Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 May	28 May >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination with no outstanding delete !votes, plus enough sourcing found. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mishela Rapo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and not likely to be notable per WP:MUSBIO, no sources except one probable self-published source here. Esquivalience ^t 23:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article will be improved in due time considering Rapo was just selected a few hours ago. Also, the source is not a self published source considering Eurovoix is one of the most trusted sources in WP:Eurovision. Also, (Junior) Eurovision Song Contest participants are considered notable enough to receive their own articles as evidenced by every Eurovision contest on Wikipedia and the last few Junior Eurovision contests. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons above, Junior Eurovision contestants are nearly always notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - IMHO bit silly to delete an article for someone who's gonna appear on Junior EV but there we go –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 28 May 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. Hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Adolphe[edit]

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

Not sure if this is real or not-the dates seem off. There is a guy on the IMDB with this same name born in 1985 which this was a article previously XFD for. Wgolf (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - I suspect hoax or delusion. You should add speedy delete to this. This group never existed, as Adelphie and Adalwolf, and this person was not "adopted by" any Rothschilds or Russian oligarchs. The Adelphi Group is a pharmaceutical conglomerate that is not bankrupt. The IMDB guy with that info goes by Patrick Alexander anyway. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 28 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entheos Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Elementary/primary schools are not inherently notable. Nor are middle/junior high schools. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 99% of hits in the major databases (LexisNexis, ProQuest, Google Books/Scholar) were local, apart from a single article in The Enterprise. Possible that there are offline or non-English sources, and please ping me if you find them. Until then, the title would make a worthwhile redirection target for the school district, yet it is listed as not being in the school district... so deletion is the best option. – czar 23:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches at News and Highbeam found nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the school's website is almost as bland as the one-liner Wiki entry - and that's what it is: WP:NOTDIR, and not even worthy of a redirect anywhere. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:SCHOOL. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:56, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeshan Qureshi[edit]

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

This reads like a resume-not sure how reliable the refs are given that only one is a link and he isn't even mentioned there. (And you have to love how he was given a award in June 2015-yes the future!) Wgolf (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That award seems to have been changed to April now instead of June but I'm unable to find a source either way, Scholar found a few results but I'm not an academia expert so I'm not sure how useful they are and Books found passing mentions (including second page, with one "Zeeshan"); other searches News, thefreelibrary and highbeam found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Have: 1. Added a reference for the award, and reworded the statement. 2. Added more hyperlinks to some of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.104.55 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that he meet notability under wp:prof. Citations in pub med appear to be valid but the writing of esoteric papers and textbooks which are not covered in a secondary fashion by other refs does not a notable academic make. BakerStMD 02:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material has been added to make this seem less like a resume Secondary sources have been added where work is referenced, see what you think, and open to any other suggested changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.13.154 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the additions to the controversy section has made it worse as a WP:BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samadrita Deb[edit]

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

Okay I do remember this article has been prodded a couple times already-anyway I'm not sure about notability. She has some notable films here like Men in Black 3 but given that she does not have anything like award backup or any major role in the films from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable behind the scenes visual effects artist with searches News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary finding nothing to suggest coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no there there. IMDB isn't a reliable source, of course, and the Times of India article cited doesn't mention the subject at all. The article was also created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this is. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, nothing except IMDb seems to mention them well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaco van Rensburg[edit]

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

None of the references even mention him. I found no substantial independent reliable sources that discuss van Rensburg in significant depth. Besides a few passing mentions in reviews cast lists and theatrical publicity was all I found. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - outside of this article, I couldn't find anything to support GNG either... just that there are more people named Jaco van Rensburg than I would have thought. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from News (one actual but passing mention, others are someone else). SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Vision Music[edit]

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

insufficient sources to establish notability; article has been tagged for notability for two years. A few mentions for reviews but only article I found about the site was this one asking for donations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - all references on page are self referential. No notable mentions on Google or Google News. Does not meet notability standard. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of excerpts taken from reviews given in other reliable sources, but that just merely indicates that Indie Vision Music is reliable. I can find no sources that discuss the site/record label itself, thus indicating that it is not notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article seems to be in poor shape, but as someone who is tied to this branch of the music industry, I will note that IVM is most certainly notable within the field. It is one of the major players when it comes to Christian Music news/reviews. Frankly, I'm surprised that this is even being discussed, lest for the random "Deletion Nazis" floating around. —Maktesh ^(talk) 21:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring something to notable is not sufficient; article must meet the requirements of WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maktesh, I agree that it is one of the major players in Christian music journalism. However, that just means that it is reliable to support statements about artists and musical works. That does not inherently mean that the publication itself deserves an article. Please demonstrate with reliable sources why this publication deserves an article, not just why it is trustworthy as a news and review source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not about to go spending hours researching "viable sources for proof of notability." Anyway, I would simply point to the amount of pages that have cited it with news, reviews and album scores, etc. It's not a major player in the big picture, but in terms of its field, it's one of the major websites that has shaped the coverage of the Christian music industry's non-major label acts. Why don't we take a look at how redlinks would pop up if we were to remove it, eh? To be blunt, I'm stating what I know to be fact, hoping that someone with more of an interest will show up who is wiling to start sourcing. I write this stuff for my job, so I'm not about to engage in hours of debate. A better questions to ask is "why should this page not exist?" Enough people and wiki pages seem to think it's worthy of notability, so why go to the effort of killing it? —Maktesh ^(talk) 05:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because none of those news reports and the like contain enough information actually write an article from. I myself tend to be very lenient toward meeting notability standards. I actually was surprised that there isn't anything significant written about this publication, considering that it was so important within the scene. But if there's nothing written about it, it's not notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~: If "excerpts" from a publications reviews are taken by other "reliable sources", then they go about meeting the General notablitity guidelines that you espoused above. So, they have received "significant coverage" and "sufficient coverage" to make them notable for inclusion as part of this encyclopedia as an article, not just for review taking purposes.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a creative way of declaring them notable, but no, excerpts or mentions do not meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed at seeing two "Strong" keep votes in the absence of ANY demonstrations of significant coverage of this publication, apart from a single HM post soliciting for donations to the site. The Cross Bearer, you are grossly misinterpreting the guidelines. Excerpts taken from a review are not significant coverage dealing with the publication ITSELF, they are merely quotes in another publication discussing what IVM said about an artist or work. That can be a marker of reliability, but not notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: The creator of the article was HotHat, who later on revealed themselves to be a sock-puppet engaging in paid editing. While much, even most, of the content they created was within policy (I was very surprised when the editor outed themselves), there is the possibility that this article was created as paid advocacy. This shouldn't inherently mean that it should be deleted, but it does provide some explanation as to why it was created.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ 3family6: You can say the exact same things about Jesus Freak Hideout deletion and New Release Tuesday deletion, but I digress because other stuff exist arguments are generally frowned upon. They are all three in the same boat, and should be kept or deleted.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, Jesus Freak Hideout has been discussed in reliable sources. New Release Tuesday I think also has. I was considering creating an article for New Release Tuesday, though I think might just barely squeak by the notability standards. The deletion discussion for NRT resulted in a soft delete, actually, because nobody participated. But, absolutely your argument is OTHERSTUFF exists. Please demonstrate why this article is worthy of inclusion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Delete, because the website is going the way of the dodo bird anyways, and closing up shop. I just don't think or see it fitting and useful for my time to go down this fox hole and sinkhole of a Wikipedia morass of an engagement. I'd rather get more stuff done that matters extremely more to me as a holistic believer, creature, and human being made fearfully in the image of God in Jesus Christ, My Lord.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, one of the claims to keep Jesus Freak Hideout was that it had coverage by Indie Vision Music. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia - so? Reliability isn't the same thing as notability, as I've elaborated above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3family6 Notability is achieved through coverage in reliable sources. If Indie Vision Music is not considered to not have any notability, it's not considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. It could however be used as a reference in an article that already has notability established. That's the way that works. You're welcome for that free information. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: That's not at all how it works. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of books out there that are perfectly reliable for use in articles but are not notable. Please show me where in the reliable source guidelines and/or the notability guidelines that in order for an article to exist, the reliable sources must also be notable/have articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun! Why don't you take a whack at those articles, Jesus Freak Hideout and New Release Tuesday, and see what others' say about their merits?The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I have asked my personal savior Xenu if this will please him, and am awaiting his response. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project; I'm sure another editor will have time to add the sources. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no solid significant and notable coverage has been found, with the above search links finding nothing and a detailed "Indie Vision Music IVM California company" found nothing aside from some websites (interviews, etc.) and thefreelibrary and highbeam found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not going to find anything searching under those terms. An organization such as this would never be referred to as a "company." Additionally, music news coverage would have no reason to even use it's local state (California) as a keyword. I feel as though many of the people "voting" here are less than qualified by their understanding of this general niche/branch/corner of the industry. —Maktesh ^(talk) 04:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I've often seen they'll show if they're referred to as that ("a webzine from California...", etc.). I would also think twice before thinking some users aren't qualified to understand. You may be connected to this industry but where are the significant and notable sources talking about IVM? SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage has been found to exist about this organization by myself or others. If the keep !voters could provide examples of significant independent coverage passing WP:GNG, I am willing to change my !vote, but calling people "Deletion Nazis" does not make the subject pass WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with storm and fire: Christ on a crutch, I'm sick and tired of these lame "It's really notable in the field because ... because ... because, well, I say so!" arguments. Prove it. If you're unable to do so through reliable sources, then stop wasting our time. If you're unwilling to do so through reliable sources, I'm disinterested in your POV. If the outside world hasn't noticed a subject enough to give it significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it just doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. Period. I don't have to know JACK about a subject to be able to see if it meets the GNG or not, and I'm just a little bit fed up with that malarkey as well.
And this one doesn't. It's Yet Another Blogsite that comes under the radar, and I doubt that any of the Keep proponents can prove otherwise ... or they already would've. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, isn't this rich? Here we are, having a civil discussion on the merits of the topic, and suddenly you come in. You admit to knowing nothing of the context, are rude and using profanity. You are the kind of editor who contributes to hostility. The bottom line is that the article exists. You are of the party going out of your way to make an effort. Again, the proof of notability is found within the connected articles which continually cite and link. If you so desire to create 500 redlinks in your cantankerous quest, go for it. Or maybe you could actually be productive and learn how to Google it yourself, Sherlock. I simply cast a vote as one who knows the difference between crap and ice cream. —Maktesh ^(talk) 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maktesh, you yourself said "I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not about to go spending hours researching 'viable sources for proof of notability.'" And you complain that another editor hasn't taken the time to research the notability of the subject? I agree with NukeThePukes: if the site is notable, prove it. It doesn't have to be an online source. If CCM Magazine or HM or some other publication did a print write-up on the site, that counts too (print sources tend to be given more respect anyway, so that would definitely satisfy notability concerns). I have nothing against this site in particular, and I agree that it is highly cited as a source, both on Wikipedia and by reliable publications, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the site itself in any reliable sources. Escalating things after another editor was abrasive in their comments does not help things at all, either.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a curious notion as to what constitutes "profanity" -- mind telling me what words in that last post you think qualify? Anyway, I did Google the sucker, and lo and behold, I couldn't come up with a single reliable source. As far as being rude or hostile goes, dude, it takes some stones to toss ANY rocks after the "Deletion Nazis" crack. I'll quote from one of those policies for you: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." If you're unwilling to provide any sources and you don't understand the relevant notability guidelines ... who's posting here in ignorance, exactly? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:04, 1 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 Medical torture. If anyone thinks anything can be merged they can do so. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dental torture[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable topic separate from Medical torture, no sources. I would support a redirect to Medical torture. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - I agree it doesn't meet GNG on its own. There's references to it but not as the primary subject of articles. I would merge it to medical torture. Also, I think on its own it's likely anti-dentites will add stuff about dental malpractice, such as this recent viral story. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Medical torture, but there may also be a place to mention it at dental fear (e.g. impact of pop culture on dental fear). But this is mainly just a list of examples tied together with OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Medical torture. This is basically just an unreferenced "in pop culture" page. If there's something to be said about this, it can be covered in the main article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pertemps People Development Groups[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete - News and Books found nothing so I moved to Highbeam and thefreelibrary which found several results while another search found this but nothing looks in-depth and significant. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 28 May 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 Logan Mader. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once Human[edit]

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

Non-notable band whose debut album doesn't drop until September. I've only been able to find a couple third-party sources that even mention the band and those seem like a parroting of a press release. Per WP:BAND, an independently notable member could lend notability to the ensemble. However, the only member who seems the least bit notable seems to JUST squeak by in regards to notability in order to have his own article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Logan Mader (I had also considered this)~~Delete for now~~ as too soon as my searches found nothing significant including here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Logan Mader where the band is covered. Not yet independently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Norris[edit]

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

Likely the person is notable per WP:NPROF, however this article is so promotional and spammy. It's an autobiography that's now being maintained by the user. Needs a complete rewrite, and I believe the only solution is to stubify, per WP:TNT. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she meets GNG, but I don't think the article is as bad as TNT. Just needs someone to take an axe to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been trying to add references to external published materials to the existing text, as requested by an editor earlier. I am not sure why it is said to be 'spammy' or 'promotional' when all the contents can be verified from materials in the public sphere, such as books published, prizes awarded, positions held, and so on and so forth. In this regards, its the same model as most Harvard faculty bios in Wikipedia, and I have been seeking to comply with Wiki policies. I can easily add more references to other secondary sources, if useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PippaN (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PippaN, I don't agree with the nominator's assessment of it being overly spammy, but I think it's a little... enthusiastic :-) Adding more sources never hurts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, really user:PippaN shouldn't be writing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of herself here - she can do it on linkedin instead if she wants people to know about her work. But actually, I think the article is fairly factual and it's not too bad in terms of neutrality/promotion. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:PROF guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Let's use AFD to weed out inappropriate articles, not to slam faculty who have accurate - if highly flattering - pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory excellent point! —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Appropriately meets WP:PROF with an additional 34,318 Google Scholar citations! Any major point of view issues have been suitably removed and further tweaks can be made in the future to address more minor issues. Though I would like to request that PippaN read through the autobiography guidelines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BIO/WP:NPROF. Not problematic enough to WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 30 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreshnik Krasniqi[edit]

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

Footballer. Has not played in a fully professional league. Youngest ever appearance in the first or second tier, he appeared in the second not-fully-professional tier. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Lots of coverage, but all in the past couple of days related to him being the youngest signed in Norway at 14 years old. :-( Before too long he'll probably move up to full pro. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 28 May 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. His age at debut could mean he generates a greater level of significant coverage in the future, but currently almost everything of significance is very, very recent. No issue with recreation if this occurs prior to an appearance in a FPL. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as G11 by User:Michig. (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manohar Hospital[edit]

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

Non-notable hospital. As far as I'm able to tell this fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Does not appear to meet notability criteria for hospitals specifically as detailed by wikiproject hospitals either. No evidence of notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that a search for this will turn up Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, which is in New Delhi. Different hospital. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for Hospital services, and that is what this is. Also, no assertion of notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable hospital, article created by the founder (they signed a message on the talkpage as "Dr.sinha". Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete as G11 because the article is mostly positive in nature, and as A7 as an article about a company, corporation, or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The claim that it has 100 beds is not a credible claim of significance, and the references are just directory listings. Gparyani (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement for a non-notable hospital. No significant RS coverage cited. None found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple detailed searches (even including "Ranapratapnagar, Islampur") find nothing aside from that Medindia link. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Closing per WP:Speedy Keep. Greedo 8 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Gaylords[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia standards for notablity. Seems full of original research, and I was unable to find reliable sources that verified the content. Greedo 8 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Withdrawn due to discovery of adequate sources. Greedo 8 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty significant number of sources substantiating much of what I read, far more references than many articles on here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not quite sure why nom couldn't find sources. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per sources already shown here. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikimandia has provided the sources to establish notability. The article as it stands could use work, but that does not merit deletion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Props to Wikimandia for the excellent source finds, particularly #1 and #4. Greedo 8 20:17, 2 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of war veterans associated with neoconservativism[edit]

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

A half-hearted mini-list that serves no great encyclopedic value. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was quick. How many minutes do you allow for a stub to become whole-hearted? There has been substantial media focus on the conspicuous absence of war vets among the neocon movement. Thus it is valuable to the public to know those who have served. Sure, a list of notable neocons who have not served would be quite extensive, but that would be a little odd, no?Wormcast (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit obvious that this article is not going to work, primarily because its basic concept seems to be making a political rather than an encyclopedic point. And it might make sense to remove John Bolton from the list, as he never participated in combat during a war. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One has only to serve in the armed forces to be considered a war veteran; participation in direct combat is not required. -Wormcast (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the issues that there is no way this is an "encyclopedic", it opens the door to throw names into a category without asserting why it is notable to do so? (e.g. should there be a list article for all of the topics that veterans "associate with"?). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "associated with" phrasing of the title was based on the language appearing on the Neoconservativism page; i.e. "Notable people associated with neoconservativism". I am unopposed to altering the title to "Neocons who have served in the armed forces" to avoid your objection. -Wormcast (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; based on list creator's comments, this list is politically motivated. If there has been "substantial media focus on the conspicuous absence of war vets among the neocon movement" than it would qualify for its own article. Compiling it as a list seems like a way of getting around WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely pointless and obviously going to be POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. Politically motivated, deliberately misleading, pointy article designed to make a political point by listing people with no combat service or who joined National Guard to avoid the Vietnam war. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete subject of this list fails WP:GNG. More importantly see WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We could just say "all of them." But no. Per all of the above. --DHeyward (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and all redirects per WP:TNT and WP:SNOW. What a horrid mess. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Gonzalez[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in a Texas House election last year. The sources I'm finding are simply brief mentions of her political run, like this one from Texas Monthly. Happy to withdraw if there is evidence that she meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for state house who loose the general election are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found one post-election article with significant coverage of her career [8] it can be added to a new article if she runs again. For now, however, article is a campaign bio of a losing candidate, with no other claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and nothing else in this article is strong enough to get her over another inclusion guideline instead of the one for politicians. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON -- with the proviso to re-create the article when she becomes more notable. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1962 Dunant[edit]

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

I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: there just aren't suitable sources available to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:32, 2 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3841 Dicicco[edit]

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

This was redirected by Tom.Reding and reverted by Exoplanetaryscience. I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 3001-4000. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moon discovered in 2014 with a diameter of >1.67 km and a distance of 12 km.

~~Redirect~~, if said information is not referenced and in the body of the article by close of AfD. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it's now referenced. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satellite info is now sourced. -- Kheider (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Apparently what Kheider means by "sourced" is that he found another online database that copies the same database information that the robot auto-creation of this article copied for us. This is not good enough, it's probably circular sourcing, and I could find nothing of interest (in the way of actual published papers reporting in-depth on this object) in Google scholar. The fact of it being binary is interesting enough that I'd think it should be notable, but that doesn't mean it actually is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exoplanetaryscience is the one that added the source and Exoplanetaryscience is not a bot. As of 1 June 2015 I have never edited the article. I wish people would quit making up "facts" about me. The information about the satellite does not come from the common JPL SBDB lookup and Wikipedia is nothing more than a copy of other sources. It appears as if Exoplanetaryscience is so intimidated by the AfD process, that he is not even voting to keep articles that he has recently expanded. -- Kheider (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: there are insufficient sources to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced information on its moon and it could be expanded using that source. --JorisvS (talk) 08:56, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Alexander William Hayes[edit]

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

BPL1E No notability at all save for the Libor Scandal KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BPL1E could be a snow delete, a redirect not appropriate because subject seems to be known everywhere as Tom --_nonsense ferret 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP1E, known only for a few dodgy dealings. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, LIBOR Scandal is not a small dodgy deal. It affected the world's financial systems.

Delete This article indicates nothing about the notability of this person. He was charged with a crime (so are many every day), he has house in Surrey (!), something about his marriage, all too trivial, vague and generally non-notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Presley[edit]

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

~~Does not meet the notability guideline (WP:POLITICIAN) for politicians. Should have qualified for speedy under A7.~~ Geogene (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Commission acts as a body with statewide authority, this nomination is in error, per Johnpacklambert. Withdrawn. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:POLITICIAN includes "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Presley's office isn't elected statewide, but the office is elected by 1/3 of the state (in population) and it makes decisions for the entire state. He's clearly on the same level as minor statewide elected officials and state legislators. Orser67 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presley passes the notability guidelines for politicians as they currently exist with his state-wide office. The question is not who elected him, but what he has power over.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 29 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Foroozani[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. 2 of the papers listed as publications appear to be conference papers only, no evidence her work is widely read or cited. Fails WP:SCHOLAR, sources provide no evidence this person satisfies GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything, tried to find Farsi sources, no luck —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is possible that a 24 year old has academic accomplishments, but such a thing would be exceedingly rare. In the humanities, in particular, a career isn't well enough established to be referred to by others until a decade later, at least. There aren't indications in the article that the subject passes the guidelines, either, so this may be accidental vanity or a misunderstanding. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no real claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 01:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no indication of notability. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 29 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.L. Beshimentob Mayfield[edit]

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

Non-notable judoka - lots of triva but nothing particularily noteworthy. High rank is not enough. Not enough independent references to satisfy WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity profile, fails GNG, no sources to be found —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The individual lacks reference. Whether it was a vanity page or a misunderstanding or a tribute by someone, the page cannot be justified at presents. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentions in articles about events he sponsored do not constitute significant independent coverage, nor does a high rank. Papaursa (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i can reasonably say Keep He is highly notable in helping Veterans to deal with PTSD via the use of martial arts. This should also be listed in military related discussion.71.183.12.120 (talk) 18:53, 2 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 Victoria II. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria II: Hearts of Darkness[edit]

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

Expansion pack to video game Victoria II, can easily be integrated into main article. Fails notability by itself. Soetermans. T / C 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - I would just be bold, merge any keepable content to Victoria II and redirect it. It is a plausible search term. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victoria II. No significant coverage on its own from a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but is a worthwhile search term. This likely could have been redirected with little fanfare. – czar 00:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Victoria II. --☣Anar chyte☣ 03:19, 28 May 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. (If anyone wants it userfying let me know.) Davewild (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Rats[edit]

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

This looks like promotional information for series of the selfpublished books. All references lead to the self published materials. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources. And author stole that idea from Richard Scarry's Pie Rats Ahoy! —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Need time to add citations and relevant information. Promotional tone can be changed to suit Wikipedia standards. On a side note, book has nothing to do with Richard Scarry's book. Deltasim (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the author has a book series that is independently published, independently discussed by third parties, selling, and consequently in need (not desire) of an explanation in an encyclopedia, then the author should draft the article in a sandbox and resubmit it. At this point, it looks like promotion for a series. In other words, it looks like the books will benefit from the article rather than readers of books benefiting from an article. Consequently, delete for promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: The article lists at least two literary awards that are independent of the series and the article's creator (User:Deltasim) has suggested that he may have more citations to add. The accusations of promotion are not very civil and as far as I can see baseless absent evidence that Deltasim is trying to promote the series rather than simply reporting on it in an NPOV way. -Thibbs (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this two awards is that they are both Commercial Organisations, where you submit the book for a fee and they promise to promote the winning entries. So, from one hand they are independent, but from another still there a no any independent reviews and mention in the media, which is customary in literature Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The International Book Awards are pretty well known for being a sales scam, as are the Indie Reader Discovery Awards. Writer Beware is a pretty authoritative source on these things, as it's run by Victoria Strauss and AC Crispin, who both work on the SFWA's Committee on Writing Scams. Neither of these awards are usable and because they're associated with some fairly well known scam organizations, I'd argue that they shouldn't be in the article at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're compiled information is correct, that kind of complicates my attempt to optimise the article Wikipedia standards. I fear despite my hours of sifting through the internet, the article may very shortly be deleted. I had hoped the article would get a "Week Keep" status. Live and learn I guess. Unfortunately those books series are relatively new. There may not be the best reliable sources for months if not years. If anyone's up to it, an article on the author himself could be in order. I've backed up the article content just in case anything reliable turns up. Just who shall I pop the question to if the time is right to recreate the article? Deltasim (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deltasim, you can always ask the closing admin if there's enough coverage to overturn this AfD (if it's deleted) and if they decline, you can then take it to deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Do not mistake accusing an article of promotion with accusing a person of promotion. These are radically different things. Indeed, it's not very civil to jump to the assumption that people are thinking of people when all they are doing is reading words in an article and considering the use of information to potential audiences. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I grasp the distinction, but I'm glad it only looks like an aspersion rather than actually being one. -Thibbs (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a very small smattering of local coverage along these lines, the majority of the sources are primary, non-usable SPS, or junk hits. The awards are unusable for notability purposes for the reasons stated above and while it is used in a few schools, it's not taught in enough schools to where it's pass notability guidelines on that standard. This guideline requires that the books be taught regularly on at least a very wide national level, meaning that you can find evidence of it being taught in dozens and dozens of schools instead of just 4-5. I don't have any issue with this being userfied or sent to AfC, but I do think that it could be years before this series passes NBOOK - if it ever does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Only trivial mentions so although appearing in a number of reading lists eg. [9] - Victorian Premier's Reading Challenge and [10]- NSW Premier Reading Challenge, does not have in depth coverage. Author does appear to be doing the hard slog of numerous school visits ie. [11], [12], [13] but titles do not (yet?) appear in many OZ libraries - [14] - The Island of Destiny at 29 libraries and [15] The Forgotten Map at 33. Also, google search does not bring up any title or book series reviews except a few in association with author school/library visits but nothing indepth.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 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 merge to List of Side degree and related bodies to Auxiliary (fraternal orders). MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side degree[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. This list is sourced mainly out of one book (Alan Axelrod's International Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders, published in 1997, and the overarching definition is questionable on several levels. The idea is that they aren't major things, but while I can't speak for the non-Masonic groups on the list, the majority of the things claimed to be side degrees are incorporated, independently-run, non-profit organizations (like the Shriners and the Grotto, for example). There were several women's groups listed as well, which I removed because they are not considered "side degrees" for the women. The major ones already have articles. So there's really an issue over whether the content is appropriately encyclopedic - the basic definition is suspect, and we can't have a list based on one source. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "side degree" is also used in other sources, such as Preuss, Arthur, Schmidt, Alvin J. and Stevens, Albert C. Basically the idea is an organization within a larger fraternal organization, originally for humorous effect. I think the Shriners were the original ones within the Masons, but then other fraternal bodies copied the idea.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree though, it should be reformatted into "List of side degrees".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title should not be changed during the AfD. What are your other plans? Article do seem fine. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know that was a rule.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 11 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, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Double degree - the only use I see for this is as a double degree aka double major, as mention here confirms [16]. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand how being in one club while also being in another club is a notable concept. If it's exclusively related to "secret societies" it might be just suitable to mention in the parent article of how they work. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double Degree is an academic term. Side Degrees are fraternal orders "clubs within clubs" like the Shriners for Freemasonry. Other groups have developed side degrees like this to and it made sense to me anyway to create a list for them.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC) I suggest Rename to List of side degrees and related bodies - this will clear up the confusion of whether women's groups are side degrees and will more correctly identify the content as a list article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That won't help - it's an even broader category, doesn't address the issue of what a side degree is or isn't, and doesn't address the women's groups, because the women's groups are clearly related to the men's. MSJapan (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look I only wanted to make a general list article on side degrees. Womens auxiliaries of side degrees are at least related to them. Do you of an authoritative source for a definition of a side degree.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you've cut right to the heart of the problem - you don't have a source defining what is a side degree and what isn't, so you must have engaged in original research to come up with a definition. Nobody is going to put Shriners International, with 191 centers and 23 privately-funded hospitals, in the same category of "side degree" as whatever that Rotary thing was. In the same way, a "ladies auxiliary to a side degree" is a pretty understated definition for an organization with 243 chapters worldwide, such as Ladies Oriental Shrine. It's fine that you thought it was a good idea, but this is an overly vague dump list of everything you could copy out of three books. This is also what happens when the majority of your sources for modern organizations date back to a hundred years ago. MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on further editing: I have removed the Rotary heading in the article, as Rotary is not a fraternal organization - it is a service organization and doesn't have degrees in the first place. I have also removed the information given by Axelrod on the Shrine; it was incorrect in almost all respects. The Shrine uses a "Middle Eastern" theme, not an "Islamic" one, and the membership requirements claimed have not been true for 15 years. The latter is a matter of timing, but if Axelrod gets a publicly visible organization like the Shrine wrong in basic detail, I'm skeptical of the source. None of the ladies' organizations related to the Shrine are "side degrees" for the women - they are the main organizations, as there is no membership prerequisite for them to join. So aside from the Masonic groups covered elsewhere in greater detail, there are now all of eight entries, most of which are based on one reference in one book. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of which seems to be just so much hair splitting. They are all defined as side degrees. We have a definition from Axelrod, which is a published WP:RS. Some side degrees have larger organizations that other (like the Shriners) but that doesn't mean the other versions of side degrees that exist (or have existed) for fraternal orders or service clubs should be assigned to oblivion. BTW, I think your differentiation of a pseudo-Islamic and Middle Eastern theme is symptomatic of the larger problem. Axelrod rightly states that the Shriners imagery is based on 19th century orientalist misunderstanding of the Islamic/"Near Eastern" world. It is what we would today call cultural appropriation and aspects of it, particularly allowing alcoholic beverages in the "Shrine" would be very offensive to Muslims. But the point is, that is hair-spiting - and I can find other resources that make the same statements about different "appendent degrees". The fact is that most of them have become defunct and only the Shriners still exist as a large organization. Whether one wants to call the womens orders side degrees, appendent orders, etc. is - again - a semantic question.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for not having information on the other orders, I have been busy in grad school the last few months and have not had time to enlarge the entries. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a list of womens auxiliary groups, I already have a list for them as well, though I have a feeling you will try to have that deleted too. Auxiliary (fraternal orders).--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the differences between a service club and a fraternal order are vaguely defined on Wikipedia. The Category:Fraternal service organizations includes the Kiwanis, Rotary, Elks and Masons. Some of the service clubs had side degrees like the fraternal orders did.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:12, 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 08:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of Side degree and related bodies to Auxiliary (fraternal orders), Redirect Side degree - this article's name was changed, but I would still argue that "side degree" is most commonly used as an academic term to mean double degree, as referenced by this usage in the New York Times and by the London School of Economics, which is why I still think side degree should redirect to double degree. I don't see how the most logical definition of side degree is related to clubs within the Shriners, Masons, Girl Scouts or whoever. Personally I think Auxiliary (fraternal orders) is the perfect place for this information, especially considering many of the auxiliary groups are also listed at List of Side degree and related bodies. There is nothing that says auxilliary must be a women's or children's group, but you could also just give the combined article a new title. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems appropriate. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so have we decided we are going to merge.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:34, 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 no consensus. Discarding the last !vote by a banned user, I don't see that the subject necessarily meets the inclusion guidelines as argued by the nominator (perhaps just barely), but there doesn't seem to be enough consensus to delete, either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Armstrong (diver)[edit]

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

Dubious notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Many of the sources are affiliated (e.g. self-published by Armstrong or from the Rubicon Foundation, of which Armstrong is a founding member). Other sources are primary, or give passing mention of Armstrong (or none at all). Being a crew member of a team that does something noteworthy does not grant notability, just as the workers who build a famous skyscraper don't warrant individual articles. The television appearances may possibly indicate notability if they focus on Armstrong specifically, rather than just in passing or as a crew member, but this needs verification. Lastly, the article was written by User:Gene Hobbs, who is also a founding member of the Rubicon Foundation. We need significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find any sources about him —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No vote for COI - In a small field such as this, multiple television appearances, being the model for numerous cover photos of various diving magazines, being requested to join multiple projects, and being active in a leadership role of an organization in the field (source of my COI) all make him noteworthy to the field for which the article was written. As a project diver, it is expected that the project will get the news and not the dive team. Other things of note are that Armstrong recently completed the requirements for the Sheck Exley award from the NSS-CDS along with only 23 other divers. Earning the Exley does meet the first criteria in WP:ANYBIO. I would also argue that his involvement in multiple projects that have yielded results for the public good also makes him eligible to meet the second criteria.

Both the B25 and Gertrude Tomkins projects received significant media coverage and Armstrong was mentioned by name in at least one project related publication. My failure to expand the project specific sections to show the notability of these projects should not reflect on this nomination. If requested, I could find time to expand these sections.

Thank you Animalparty. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheck Exley award indicates someone has completed 1000 safe cave dives. While that's certainly more than me, and probably more than many divers, the award only counts towards notability if reliable, secondary sources routinely use it as a metric of notability (the low number of awardees in itself means little unless put into context such as how long the award has been available). And I would argue being mentioned by name alone in multiple sources does not confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) no matter how much public good (should every crew member on the Gertrude Tomkins Project be granted a biography?). My own name has appeared in a couple newspapers and technical reports, and I have worked with people who probably satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines, but that does not constitute significant, verifiable coverage to merit my own biography, no matter who writes it. Notability and the Core Content Policies require that we as editors cannot imply or assume importance or prominence that is not adequately documented in secondary sources. With all due respect, we need sufficient evidence that people aside from yourself or affiliated sources have considered Armstrong particularly noteworthy in his field. Should such secondary sources exist and be cited I have no objection to the article's retention. If not, Armstrong could plausibly be redirected to perhaps Rubicon Foundation and/or discussed in articles about the recovery projects, if appropriate per due weight and balancing aspects. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hobbs - unfortunately those things you listed (multiple television appearance, cover model for dive magazines, being requested to join projects) are not sufficient on their own to establish notability. What we need is enough reliable coverage (i.e. secondary sources) in which he is the subject. We have to have material from which to write a credible biography after all. This is a very strict guideline that you can read about here: WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also about the award, there is almost no information about it. Searching for "Sheck Exley Safe Cave Diving Award" or "Sheck Exley Award" brings up mainly online forums discussing it. For an award to be considered, it must also receive coverage in secondary sources. But has he ever been featured as a profile or interview in any of the diving magazines? Diving magazines are considered secondary sources; any kind of feature on him would probably satisfy the basic requirements, so this is probably your best bet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. The article has survived since 2011. Give Gene Hobbs some time to improve the article as he requests. Gene, How much time do you need to deal with the issues? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned Peter. It turns out that he and his wife were both interviewed quite a bit in the “Return To The Bermuda Triangle” special on TLC (TV network) but I doubt that is enough to make this group happy. I'd need to spend more time to find more and I just don't have much time at the moment. Thanks though! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood and Gene Hobbs, don't worry, articles will stay a minimum of seven days after someone proposes deletion. Sometimes articles are relisted multiple times until a consensus is reached. This is plenty of time to look for sources, improve the article etc. Also, even if articles are deleted, the content can be restored by an administrator at a later date. So if an article gets deleted because of a notability/secondary source requirement, and a source is available six months later, you don't have to start from scratch. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would consider the "Return To The Bermuda Triangle" documentary on The Learning Channel to be almost sufficient in itself; when you add in the reporting by the Columbia Star and ABC, it seems there's enough independent coverage. If Armstrong's notability was related to just one topic, I'd have some sympathy with turning this into a subsection of e.g. Rubicon Foundation, but it is clear that he has come to the attention of the public over a number of topics - Bermuda Triangle, B-25 Bomber, Gertrude Tompkins, etc. - so WP:BLP1E isn't relevant. We don't normally disperse a BLP over multiple topics, and I've seen no justification of why that should be appropriate in this case. Even if some might still consider the independent coverage borderline, his part in establishing the Rubicon Foundation and his notable collaborations with Michael C. Barnette provide a diversity of publications that recognise his work and add to the encyclopedic content that we have available for his BLP. This isn't a stub based on a couple of passing mentions, but a substantial article with potential for further expansion. --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it so clear that he has come to the attention of the public for his actions? Notability requires verifiable evidence and notability is not inherited by working on notable projects nor with notable people. The first clip from Return to the Bermuda Triangle shows contains about a minute in total of Armstrong talking about things he did or saw with his team, and while verifiable (and interesting), does not help establish independent notability. The second clip is more of the same. The interviews are not significant coverage about Armstrong or his contributions (nor are they independent of the subject), and assuming his appearances on Mega Movers are the same sort of first-hand testimonial, would contribute to notability no more than a firefighter who's been interviewed more than once about the causes of a fire, which, even if quoted in a newspaper, don't extend beyond the normal duties of a professional, even if that professional has some neat stories to tell. You state "This isn't a stub based on a couple of passing mentions", and I would say no, this is a beefed up start-class article stretched over a couple of passing mentions, padded with some other sources that don't mention Armstrong at all, implying but not demonstrating that Armstrong was a significant part of the story. The Background section is largely unsourced. I haven't found more than one sentence about Armstrong in any independent source (not even the Rubicon Foundation website). If Armstrong is independently notable or played an objectively important role, the current sources simply do not not support this. He is often simply listed as one of several crew members (does every one listed in The Gertrude Tompkins Expedition achieve instant notability? Per WP:Golden rule and WP:GNG, we need multiple, significant coverage from sources independent of the subject. The fact that very few articles currently link to Armstrong suggest that Wikipedia would not be significantly disrupted should the existing article be removed or condensed into a section of Rubicon Foundation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a hypothetical example, pretend someone wanted to write an article on their good friend John Q. Person. "Person went to XYZ high school, where he was head of the Chess Club (verified by yearbook). Person graduated with High Honors from notable University (verified by list of names in commencement ceremony), which has several Nobel laureates as faculty. While in college, Person marched in some notable anti-war demonstrations (verified by caption in a photo) that received international press coverage. Person later got a job working for a notable Company (verified by HR documents), which is a well known Company in America. Person has written many documents for his company, as well as editorials published in newspaper and trade magazines (verified by said articles), and has presented at several conferences (verified by list of conference presentations and abstracts). When Person retired from Company, he was honored for his contributions with a life-time achievement award. Person died in 2010 (verified by obituary)" All of the above might be true and verifiable, and appear to show a person was widely known for something, but is actually a cobbled-together narrative from primary or passing mentions when the published record actually shows an individual was only tangentially or trivially involved in notable entities. Relevant essays include Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability and WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you don't need to badger every commentator at this page with walls of text.

Next, your understanding of our notability guidelines is seriously flawed. It is clear that Armstrong and his work has been brought to the attention of the public through reporting by independent third parties. The Learning Channel did the interviews with Armstrong and had editorial control over what was broadcast. You can't simply dismiss TLC's part in that documentary as if Armstrong had made his own video and uploaded it to YouTube. When a programme maker with the circulation of TLC devotes a significant amount of screen time to Armstrong's expeditions, that does amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Your firefighter scenario is a false analogy; notability for a person is concerned with the attention that the media has paid to the individual for what they have done and it clear that Armstrong is unique in his contributions in that particular field, which cannot be said for a firefighter who was doing their job in the same way as any other firefighter. You might as well say that coverage of a soldier who receives a medal isn't notable because his actions did not "extend beyond the normal duties of a professional".

I do state that is a lot more than a stub and you concede that it's a "beefed up start-class article", for which I'm grateful. One of the features that distinguish start-class from stub-class is the question of notability: "The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant." - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment,

Which are these sources that don't mention Armstrong at all? The Background section actually has five sources, which is not "largely unsourced" as you claim. If you feel the first paragraph needs a source, the correct action is addition of {{citation needed}}, not deletion of the entire article. Armstrong is independently notable and the current sources do support this, despite your unsupported assertions to the contrary (assuming "the current sources simply do not not support this. was a typo, not a double negative). The criterion for notability is significant coverage in independent sources, which Armstrong has - TLC, Mega Movers, ABC, etc. - not whether or not the encyclopedia would be disrupted by its removal. After all, there are plenty of articles on notable topics with fewer than the four proper incoming links that the article Brian Armstrong (diver) possesses.

Take the hypothetical example of John Q. Person, who did all the things you say, but was also a major player in several well-publicised expeditions that attracted public interest; so much so that two well-respected documentary makers interviewed him to get the story of what he did on those expeditions. Not only that, but a published author chose him for his expertise in these sort of expeditions as a collaborator and wrote about him. Enough for notability? You betcha. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, unless I'm missing it, there's nothing on his article nor mentioned here about him being featured in a book or article by said "published author" - what are you talking about? Additionally, let's look at the "five sources" you mention for the "Background section"

something called "'Continuous service award (10 years)'. North Carolina State University Physical Education Department." - no link, no publication given, clearly not even an article based on the title, by all guess it appears to be likely a list of people who have been working with the North Carolina State PE department for 10 years, and strangely is the exact same reference on Gene Hobbs aka Brian's friend (who wrote the article about him);
the article of incorporation for his own organization!!!
cover photo of Florida Scuba News; which appears to be a self-published free publication like that's mainly ads and given away at scuba stores, yet, still didn't write anything about him, and for all we know, the photo is a group shot of 27 people
documentary not about him but in which he is interviewed as a witness
same as #4.

The same pattern goes for all the rest of the "sources" in the article - how in any way are ANY of these the required significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail (the topic is Brian Armstrong himself, not his observations or thoughts on an activity or job he did or movie he saw or sandwich he ate) in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Is there a single source that meets that clear requirement? One? —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:16, 27 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, Davewild (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can someone tell me where to look for him in the Bermuda doc? I tried to skim through it and couldn't see him and I don't want to watch the whole thing. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He appears at around 7:45, 8:05, and 10:15 on this clip. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yeah it's doesn't change my vote. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very marginal when one asks for specific credits for the individual. Then again, when I think about the tens of thousands of "was a footballer who played for Fredonia club side C 1960-1961" "articles" on the project, the "is an album recorded by Interchangeablepopband on MySpace records and went double plotinum" on the project, we're looking at a person who, as an individual may be sought. I.e. a person might hit a search engine wanting to know more about the person seen on the TV special or magazine cover; therefore, there is a function for an article on this individual. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hithladaeus: That's because there are specific criteria for a few categories of people (ie athletes, artists, politicians, academics etc) in which they can meet notability guidelines through a specific achievement, such as football players (must have played in professional league is one) and musicians (having an album or song that goes gold or higher etc). That way it keeps AfD from being flooded with all these bios and helps article selection stay neutral (ie prevents subtle influences like, "I hate that team so I'm going to vote delete for all those players, but make bios for all the people who have played for my team," "that kind of music is horrible so I'm going to say delete," or the ever popular, "I've never heard of that person so they must not be important.") —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I know about the guidelines. I remember when they were forged. I advocate that people start always with knowing what the thing is, though, and what purpose it serves. After that, ask how it functions. In contentious cases, a group consensus might help, but it's no substitute for reason. I can be more specific, if you wish. In the case of the poptarts, the footballers, the little high schools, and the like we had constituencies of fans among article creators, more than anything, who wanted to protect their right to serialize and would willingly support one another's mutual rights against "deletionists." Consequently, the bar got set proportionately lower as the group of article writers felt itself to be persecuted by "elitists" and "snobs." We can argue that the principle by which such a constituency set such a standard operates analogously between the single season club footballer and the expert diver, or we can argue that the keep/delete debate go back to whether or not the article is likely to be useful. I think it's better not to slavishly wave guidelines, myself, and to ask whether the article serves readers (rather than writers). Hithladaeus (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a very reasonable attitude, but unfortunately it relies on everyone being equally reasonable. The guidelines were always designed to avert repetition of the same arguments; and the snag with that is that they have evolved without any shades of grey at the margins. The criteria for musicians for example, implies that any artist who has a record in a national record chart will be notable. As that includes the Billboard 200, for example, then there will be artists who manage to have one album spend one week at position 200 there. Similarly a footballer who appeared as a substitute for the last 10 minutes of a single match in Football League Two will still pass our Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline. Most of the time, we won't have these edge cases and the guidelines serve a useful purpose, but at times we really need to be able to step back and see beyond them as Hithladaeus (is that Hithladeus in American-English?) proposes. Respectfully --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case, if I were to ignore all notability guidelines, I don't see how this article serves readers. Animalparty above summed it up perfectly with his example of the pseudobiography. The claim of this person having "come to the attention of the public over a number of topics" is the lamest thing I've heard in a while. I would like to know why, if he is prominent in the diving community, he has not been featured in any diving publications. There's a whole lot of them. One of his claims of notability is that a magazine used his photo on the cover, but where was the story to go with it? Did they even know who he was or did they buy the picture because it looked cool? Seriously, not a single Q&A? No feature on the guy who's the expert on so many topics? No mention on a diving news website about any of his achievements? And the magazine was Florida Scuba News so apparently not even within the Florida diving community is there any evidence he's notable, or at least he is equally notable as the guy on the cover of this issue. This here is the only thing I found in relation to him being a diver, and it's a picture he sent in himself, and it's not a publication, and it's a promotional photo. That single thing. There is even less information (as in zero) about him in relation to his nonprofit he founded. There is not a single indication that he is prominent in the diving community or has achieved notability. I don't mean to insult him, but this is what happens when people make Wikipedia pages for their friends, like happened here, as the article creator has already admitted. If I ask who this article is serving, it's people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I would point out that I do not qualify as "people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong". I have never met him and have no connection or association with Gene Hobbs or RexxS other than that we all edit underwater diving articles on Wikipedia. Nevertheless I consider the article of sufficient interest to myself as a recreational scuba diver to be worth keeping. Besides, how would the article serve "people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong"? They already know him. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Pbsouthwood, The article was created by Gene Hobbs, his friend, not you. People making articles for their family and friends is nothing new - they do it because of their feeling that the person they are connected to is important and "deserves" an article, and the article's continued existence reinforces that belief. It's self-serving. That you consider it of sufficient interest personally is totally irrelevant. An article in my local paper about the amazing sixth grade teacher is of sufficient interest to me, and I enjoy reading it. Would I use that as an argument to give the teacher a Wikipedia article? No. The subject of the article must meet the criteria of WP:GNG and that is simply not the case. The topic must have received significant coverage (coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Brian Armstrong does not have a single article written about him, or a radio interview, or a profile on the local TV news, etc. Not one. So the continued claim that he has had any significant coverage is absurd. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not a a buddy of Brian Armstrong either, and your insinuation that Gene Hobbs is incapable of writing neutral articles about notable people that he knows is a disgraceful assumption of bad faith. It doesn't matter a jot who creates an article, except perhaps that someone who actually has knowledge of the subject is likely to make a better job of it. The only thing that's absurd here is your inability to comprehend that the coverage by TLC, ABC, Mega Movers, Barnette, etc. constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only reason we're having this discussion is that diving is a niche topic that doesn't have the copious quantities of fan magazines and websites that provide coverage of so many insignificant celebrities who make up so much of our BLPs. Whenever someone who is actually notable in this field has an article, it's all too easy for commentators like you to artificially raise the bar of notability on the assumption that subjects have to have the same sort of volumes written about them as a pop singer. They don't. It is encyclopedic if there's significant independent coverage. Armstrong has that, and no amount of your asserting otherwise will change that fact. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apparently, we disagree, and apparently that is tolerable to some, not to others. It may be that my personal knowledge of the geographical areas and projects affects my view a little, as I know that the dive groups in those areas are, in fact, more and more likely to end up in a TV producer's Rolodex. This is just a thing I know. (See, for example, the same knowledge I brought to my reasoning on the Canadian talking head on "off beat and goth" topics. I was much more willing to extend a benefit of the doubt due to this "Rolodex distortion" for her.) That can't be codified. Expertise, as we all know, also can't be codified. Nor should it be. Instead, it has to live in the realm of judgment. For Wikimandia: the "rules" for delete and keep are consensus among editors and closing admins., not notability guidelines (which are tools for consensus, not laws overwhelming it). If the voting and closing group goes entirely nuts, then that is the proper conclusion. Many times in the past, as I can imagine, it must have happened that floods of voters have shown up to "save" wretched articles on favorite topics. I would imagine that when little high schools were first being debated such sudden voting floods occurred. My own opinion is that this particular person has crossed over to the point, primarily because of the Discovery-TLC documentary, that interested viewers may want to know more about the person they saw. You do not agree. I'm just one archaism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe marginal, but for me on the keep side of the line. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After checking that more can be added. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What else can be added? —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:02, 1 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasq[edit]

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

No apparent assertions of notability, article reads like an ad in places, and some of the material looks like it may have been lifted and slightly tweaked from someplace on the net. On top of all that this reads somewhat like a how-to guide. I am there fore listing this here for community input on the article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A how-to and a promo for a new crypto-scheme. Hey, I hear that money is just a matter of belief, man. This seems like a lodging for someone's boosting. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New uncited research, WP:TOOSOON. The company or website founded to commercialize (or whatever the open-source equivalent might be) this technology, hasq.org, also appears to be non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 27 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence[edit]

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

No references. Most of the google results are just dictionary and abbreviation results. --☣Anar chyte☣ 06:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) --☣Anar chyte☣ 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --☣Anar chyte☣ 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The page the article refers to has not been updated since 2006 -- 9 years. In the lifespan of parody, that makes it Marley's ghost. That said, the site generated buzz when it lived -- sufficient buzz to sail pass notability guidelines. Therefore, it is possible that the encyclopedia entry could be kept as a complete rewrite to be a historical entry, except that Wikipedia is not the Wayback Machine. Is it within the purview of Wikipedia to memorialize parody sites that gathered a lot of conversation and clicks for a bit of time? We would need indications that this has generated a historical echo, I'd think. Again, this is a weak delete vote. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability isn't temporary WP:NOTTEMPORARY. It received just enough coverage, and Eliot Spitzer recommending it to parents as a real organization even made international headlines [17] —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, "notability" is not temporary. Topicality, however, is, and topicality can create vast amounts of independent coverage for an Internet-related event. Therefore, one has to ask what sort of object it is that's under discussion. One might even suppose there are different "notability" guidelines for different sorts of object. So, for topical parody, what is the life of the object? How is its success determined? Not, of course, that I would know anything about parody or the august notability standards. I'm sure consulting them eliminates all contention. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had nothing more than passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I also went through the list of refs in the current article and found a bunch of mentions but the short CNN article was the only thing close to sig cov. Even with the whole Spitzer mixup, no real coverage came of the event, especially of the hoax organization itself. I'd support a redirect to Video game controversies if there was a relevant place to add a sentence or two, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 21:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone cited WP:NOTTEMPORARY above, but that's just the thing – there's no evidence this organization was notable at any point. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this is notable or comes close to passing any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 1 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Il Mio Bambino[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete it "books" soon!Devbasdev (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stephen Spender said that writing a book of poetry and waiting for a response was like dropping a rose down a well and waiting for a splash. Without any judgment on the poet or poems, small press references and individual works in translation won't quite pass the bar. I'm not sure Prufrock and Other Observations would have gotten an article at proto-Wikipedia until 1929. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It exists, but that's about it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 27 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nel nome del padre[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete his "books" soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devbasdev (talk • contribs) 09:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. It may be a quirk that two separate volumes were published in the same year, but a poet writing two books of poems in a year is fairly unheard of. Two chapbooks in a year is heavy lifting. Again, I can't access and wouldn't offer an opinion on the works themselves. We have to keep if the likelihood is good for the listed small presses being the tip of an iceberg. In this case, they don't seem to be, yet. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any of the decisive criteria at WP:NBOOK. There is a single user (User:Sellysellyheart) who has created pages for each of this author's books of poetry: Gli anni di Cristo ‎, Entropia del cuore, Il Diario di Mary e altri Racconti ‎, I Dieci Comandamenti ‎ , Nel nome del padre, Augusto Orrel, Ceppi_incerti , Senza_cielo, as well as having edited the article for the author. And all of this since 3 May 2015! At least 2 books have already been nominated for deletion. The article for the author Menotti_Lerro is a mess of ref spam, much added by this same user. It may be too late to nip this in the bud... but we should try. LaMona (talk) 23:44, 27 May 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 Menotti Lerro. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aforismi e pensieri. Cinquecento gocce dal mio mare[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one is pretty clear. Aphorisms in book form appearing one year after two books of poetry? The citations are ephemera so far as I can tell, and we're looking at someone who really seems to like this poet. I wonder what the Italian language Wikipedia says? Hithladaeus (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBOOK. The Italian WP does not even have a page for the author, much less the individual books. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Menotti_Lerro#Aphorisms. A look at the publisher shows that it's a self-publishing/on demand publisher. This doesn't mean that the book can't be notable, but it does make it far less likely that there will be coverage. All in all it's usually fairly rare for a self-published book to gain coverage. Sometimes the writer's notability can make it more likely that there will be coverage but this isn't a guarantee. I have no true opinion at this time about the author's notability, although the amount of books that come up to AfD does put his notability into question. In any case, I performed a search and I just can't find anything to show that this work is notable and would pass NBOOK. I'm starting to think that since there are so many Lerro related articles up for deletion that we should take a look at his notability to see if he passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting cleanup with the author's article. The unfortunate thing is that I'm finding that many of the otherwise promising sources are primary or otherwise unusable. Andrew Mangham works at the University of Reading, the college Lerro received his Master's Degree from. He also appears to be a visiting academic at UoR, so there's a tie there and it's well within the school's best interest to have someone write about someone that attended or is otherwise affiliated with them. I'll post this on some of the other AfD as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, thank you for looking at the author's article. I had a glance at it and also thought that, after the removal of non-RS it might be greatly reduced. I will take a look at any Italian sources there. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, that would be wonderful- I used Google Translate as much as possible but there were a few sources that I was somewhat unsure of since I couldn't tell how they accepted reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 29 May 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 Menotti Lerro. I'm generally against awkward title redirects, but the article has existed for long enough in this case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raccontarsi in versi. La poesia autobiografica in Inghilterra e in Spagna (1950-1980)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Menotti Lerro. I think that the author would just barely squeak by notability guidelines. He's had a few journal reviews and his poetry was set to music recently, so that gives a reasonable enough assertion of notability. That said, I can't find anything to show that this book is independently notable outside of its author. I'd recommend this for all of his books as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of SPAs for the article I think that I may open an SPI for this just to make sure that they're all unrelated. There seems to be some socking or meating going on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Seems to be a good idea. I just find it hard to believe a number of new editors suddenly decided to collaborate on this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I've started an SPI up if you're interested in weighing in. One of the accounts have stated that they're a group of 3 student friends editing from similar computers, but the problem is that there are a LOT of accounts. Some of them are here to just vote delete or blank the pages, which I think is a separate but probably related group. It's kind of fishy that these other accounts start signing up along the same point in time. One way or the other, I do think that there is a pretty organized attempt here to add Lerro to as many articles as possible. I can somewhat see this as a task for students, but this seems to have been going on for years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can ping me on the SPI, I'll take a look. Through I am less worried about SPI than just spam in this case; I don't think most if any of those books are notable; and the writer himself may warrant investigation. This smells to me like not-too-good-faithed attempt to use Wikipedia as vehicle for promotion/vanity :( Multiple confusing SPI-like accounts don't help, neither. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you are the only without good faith. You talked about Lerro's book as his "books" / you went in the main page of the author suggesting to an user how to try to delete the author. / You talk about "vanity". I think you should try to respect people and authors even if you think they are not important to be on WIkipedia. I think you have personal reasons. Maybe you know the author and have a sort of obsession about him... Try to relax!Foliinastr (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tokyogirl79, I think you are going in the wrong direction. The article of Lerro has been created years ago (I have not idea from who), after me and I can assure you also others, because the article was "within the aim of wikipedia" and was a stub (so that we were invited to improve it) started during the time to improve it. Other people wanted to help, so they did their part. There was just the aim to give a complete picture of his work. In this last period I decide to write about the opera so I created pages of his work. I did not have any idea it was prohibited to do it with more accounts (I don't see where is the problem). I don't think it add something. So Sometime, for instance, I did it from my place of work or whatever. For sure I am not the only user working on this progect. Anyway, Piotrus has been not nice towards the author, maybe he has personal reasons. In any case there was and there is perfect good faith: I think he is notable and I develop his work. If you think he is not, do what you can do. But please, don't go too far with your immagination. This is just an important website, nothing else. So, please, don't think people is there to attemp at this or at that. I always create a new account of wikipedia to improve articles. It is just because I don't remember passwords so If I do it from anothe place I create a new account because wikipedia advices to write always with an account to not leave IP. It is the only reason. I never thought it could be better in the time to develope his article with mosre account... DO you understand what I mean? I think you are exagerating. The author is a notable author and I don't think he needs these stuff. SO please, try to be nice (dear Piotrus) and if there are good reason to delete just delete, butr try to respect users, people and authors. Take care. Rainermaria27 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let me add I never gave a "keep" vote (I did not want to do it just to be correct, because I was one of the main contributer) with some account or blancked any pages. Lerro received many personal attacks on his talk page from people in the past. Such "invitamia", (an italian user) who was always unkind while I was creating the page. The same did "Erodiade" in the Lerro talk page, talking of the author like a "self-published nobody". Sometimes I had some reaction at these behaviours because it is not nice to talk of an author in this way. He can be suitable for Wikipedia or not, but he is a person and an author and we have to respect! I know that things could appear different, but trust me, the only thing I did has been creating freely pages of an author I thought (more because I read that he was within the aim of wikipedia) he is enciclopedic. There are not PIS-PIM-SOCKS-SPA- and similar things :-). I even don't know what are these. I am not professional of wikipedia, that's why I added so many references. I thought more I add nicer the page would appear. I did not think, for instance, they were not always good or unusable. I don't know if it is making a sense what i say. In the end I just would recomand all of us to be correct (dear Piotrus, to be honest, when you talked of his books as "books" I thought you were a new or the same "Erodiade"...) but probably you just were in good faith. I belive it and understand. I hope you can belive and understand me too. All the bestRainermaria27 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin (video game)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator with the following comment left on his/her talk page: "I can't seem to understand why the article does not cover enough sources or external links, since it has nine sources, of which some are published ones e.g. tweets or blog posts. You might need to have published sources and commentary, of which both cannot be many available yet, as the games has not yet been release but is going to be in just one day (May 27) into Steam Early Access. From that point on, ratings, mentionings, etc. from different gaming magazines will go into the article. ". As it is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON, the article should be deleted or userfied until such a point as independent sources (reviews, etc.) can be added. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References in article fail WP:RS but it now has coverage in reliable sources, although it's not very in-depth[18][19][20][21][22][23] Not bad for a game that's not released yet (although it's never 100% certain a game will be released so I'm not totally depending on that). Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The game was released today, May 27, as I mentioned before; we will probably see a lot of reviews soon. Lordtobi (✉) 12:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what a release into Steam Early Access signifies, relative to a full release for sale. But we can indeed wait a few days for reviews. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a cleanup of the current references, not a deletion --☣Anar chyte☣ 10:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula's sources. That's enough to meet the WP:GNG as it is, let alone, if these are the types of sites that are doing previews of the game, its reasonable to expect similar caliber sites will be doing reviews on it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy keep via a cursory video game reliable sources custom Google search. Many refs mentioned above but many more available even from the first page of the custom Google search's results, and from established sources like PC Gamer and IGN. It's enough even if no dedicated reviews were released. Withdrawal recommended. – czar 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable game, with reliable video game sources. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:24, 30 May 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 BBC_Persian_Television#Nader_Soltanpour. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Soltanpour[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only one of the article's references is about the person (a brief bio sketch at his employer, BBC), rather they are news stories he was involved in. Found one source behind a paywall [24] but there doesn't appear to be robust independent sourcing. Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A journalist who was just doing his job and didn't receive any coverage about himself until obituary. Not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find the obituary. Whatever else, it appears that he is still living and broadcasting on BBC. Jpbrenna (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into BBC_Persian_Television#Nader_Soltanpour. --Jpbrenna (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RADIO and WP:MEDIA. BBC is not enough to pass the notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:43, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Travel & Tourism Academy[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:CORP Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 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 04:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any RS; fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are not turning up any evidence of notability for this training centre. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot see any justification for the article. It's a company. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Probably also eligible for WP:CSD#A7 as no claim to significance, only "it's a company". Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Humrahi[edit]

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

Unreferenced TV show with no signs of notability at all Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 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 12:02, 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 04:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A Pakistani TV show, no refs. Not a hoax, but I don't see any RS. There is no Wikipedia:Notability (TV shows), so we are left with Wikipedia:Notability (media) it redirects to (in particular, WP:TVSHOW). "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market." In either case, references are needed to show the range of this show's audience. If such refs are found, ping me and I'll review them and possibly revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 27 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Cyber Girls of the Month[edit]

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

Fancruft; no indication Cyber Girl is particularly significant that it needs one list, let alone three —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:59, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, this seems to be a wikification of a listing from some fan-site. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Piotrus: it's a table with a few wikilinks. Even if it were as beautiful as its subjects, it would be a blob o' info. and not an article, and it would be virtually unusable by even those seeking this specific information. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:11, 27 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SATMAP (system)[edit]

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

Promotional article about a technology product. The article's references consist of primary sources, press releases and superficial news coverage generated from press releases. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Product-spam, refs are PR, press releases, niche media. Not seeing any coverage that would make this encyclopedic. We are not a repository of products or services sold sold unless they are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only is this advertising, but it appears to be a tendril of another bit of company boosting. (I would have thought that satellite mapping would own this lemma.) No indication that this particular trademark is notable, nor this business referred to. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Failing that, delete per WP:PROMO, and fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 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. Minus the sock !vote below. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

32 Bita[edit]

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

Not notable, doesn't show why the article or the company in question is notable. --☣Anar chyte☣ 03:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) --☣Anar chyte☣ 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --☣Anar chyte☣ 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources present suggest that either the company or its games pass WP:GNG or its subpolicies such as Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The company produces products. One of them had 200,000 users over a period of years (one assumes these are downloads, so the number isn't clear). All of the references appear to be internal and therefore promotional. Given the "app" market, this isn't a blockbuster, and there are no indications of notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company producing not many copies of non-notable products. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This company's claim is to the oldest Croatian computer game, but I'm not as good with the non-English sources to find corroboration past repackaged press releases. I did find a few sites that mention 32bita/32 Bita as a video game company and creator of Sraza ("Crash") and Sunbeams, but I'm not wholly confident in their reliability or in the website's own claims. In any event, if the company matters even as a Croatian first, I'd expect to see more news coverage of one kind or another. Didn't find anything in a video game reliable sources custom Google search or ProQuest 50+ database firehose search either. Might be worth renaming to "Veljko Kukulj" (the company's founder and creator of Sraza) if more coverage is found for him than the company and game itself. – czar 21:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So of course I find corroboration as soon as I post, via hr:Videoigra at http://www.poslovni.hr/tehnologija/racunalne-igre-u-hrvatskoj-proizvodi-sedam-tvrtki-11260, towards the bottom. It confirms Sraz as the first Croatian computer game, though I'm not sure there's a notability guideline for such firsts. It also has the founder's thoughts on why the market is so small. I think this warrants some investigation from those familiar with Croatian sources. – czar 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – pitifully non-notable SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 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) 19:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AirMedia Group, Inc.[edit]

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

I considered endorsing the PROD but I removed it thinking AfD would be better as a News search found several results but now looking them, I'm not sure if the company is notable. There are some good sources along with some PR and searches at Highbeam found some links but nothing looks significant and notable and thefreelibrary found mostly press releases along with browser finding some results and Books finding one not helpful result. I'm not a Chinese speaker so I'm no use there but I'm not sure if there are more non-English sources. With an article like this staying from November 2008 with no improvement, it's particularly concerning. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references present to support keeping this in light of WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I was the one who put the original PROD in place (for non-notability and poor references). Primefac (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 27 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apotheosis (group)[edit]

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

News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary searches all found nothing and the French article (which probably also needs to be deleted) only has a discogs link. I've watched this article for the past three years and it has not improved and I think there is no chance of it improving. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references present to support keeping this article; fails WP:MUSICBIO as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - No references to support the supposed "hit". Even so, there is no found sources to classify it as a national hit in the Dutch charts and the group has not been on an acclaimed label.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, and we can add the shadowy reference to "four official singles" by the group. This is an odd thing that sounds very much like club mixes. All of that makes it sound as if this might have been a popular act, but not by any means an act that left documentary traces that create an encyclopedia article. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, they've possibly had 4 non-notable singles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liisa Ladouceur[edit]

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

Relist for further consideration following a no-consensus closure on the first nomination back in February. This is a WP:BLP of a writer which is not supported by adequate reliable sourcing to demonstrate that she passes WP:CREATIVE — while she has published books, the only sources provided for them are the books' entries on WorldCat (but directory sourcing doesn't count.) While she's been a magazine editor and journalist, there aren't independent sources covering her for those things. While she's been an occasional guest on radio and TV programs, an appearance on radio or TV cannot confer notability in and of itself. I've done a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, further, and found that while she's occasionally the bylined author, she's never been the subject of even one article in that entire database. What we have, accordingly, is an article that's almost literally just a cut and paste from her own website (OTRS filed to eliminate the WP:COPYVIO issue), but that just makes it a promotional/PR profile. Again, this is not a comment on her as a person — but the quality of sourcing that Wikipedia requires to legitimately support an article simply isn't there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak delete: I was thinking that this was a weak keep when I read the article. As a talking head, she might generate searches and queries. However, I followed the links, and. . . there just isn't anything there. Wikipedia is not a promotional space (no accusation made), but IMDB welcomes biographies from agents. However, the IMDB page says. . . nothing. In other words, she doesn't seem to have a career as an independent investigator/commentator that would actually lead to the interest that an encyclopedia article would answer. Therefore, delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If there were more references to prove info, and was written in a less promotional standpoint, there is a chance it meets notability, but not as of now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is essentially unsourced; while she is a prolific writer, I could not find any articles where she was actually the subject, outside of some passing mentions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:41, 28 May 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 Gerde's Folk City. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Porco[edit]

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

Not my field, but the information here does not show notability. (I agree the venue is notable). FWIW, this article was written by an obvious COI editor. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to Gerde's Folk City. No independent notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge I agree, all notability is with that of Gerdes Folk City. Add the little data to that instead of its own piece. Ozzyland (talk) 16:28, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 20 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) 02:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There needs to be more/different content, because there is now beginning to be history written about Greenwich Village and the vanished folk scene. Chronicles vol. I does mention Porco, but, more tellingly, we're beginning to see historical reassessments of the businesses and "straights" who kept the scene going. I am not going to volunteer for the job, but the job can be done, and more information will be forthcoming as soon as people read the serious books being published now. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gerdes Folk City. Not at all notable, fails WP:GNG- the only thing he's done is run a notable place, and notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gerde's Folk City. Almost zero notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any extra data and cites to the Gerde's article. He's clearly not notable. A bit of background on the owner, and more citations, would not violate WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Brockley[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actor "known" only for his participation in an ad campaign, and thus making no claim of notability that would pass WP:NACTOR. Article has already been nominated for speedy (which is what it really deserves) and then escalated to prod, with the (WP:SPA) creator removing the templates both times without providing a rationale or any improvement to the notability claim. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:13, 20 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) 02:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: IMDB^[1] has nothing except that he has appeared in some things. Given the fact that an IMDB entry shows up for everything above the level of an extra and that anyone with an agent gets a bio over to IMDB long before Wikipedia (we hope), where it will do more good (we hope), it doesn't appear that this man is primarily an actor. (Hope I did the reference/link properly.) At any rate, based on standards used by the celebrity industry in the U.S., he doesn't appear to be engaged in it. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1559159/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1%7CIMDB

Delete IMDb shows they exist, but not that they're notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. (On a sidenote, @Hithladaeus: in future if you add references to talkpages or AfDs, can you add {{reflist-talk}} to the bottom of your comment. Otherwise all the references collect at the bottom of the page.) Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have a bit of a historical block about the ref codes, but I have it on my TTD list. (We used to have a single open bracket, URL, pipe, text, close bracket, and the ext. link would display with alt text. ...Not that I'd know how things used to be done, mind you.) Hithladaeus (talk) 14:35, 27 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CVIC SE[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan with indication of notability that fails to meet GNG and NCORP 3gg5amp1e (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, and I've already reverted the nom's ridiculous attempts to tag-bomb this article. It's fully referenced – inline citation is not and has never been compulsory on Wikipedia. Mogism (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources?
  - CVIC SE's Homepage? Not a reliable source.
  - CVIC SE's Alternate English Homepage? Not a reliable source.
  - China Outsourcing Forum? Not a reliable source.
  - The University of Regina? University website, says nothing about the topic.
  - Shandong University website (Chinese)? Not English and Google was not able to translate it, so I have no idea, but the other "sources" suggest this is just the Homepage for the university and doesn't mention the topic.
  - Shandong University website (English)? 404 not found, doesn't even exist, not reliable.
  - Jing Xinhai Receives an Honour at the Fall 2003 Convocation at the University of Regina? This is about Jing Xinhai and not CVIC SE.
  I also don't appreciate being called disruptive or ridiculous in a tone that appears to attack me like if we are on a battleground in some war or something. Thanks. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all current sources are affiliated, but I've found news coverage: The Register, Financial Times. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of what's on the page is a reliable source and the two added above by Qwertyus are a passing mention for the first one and the second is accessible behind a pay-wall. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that The Register source is just a name-drop; we can't dismiss the Financial Times just for being behind a paywall, however. One thing that obviously hasn't been considered here; Chinese language sources. Now, obviously I don't speak Chinese, and Google Translate is hopeless for Chinese translation, but [25] appears to be an in-depth piece about the company (dates line up with what the article here says, it needs a proper translator), and another source that may also be useful is [26]. There are probably more out there for those who speak Chinese. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 20 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) 02:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources present to suggest it passes WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (companies). User:Mogism, please read my op-ed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed so you can understand why User:3gg5amp1e deletion should be commended - we need to stop this kind of spam before we drawn in it. User:Lukeno94 makes a valid point that there may be Chinese language sources, but until their existence is confirmed, we cannot assume they exist and keep the article on the "maybe". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have to concur with the above. In addition to the wild wild east of commercial adventurism, there is something worrisome about the name-creep of "Civic SE," a well known and popular search term for a common Honda car sold in the U.S., and this title. I'm not suggesting this is conscious "errorspace engineering," but in the absence of solid documentation the naming is another concern. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:21, 27 May 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. If desired, a merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAM image[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan with no indication importance or notability and seems to fail GNG. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.google.com/search?q="ram+image"+embedded —Ruud 11:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This could probably be merged somewhere, such as booting, bootstrapping, or embedded system. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 16 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 20 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) 02:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not really revolutionary stuff in the article for those of us from the days of DOS and yore, but also the sort of thing that's so much in common knowledge that asking for it to be heavily cited it a bit ridiculous. It's also a concept that anyone going back to the days of how we ran big software with small RAM will probably need to know. (shrug) It's true, and it's useful, so.... Hithladaeus (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with something else. Don't think it's notable enough for its own article, but could be a valid section of another article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Quilliam[edit]

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

This guy does sound like he could be notable but with no reliable sources other then a page that is basically a el. (also almost sound like a advertisement) now if someone can make this article better and more better source I will withdraw. Wgolf (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is atrocious. That said, I have a question for Wgolf: How much time did you put into looking for reliable sources? ¶ The reason I ask is because I immediately noticed the claim that this person is/was "A recent finalist in the invitation only PrixPictet [sic] in Paris", reflected that the Prix Pictet really is a big deal, duckduckwent "prix pictet quilliam", and arrived at this little newspaper article that appears to back up the claim. Actually Quilliam doesn't seem to be mentioned in prixpictet.com, so I suspect that he wasn't a finalist; but I do wonder about the degree of work that's gone into this nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 16 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 20 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) 02:16, 27 May 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. Although trees do not fall in the class of articles where A7 can be used, the article was actually about an individual. Quite apart from A7, it was essentially an attack page, and I deleted it accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack sargent tree[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 27 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toru Miura[edit]

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

Although he is the founder and president of AIC, there is hardly any information about his personal bio that couldn't be covered by the AIC article. I propose that information (if any useful amount) regarding the producer be merged to Anime International Company and that Toru Miura (musician) be renamed to Toru Miura. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC) updated 16:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. We need more sources to support his notability. Being "a Japanese anime producer and the president of Anime International Company" and sourced to one website which mentions him in passing is just not enough. Where is the in-depth coverage of him? Who has written his bio? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, exactly. There's no bio. The source in passing was added by myself recently in order to get the tag off for BLP sources. The Japanese Wikipedia article lists about a line of bio and then all his works, most of which are covered by AIC anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability of this person. --DAJF (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of WP:Notability through third party sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AngusWOOF's reasoning. In general, biographies of living persons most of the time have sources to verify information, but in this case, there are no sources and it fails the WP:GNG and WP:V. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did anyone try searching for Japanese sources? There could be at least some out there. If sources are lacking, even in Japanese, then redirect to Anime International Company, since redirects are cheap. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Memija[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on a claim that the Bosnian premier league is fully pro, an assertion contradicted by reliable sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 27 May 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) 13:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hadžiahmetović[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. As the Bosnian league is not a fully-professional league, see WP:FPL, the player fails WP:NFOOTY, and they also fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not fully professionally yet clubs from that league participate in both Champions League and Europa League qualifying.Bosnalopta (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism is not a requirement to participate in UEFA club competitions. There are any number of leagues, including the Bosnian premier league that are confirmed as not fully pro whose clubs compete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 May 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) 13:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is fully professional, I don't understand the judgment or qualifications.Bosnalopta (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because no consensus has been achieved here along with reliable sources to confirm the FULLY professional nature of this league. This doesn't mean that a source has to explicitly use the phrase "fully professional" but documentation needs to be presented that shows that essentially all of the clubs in the league pay their players sufficient for them not to require other jobs. this could be from an official FA document (for example this from the Albanian FA) outlining the requirements for club membership in a given competition or even a reliable third party source that confirms FPL status indirectly. For example this report notes that there is only one semi professinal footballer in the football league. To all intents and purposes, this confirms that the English football league is fully professional. It is important to note that no one is saying the B&H league is not fully professional, just that it has not been shown that it is and the WP:NFOOTY essay, commonly accepted as a baseline for notability is an inclusive view. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youBosnalopta (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besim Šerbečić[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. As the Bosnian league is not a fully-professional league, see WP:FPL, the player fails WP:NFOOTY, and they also fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not fully professionally yet clubs from that league participate in both Champions League and Europa League qualifying.Bosnalopta (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism is not a requirement to participate in UEFA club competitions. There are any number of leagues, including the Bosnian premier league that are confirmed as not fully pro whose clubs compete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 27 May 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) 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Mihojević[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. As the Bosnian league is not a fully-professional league, see WP:FPL, the player fails WP:NFOOTY, and they also fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not fully professionally yet clubs from that league participate in both Champions League and Europa League qualifying.Bosnalopta (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism is not a requirement to participate in UEFA club competitions. There are any number of leagues, including the Bosnian premier league that are confirmed as not fully pro whose clubs compete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 27 May 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) 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NFOOTBALL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm1559159/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1%7CIMDB

[1]