk page that would be willing to help with this task. I'm not opposed to helping, although I am somewhat busy due to schoolwork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the EoG is an extremely important work that has been covered in multiple formats: as work of literature, as a historical work, and as something that is sometimes referred to as a religious text. (Well, sort of. It's more something along the lines of The Illiad and the Odyssey, but it's used pretty heavily to teach about ancient religion. And we do have a page of Homeric characters.) This means that the characters have been covered in reliable sources to the point where many of them have articles on Wikipedia. It makes sense to have a list page for these apart from the main page for the poem itself just as much as it makes sense to have lists for characters/people from other works, both religious and literary. I'm not necessarily arguing for the inclusion of this article (unless it gets cleaned up, upon which point it'd have to be renamed) but for inclusion of a list article along the lines I've mentioned above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to caution people about being a little too BITE-y. Some of the comments here are a little too unnecessarily harsh. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, it isn't a wikt:concordance, is it? Nor a dictionary. Wiktionary is about words whereas Wikipedia is about topics. Here we have an index of topics. Some of the arguments above are rather crass and others are very lengthy so I'm glad Tokyogirl turned up to save us from complete embarrassment. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually from my perspective, I worked through the criticisms of User:Woodroar (and Мандичка also was a use of sorts, any input is better than none at all) to try to make a more acceptable article. At the time of the previous discussion, the article's state was more like just a straight list. The process of involvement in constructive criticism (or any criticism) served as impetus to improve the article, instead of editing becoming more lackadaisical. I have had to take a rest from editing for a while (a few days) so haven't worked on the article for a little period, and I might need to take a rest again sometime, though I'll make this article the priority while I have the energy to work on it, since it's under discussion, to find ways to improve upon it if there are any possible. Whalestate (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a list, it's an attempt at an article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The place for material on the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is, strangely enough, Epic of Gilgamesh. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. As it is, though, this article is a poorly written hodgepodge, with no indication that it covers a distinct and notable topic in the scholarship on the Gilgamesh epic. In fact, it's very difficult to tell what this article is supposed to be about: the prose reads like a meandering undergraduate essay with no thesis or argumentative thread, and "concepts and names" is nebulous and sweeping. It seems as if User:Whalestate has cobbled together a bunch of sources to advance his own, idiosyncratic take on the epic--that's original research by synthesis, a violation of Wikipedia policy. In addition, Whalestate has used poor sources to create his essay--online lecture notes from a course at the American University of Beirut, lecture notes for a course at Yale for teachers in New Haven public schools, who will presumably teach excerpts of the epic in world literature classes at the high school level, and a print-on-demand translation by someone who has no apparent expertise in ancient Mesopotamia. Oh, and SparkNotes. Whatever is useful in this article could easily be put in Epic of Gilgamesh--except I don't think there is anything useful in this article that isn't already in the article on the epic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- merging any useful content into Epic of Gilgamesh. Paul August ☎ 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well I'm thinking it a rather shallow evaluation by Akhilleus.

His first statement an attempt at an article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The place for material on the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is, strangely enough, Epic of Gilgamesh. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. indicates a reason to keep the article, should that If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic. An article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is of course necessary since the main article doesn't contain any interpretation, or explanation or attempt at providing insight into what is is often regarded as the first great work of literature.

Akhilleus last comment:

...except I don't think there is anything useful in this article that isn't already in the article on the epic.

shows his lack of concern and conscientiousness in this issue, since, as I've already stated, there isn't any effort, what-so-ever to include interpretation in the main article, if he had looked for himself he would have seen this.

As it is, though, this article is a poorly written hodgepodge, with no indication that it covers a distinct and notable topic in the scholarship on the Gilgamesh epic. In fact, it's very difficult to tell what this article is supposed to be about: the prose reads like a meandering undergraduate essay with no thesis or argumentative thread, and "concepts and names" is nebulous and sweeping.

Is simply because the article is at a beginning stage, articles go through different levels of quality, that it is poorly written... other articles on wikipedia are classified poorly written, but retained, if they are valuable, in order to be improved. What grounds are there for deletion that couldn't be ignored if there were a concerted effort to improve the article? change the article title? All that is necessary is to identify whether the article is necessary, which it is, for the reasons I've indicated above (that there is nowhere any writing in wikipedia to assist the reader in understanding the Epic other than the article under debate here).

he has ignored the fact that the title might be changed to provide more meaning to the article

how many articles on wikipedia have begun which don't require improvement? Little more than a cursory glance around the most important articles on wikipedia would obviously show there isn't one article than began in a finished state, or something that needed little change.

It is easy for him to say I'm advancing my own agenda (but who in doesn't to some degree in any case? how many stereotypically altruistic monks and nuns participate in editing?) when he hasn't made any effort to contribute to the article, and so leaves me alone as the only contributor. So hastely he rushes in to condemn the article, without allowing any time for it to develop. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. shows he at least considers there might be some reason for the article to exist, but still thinks deletion is necessary... how so? Better to retain the article and so later merge the material into Epic of Gilgamesh if necessary, on the grounds he has indicated. It is obvious the article is necessary, or something like it, for now at least, since, how many people are familiar with the Epic and could find meaning within it without recourse to some explanation and insight from somewhere ? the article Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't contain any help in finding meaning for readers at all and is more of a structural analysis and summary of the work.

Also his indicating the criticism poor sources of these sources :

online lecture notes from a course at the American University of Beirut

- and the criticism is...? I don't see any reason to think this is a poor source. Akhilleus hasn't actually provided a criticism of the quality of this source,he stated it is poor, but how?

lecture notes for a course at Yale for teachers in New Haven public schools who will presumably teach excerpts of the epic in world literature classes at the high school level

- well, his criticism has no grounds for consideration because how does the intended use of the source disqualify the value of it?It doesn't disqualify it is the answer. The source must be intelligently written, for adult readers, so his criticism fails on this source (and it's Yale-Haven not Yale by the way).

- Oh, and SparkNotes

Sounds like someone scoffing, well, i don't concur that one editors (namely Akhilleus) personal opinion on the value of a source is sufficient grounds for devaluing the source. That Sparknotes was created by Harvard graduates at least indicates a degree of credibility, together with the fact that there is an actual wikipedia article on the site, which in itself shows they are significant enough to be included within wikipedia, but not as a source? why?

and finally my use of the print-on-demand translation source, amounts to one term < Ut-Napishtim >, which is the entire use of that source, which doesn't really indicate a crucial factor in the existence of the article, really, since that one word could just be removed.

His effort to criticise the article seem a petty effort to pick and shallowly locate any seemingly weak elements to the article, which altogether instead amounts to something which isn't constructive criticism but is half-hearted and seemingly lazily thought out. Whalestate (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as a response to Delete -- merging any useful content into Epic of Gilgamesh from Paul August

this might very likely be a valid outcome for the article, but at this stage how is it possible to know whether it would be better to retain the article and have a briefer section in the Epic of Gilgamesh with this as the main article? until someone has made an effort to survey the existing sources to see the extent to which material exists on the subject of interpretation, or concepts, themes and ideas or the Epic, it would be too soon to pass judgement that deletion is the obvious and necessary thing to happen. Why exactly is deletion so necessary on the grounds to merge the material? since a new heading and section might be made to highlight the existence of this article in the Epic' article. This article was created on the 16th of May and only myself having worked on improving and adding to the article, I suggest giving more time to locate sources, and after an agreed time to then suggest a merge (of which there is a template for merging, and merging is a separate issue I feel, not indicating the necessity of deletion). If merge is the reason (and Paul August hasn't himself provided any reason for deletion, other than merging, then a discussion should be instigated on a merge proposal, without deletion, if merging is the only reason he could think of). Whalestate (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using lecture notes ought to be obvious to anyone who understands how to do research on academic topics. You look for high quality sources, that is, those written by experts and published by reputable journals or presses. This ensures that the sources have undergone critical scrutiny, ideally through peer review—this way, you know not only that the material has written by an expert, but it has been scrutinized by other experts in the topic. Lecture notes don't have that kind of quality control—you have no confidence that someone who's written a lecture on the Epic of Gilgamesh has studied the text in depth, let alone its social and cultural background, or that s/he knows how to read Sumerian or Akkadian. In addition, these are notes--not a polished argument, not a fully researched treatment. It's not hard to find a better source.

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute is "an educational partnership between Yale University and the New Haven Public Schools designed to strengthen teaching and learning in local schools..." Simply looking at the URL for this source tells us that the materials and the program are hosted at Yale, looking farther tells us that the program is run by Yale faculty. So, yeah, it's materials written by Yale for use by New Haven teachers. And it is not the kind of peer-reviewed academic source WP:RS tells us is the best to use--in other words, we want journal articles or books by experts in the subject.

I have trouble believing that I'm seeing an editor defend the use of SparkNotes as a source. I think that speaks volumes about the care and effort that went into this "article". And yes, I am scoffing. That's the appropriate response to a type of source that I wouldn't have been allowed to use for a middle school essay.

If epic of Gilgamesh is missing material on the interpretation of the text, that suggests that the place to start including that material in Wikipedia is in epic of Gilgamesh, not in a new article whose scope and purpose is unclear. Article space is not a place for developing rough drafts or vague articles that lack a well-defined topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is too soon to know whether there is enough material online for the article to be greatly improved in any case, but I think the article is valid (for reasons already given in the previous response) if not perceived as very well defined. That the article is currently a rather loose effort to produce something worth-while shouldn't detract from the legitimacy of the article, because, if the article is important enough as an idea of something to provide information and knowledge to the general public, then effort should be made to reach a definition, and therefore boundaries for the article and a goal for locating material. There isn't an argument to make on the grounds of scope and purpose because the article could be redefined by a re-naming, which is simple enough. More-over, I don't perceive a lack of coherence in the material as a whole, both myself and Akhilleus (and who-ever else concerned) already know the article is about aiding understanding and making meaning apparent in study of the Epic of Gilgamesh. That sources specifically exist at all on this subject demonstrates the need for continuing with this article. In terms of the value of sources, this depends on whether further sources might be found to replace those thought insufficiently strong for inclusion, and I (or anyone else) haven't yet thought to do this. Whalestate (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary content fork, giving a short original-researchy digest (cited to publications which do not support the text) and listing a lot of red-linked names of "characters" which can not be presumed to be notable. Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Wilson (businessman)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable businessman in Chicago. Fails WP:NTEMP and requirements as a politician. He owns a few burger joints and a medical supply company. He ran a long-shot campaign for Mayor and is not even remotely close to a major Presidential candidate. PrairieKid (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use neutral language ("burger joints" is disparaging). Also, he won an Emmy for his singing. Keep.Kdammers (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wilson received substantial press coverage in his campaign for Mayor of Chicago and is receiving substantial press coverage in his run for President. Therefore it was not just one single event or "brief bursts of news coverage" as is stated in WP:NTEMP that illustrate Wilson's notability. Furthermore, Wilson was a serious contender in the race for Mayor of Chicago, and received over 10% of the vote in a 5 way race. Wilson is also notable for his gospel music program on WGN-TV, so his political activities are not his only claim to notability. --Tdl1060 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons given by Tdl1060 above. —Jake Wasdin (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wilson has had substantial press coverage in major media including Chicago Sun, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Associated Press. See the sources in the article to confirm this. He is also the producer a nationally syndicated TV show that won an Emmy award. The nominator, in all due respect, is mistaken in saying he is "non-notable".--Saam100 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hear about Wilson both in the news and from my friends. The burden of proof in an era when Wikipedia has nearly 5 million articles should be on the side moving to delete. There's no such thing as too many articles.Amyzex (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Keep The amount of coverage he has received in major reliable sources is above and beyond that of the "routine campaign coverage" typically received by "also-ran" candidates. Prime example: he is the subject of a New York Times article which describes him as a "key Chicago figure". Add to such coverage the fact that he is a producer and performer on a nationally syndicated emmy-award winning tv show, he passes the notability test.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news coverage cited in the article indicates that he satisfies the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep Willie passes WP:N per WP:DEPTH. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: Subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and there is an abundantly clear consensus that he passes WP:GNG.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KR Movies[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. I find no independent coverage beyond routine listings. The company isn't mentioned in any of the sources cited in the article. It's released just one film so far, with three associated award nominations but no wins. The Wikipedia article about the "upcoming" film was written by the same user who wrote this one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches at Books, News, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary and I thought of searching newspapers but chances are slim (and will probably find results for the one film instead) if this company has only released one film and another soon. It seems Jaspreet Kaur's article also has notability issues so I may see if that one needs to be nominated as well. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at this point did not have received any coverage separate from the only movie it released, and one mention of a future second movie. No prejudice against recreation if more coverage appears.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000#501. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1518 Rovaniemi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Part of one lightcurve study [42] but that's the only source I found that was at all selective, and it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WvDial. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kppp[edit]

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

Non notable bit of software. Absolutely nothing in the way of reliable sources whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

del nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to read WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. --TL22 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete - One link at News and some more at Books but nothing appearing solid and significant. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WvDial or delete. Most of these little applets should probably be deleted for failing the GNG. I can't believe we have articles on KCalc and GNOME Calculator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cawthon[edit]

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

Author contested PROD but concern still seems noticeable. Notable only for FNAF games - WP:BLP1E TL22 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same concern as the nom I had when I came across this at WP:VG/R, and I will give the same suggestion here: Redirect Five Nights at Freddy's (series) unless he develops any new notable games that is significantly outside the FNAF series. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Notable only for FNAF games" doesn't come off as a valid reason for deleting his article, imo. Besides, there are some reliable sources for the articles. TouchArcade, IGN, Kotaku bear some fruit on some information to add onto the page. GamerPro64 03:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominators reasoning isn't a valid reason for deletion, he's notable per those games. --Anar chyte 09:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he's only notable for one game franchise, which in itself is not universally-known, he is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page about him. If we keep this, we might as well make pages for the dev of SCP - Containment Breach, and Slender: The Eight Pages, and every other slightly-popular indie game out there. Killerwhale24680 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His significance is sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. Look at Kevin MacLeod. I guess their significance are similar. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But not because of that we're going to keep this article. WP:WHATABOUTX --TL22 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he were only here for the FNAF games, it would be a weak keep, but finding out that he's also involved with Hope Animations changes it to a flat-out keep from me. FNAF may be his most popularly-known project, but it's certainly not the only thing he's done - Noah's Ark was in development in 2005, as an example. I will say that the article could use a lot more detail about non-FNAF things, though. And a lot more refs, but then again, what article couldn't? NekoKatsun (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, you're right. I don't think the article really needs to be deleted, but we need more info on stuff that Cawthon has done aside from FNAF. If that were to happen, I think the article would be much better. Killerwhale24680 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultans Empire[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: No evidence of meeting WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, artist's notability is questionable as well. Eeekster (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to artist unless artist is non-notable as well (I'll perform some searches later) but my searches found nothing to suggest this particular album is notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, artist non notable too and also up for deletion.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable output from a non-notable musician (whose article is also up for deletion). Mr Potto (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Mir[edit]

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

PROD was contested. No independent sources given that establish notability. Eeekster (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultans Empire. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, as per several fruitless source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, my searches found nothing to suggest this is notable aside from self-generated content, social media and other non-significant links. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable in the slightest.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability at all. Can find nothing other than the usual social media etc. Mr Potto (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1440 Rostia[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1450 Raimonda[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There appear to be a pair of photometry studies available, plus a table entry listing spin vectors derived from photometry measurements. Praemonitus (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I found only one lightcurve study [43] and a physical modeling study [44]. The only actual information provided in the lightcurve study (after recounting the standard listing of its name and discoverer) is an estimated rotational period and amplitude, in a single paragraph. The physical modeling study is even sparser: in that one it's literally reduced to one line in a table. I don't think this is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under G11 criteria (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bostyn Olivia Smith[edit]

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

Seems like another person who goes viral and fails WP:BLP1E Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:BLP1E without any sustained notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The subject is probably not notable but even if they were, this page is written in such egregiously promotional language, there's nothing to salvage. This page is absolutely WP:G11. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing to salvage. If not CSD G11, then is BLP1E and NOTNEWS. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now tagged for Speedy Delete G11, but if that is rejected then Delete due to failure to meet notability standards as described by other commentators (she's a cute kid, but we need more than a single viral Youtube for notability). Mr Potto (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slade Ham[edit]

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

only a small mention of his returning to his hometown on the article, no indication of anything significant in a google news search. Appears not to meet WP:BIO or any of its subsections John from Idegon (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm from Texas (but not Houston-area) and I've never heard of this comedian and searches found only a few local links (mostly event listings) such as this so it seems he's not even that well known locally or notable locally. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shirlee Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable personality and seems to have only received attention recently for a few things. Books only found one result and News found a few more (first page only, Shirlee talking about controversies) while a browser search found several more results but beware several of these were written by the subject and most of them aren't significant or in-depth. Next, Newspapers Archive found two results of the same story. Highbeam also found several results but are mostly the same story reprinted (and they also mostly seem to be authored by her) and thefreelibrary found nothing. Frankly, she's received somewhat decent attention but mostly local (despite a nationally syndicated program) and not enough to cover or improve this article. It's also fair to say that a look at the edit history shows edits like these here, here and here have never actually improved the article (adding sources, wikifying, etc.) despite adding more information thus it would be better to delete. This article has been treated more like a promotional personal page or resume rather than an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up, cut it down and sourced it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~probable~~ Keep (changing from probable keep to keep, now that I have looked more carefully at sources) I added a long, in-depth profile of Smith, Los Angeles Times, 1999 to the page. Certainly, page still needs editing. Some of the sources found by Nom should also be added to the page. But I think the sources now on the page, along with those found by Nom establish notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It would be ideal to have more resources, but I suspect it would require digging around in local newspaper archives. The LA Sentinel online doesn't seem to go back that far. LaMona (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I researched and made some changes to the article page. In the end, I am neutral. The subject is a local columnist and has some coverage like a local columnist is likely to have. She obviously has been very active and created, or at least is very involved with, a local non-profit organization. While interesting, I am not sure that this adds up to "notable" and that is the sine qua non of a WP article. Rpclod (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One human interest story in one newspaper is not enough basis for a biography in an encycopedia. I've consistently been of the opinion that some actual accomplishment is necessary. Writing a local human interest column on raising children is not enough accomplishment. Nobody except here friends and relatiosnwould expectto find this in an encycopedia of any sort, not even this one. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What say we redirect to Pasadena Star News.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to that. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep She's written several opinion columns for many prominent newspapers, and also hosts a notable show.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — SilverSurfingSerpant (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Cali11298 (talk · contribs). [reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as no consensus, but has been reopened per a request on my talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts She's been a columnist for over 3 decades, during a time of newspaper layoffs, so I keep thinking someone must be reading her. She is consistently in local listings as a speaker (Claremont Courier-May 21, 2015

DEMOCRATIC CLUB Shirlee Smith, head of the non-profit organization Talk About Parenting, will discuss her work with incarcerated mothers.), her non-profit I have not looked up independently, but it has been going for years. Moreover, it is not accurate that there was only 1 article about her - (the profile in the Los Angeles Times), there is also The Root (magazine) Mother's Day accolade. When she got her own Cable TV talk show it was a news story. I added an alumni mag profile to source the fact that she is a UCLA grad. But I keep thinking that there must be more coverage, local papers and black papers don't show up well on searches (witness the fact that the old Los Angeles Sentinel article that I read and added, now has a broken link), I suspect that there is stuff out there that we're not seeing. So I continue to think this page is a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOLDIER Weegeerunner (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Weegeerunner: I believe you meant to put this at the AfD below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy (Indian military officer). SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy[edit]

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

Military officer with trivial coverage in two related news; doesn't have significant coverage. nafSadh did say 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - can't find significant coverage, I don't think the award it mentions satisfies WP:ANYBIO, “Senabahini Padak” all comes back to his WP article so who knows what it is. I put his name in Bengali on the page and though there are a huge number of results, outside of some brief articles mentioning his promotions, he's only giving quotes or getting mentioned. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there isn't any significant and notable coverage with searches here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles say to me he is notable. He coordianted major operations. Just because Western Media choose to not give coverage to the actions of Bangladeshi generals does not mean they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER, which while an essay is the accepted standard for military bios amongst those of us who write them. No article on an American or British officer of this rank would have a hope of being deleted. We need to combat systemic bias, which is obviously going to exist against individuals from countries like Bangladesh which don't dump everything onto the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only a few Bangladeshi army officers of this rank. The article can be improved but should not be deleted.Sarwardy received the gallantry award 'Bir Bikrom' for displaying courage during a counterinsurgency operation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, he captured the enemy camp after he had been shot. Bir Bikrom (Bengali: বীর বিক্রম; literally, "Valiant hero" in Bengali) is the third highest gallantry award in Bangladesh. There is systemic bias against articles about non-western topics. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lt Generals are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless those advocating for deletion are fluent in Bengali and have searched sources in that language calling for deletion is premature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability has been challenged and it requires verifiable evidence, however the subject has a considerable chance of notability (due to the subject's ranking in an national armed force), so more discussion is beneficial. Esquivalience ^t 00:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As suggested above, a Western officer of this rank (especially one so highly decorated) would be considered inherently notable per WP:SOLDIER and an article about them would stand little chance of being deleted. Due to the Wikipedia's general focus on online English-language sources, it's hard not to fall victim to systemic bias, but we should strive to avoid it. As a thought, is there a suitable project anywhere were we could ask Bengali speakers to try to find some more sources? Mr Potto (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bangladesh is your best bet. I added his native name to the article (as is frequently done in Bangladesh-related articles, but not necessarily in other South Asian articles) so you can also search on your own. The Bangla coverage appears to be much like the five English-language newspaper articles already cited. Plenty of quotes whenever he commands a factory collapse rescue, and mentions every time he gets promoted or attends an event. No in-depth coverage focused specifically on him though. Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing my recommendation as I was not aware he qualified per WP:SOLDIER —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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