Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 May	4 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 deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rf plumbing[edit]

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

This topic does not have notability, and it lacks sources. Also, see WP:WINAD Aus0107 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both a dicdef and a failed attempt to create a false buzzword for propagating radio signals through a building. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will openly admit that I am not an expert on this, but I did find this 1946 patent and this one from 1950 that use the term pretty heavily in roughly the same context. There are some differences but the basic idea seems to be sort of the same. The idea of him having coined the term is also up for debate as well, since the guy's Linkedin shows that he started college in the 60s, which would put him in middle or high school when these patents were filed. This looks like some guy's attempt to put a new spin on a pre-existing term and then claim that he created it in an attempt to gain publicity. Basically I do see some usage of the term, but if this is going to be kept in any way it would have to be completely re-written to remove this guy's spam from it and to make it encyclopedic enough for either this website or Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. I am finding more usage of the term in various academic texts (again, all from a time period where it wouldn't really be feasible for this guy to have invented the term) so there may be some justification for the term to be somewhere, but this version of the article would have to be TNT'd to remove the sheer self-promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as G11 since this is pretty unambiguous self-promotion/spam. I have no problem with someone wanting to write an article about the term or maybe putting it in Wiktionary, but it should be done in a more neutral format than this and it should take into account the history of the term. I can't find anything to show that this guy created/coined this term at all. The only thing that backs up this claim is this Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Cislek[edit]

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

Singer with no evidence of notability; declined speedy deletion. Seattle (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources include [2] and [3], which puts her on a chart - passes WP:NMUSIC. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What chart is that? I don't speak the language. Seattle (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #1 mentions her song Joli Garçon as being in the French Top 20 and in the German Top 10 Dance Charts. Ref #2 is a listing of the German TOP 50 ODC (Official Dance Charts) for the year of 2011, compiled by Media Control, and Joli Garçon is number 28. Kraxler (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source lists Joli Garçom as reaching #20 in the FRench single charts in January 2011, and remaining in the charts for 10 weeks. The article in the German Wikipedia also shows that the song charted at #92 in the German single charts. Notability under NMUSIC seems to have been firmly established, somebody would have to add the info at the article, though. Kraxler (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 April 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, Kraxler (talk) 18:38, 1 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, MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the judgement of three other language wikipedias. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see above. It should be considered to move the article to her stage name "Lolita Jolie". Kraxler (talk) 13:42, 7 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 merge to Gibson Les Paul#Models and variations. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Dark Fire[edit]

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

This page is for a Gibson Les Paul guitar submodel only produced for two years. The model was limited in production and mostly a novelty item. It is not notable as other Les Paul submodels such as the Custom and Studio are and to put it on the same playing field is an oversight. Furthermore, the article is uncited.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 8 April 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) 00:26, 16 April 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 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples:

"Review: A riff on robotics with self-tuning guitar". U-T San Diego. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
"Bob Marley The Father of Music". p. 148.
Wilson Rothman. "Gibson's Dark Fire: Les Paul Reborn as RoboCop". Gizmodo. Gawker Media. Retrieved 23 April 2015.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also okay with a merge to Gibson Les Paul#Models and variations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 9 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, MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gibson Les Paul#Models and variations. Model does not appear to be an independently notable instrument. Pax 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: meets WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG, there is also this in addition to the mentioned sources. Although the notability is borderline, three dedicated, reliable sources is usually enough to justify WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 01:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Gibson Les Paul#Models and variations Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per others —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gibson Les Paul#Models and variations. There are sources, but I don't think there's enough coverage yet for a standalone article. Obviously if increased coverage turns up (say by a notable band making prominent use of this model), we can turn it back into an article then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 11 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) 18:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Development management[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced convoluted essay. Large parts of it also seem to be copy/pasted from a course leaflet or some other study information (see "Choose courses to the value of two full units from the following list in consultation with your supervisor.", "Note that not all of the above optional courses will be available every year." and similar phrases).

"Development management" is probably a worthwhile notable topic, just like release management, software management, facility management, and so on. But the current article version is not salvageable and should be rewritten from scratch and with a completely different encyclopedic concept. GermanJoe (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC) GermanJoe (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TNT this. Looks to be a combination of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMO issues (as well as WP:TONE and more) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through its history, without the spam, I can't see that this article has ever been useful to anyone. asnac (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite as per WP:TNT. Page receives about 40 hits per day so a rewrite or redirect may be useful.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But if someone could find an acceptable redirect, I would be open to that too. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:53, 10 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Agrama[edit]

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

Undersourced BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. First nom was no consenus for lack of attention. —Swpb^talk 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Aw, I wish I had been here for the first nomination to say delete, a news search found a few results but nothing significant. Books, Highbeam and thefreelibrary found no results. She may have played with those people but that's not to say she's notable herself (no significant and notable coverage). SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources is not provided or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided are not reliable and do not illustrate the subject's notability, and an internet search shows nothing of value. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:55, 10 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melba Boyd[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment This academic with a long publishing history may simple need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the wrong subject to be looking at Google scholar citation counts, but as Distinguished University Professor she passes WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:I dream of horses can close as withdraw or someone else can close as Speedy Keep because as User:David Eppstein pointed out, a University Professor is an automatic keep. Of course, User:I dream of horses is perfectly correct to state that it remains a "Poorly referenced BLP." Just, it's about a person Wikipedia defines as notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory — David Eppstein: I'm a pretty staunch deletionist when it comes to poorly referenced BLPs--you either reference or delete them, since it's risky, IMO, to keep them around otherwise. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. You certainly don't have to close it, it was just a suggestion in the interest of efficiency; there are so many AFDs, it seems a pity to have further editors spending precious time on this discussion. Certainly, neither David Eppstein is no more required to source the article than I am. Given her stature, and WP:PROF#C5, this AFD will ultimately be closed as Keep. I do wonder, however, whether greeting a new editor who puts up a bare-bones page with an AFD notice is the best way to bring new editors on board. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. I added a source from the "Encyclopedia of African-American Literature". David's analysis is correct, of course, and this article will necessarily be kept because it conspicuously satisfies WP:PROF. Would be a nice gesture for nom to withdraw it to save the time of other overworked editors. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I wasn't sure if Wayne State met the excellence and selectivity criterion for C5, but she definitely meets WP:GNG, having been the subject of entries in reference books on poetry/African American literature. Her work has also been reviewed in independent publications and we've added at least one of those to the article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 7 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 00:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoRunner[edit]

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

Not Notable. No sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:SPA orphan. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A News search found some results but nothing that appears significant. Highbeam, thefreelibrary and Books found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:29, 8 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Outlaws[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. The 'official website' does not even exist. Appears to be defunct according to http://www.oursportscentral.com/sports/?t_id=2221 ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:GNG. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I do believe in the reform of what constitutes "notability," the team never played a single game, so as the author, I request deletion. Tom Danson (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 7 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 deleted and salted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cal South[edit]

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

I tagged this as CSD G4 as it was deleted by AfD before, but Hmlarson (talk · contribs) has removed the tag, so I am bringing it here again for debate. JMHamo (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have opened a SPI case on Footiemaster (talk · contribs) who re-created this article, as I believe it's a sock of Bowser2500 (talk · contribs) Footiemaster SPI

Footiemaster has been indef blocked as a result of the sockpuppet investigation. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:GNG. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found article on Deletapedia. Delete if non notable.--Footiemaster (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why you removed my initial speedy deletion tag and then contested the deletion on the article talk page... JMHamo (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per previous. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - as per above comments and priof AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 7 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) 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Dunlap[edit]

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

New user saying they are the subject has requested deletion, here. Skyerise (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - News found one link while Books found a few links though nothing significant and notable and Highbeam also found a few links. The case is that there simply isn't much coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 7 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. I am withdrawing my nomination as it is clear that the article is going to be kept, so we might as well clear this off the list of baseball AfDs. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Flippo[edit]

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

Bullpen catchers must pass GNG and Flippo doesn't appear to do so. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has decent coverge. Passes GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [4], [5], [6]; he's received numerous write-ups in the Wilmington Star-News. There's other stuff out there too. Alex (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [7], [8], [9], [10]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources establish that he passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:56, 5 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 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 17[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article... All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This album has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This article shouldn't have been created in the first place, it absolutely holds no notability. In other words, if Trainor hadn't broken through in 2015, none of us would even be thinking about creating this page. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS, Chase said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS, same reason as Snuggums. Azealia911 _talk 14:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS, agree with what appears to be consensus. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Whoever created this article seems to have gone along the lines of "other stuff exists", but really, all that shows is a poor understanding of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Like MaranoFan said, Trainor obviously had no independent exposure with this album or any of her other self-released albums, so creating articles regarding those particular albums makes no sense because they all fail the GNG from the beginning. If I could, I would call all of this dead-on case closed, shut the door on this AfD discussion early, and speedy delete this article, but of course, doing that would go against the criteria for speedy deletion, and plus, I'm not even an admin anyway, so trying to speedy delete myself would be pointless in my case, since I do not have the privilege to do so. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 05:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per WP:NALBUMS. –Davey2010^Talk 03:36, 10 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. Whether or not it is actually possible to write a properly sourced article, there does seen to be consensus that a liberal dose of TNT is required here. Any editor is welcome to have a go at recreating this based on sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject–object problem[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Deletion policy point 6 disallows articles "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes …" Wikipedia:No original research states that 'original research' includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This article is a synthesis of many different 'subject object' problems, mostly unrelated, and the material in it already exists in other parts of the encyclopedia. I have been unable to locate the term as referring to any single problem in the literature, or with an established unambiguously understood use. Peter Damian (talk) 18:41, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I tagged it a long time ago with the quotation tag but I see that has not been fixed. It is still just a long list of quotations, whether inline or broken out into paragraphs, as if someone has done a google search then just copied and pasted the results rather than trying to write an article based on them. There is as far as I can see no encyclopaedic content on the actual subject. At no place do the quotations stop and actual content begin. So there's nothing to salvage and after years in this state it looks like it will never be fixed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as nominator.Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment looking for anything salvageable I looked through the history for a version before the large scale addition of quotes commenced. It still is far from perfect but at least seems much closer to an acceptable article than the assembly of quotes that it was before nomination, so I updated the article from it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't think it is appropriate for the article under consideration to be completely replaced in the midst of a deletion hearing by some earlier version as done by Blackburne. Accordingly I have put back the version under review. Brews ohare (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the AfD notice, which you have just removed, says 'Feel free to edit the article' which I did with the straightforward purpose of showing editors a more acceptable version. There is no prohibition on editing an article while it up for deletion, and it actively encouraged if editors think they can address concerns raised in the deletion discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the deletion banner, as seems appropriate. However, a blanket replacement of the disputed article by a version from June 2012 seems extreme. Brews ohare (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is well sourced and provides a very complete coverage of this subject as defined in its lede and first subsection. Charges of WP:OR or WP:SYN, policies that counter WP editors presenting unsupported conclusions or opinions of their own, are misplaced because there is nothing in this article of that kind. The idea that a philosophy term can be expected to have "an established unambiguously understood use" can be taken only with a smile. In any event, any doubt about the widespread discussion of this topic is dispelled by a Google book search for the exact wording "subject-object problem" (5440 hits) or Google scholar. As it is, the article has stood pretty much in its present form for several years with only minor changes. This sudden decision to delete it has appeared from nowhere. The reasons given, there being too many quotations, and that it appears to be a cut-and-paste job, are insubstantial and do not challenge the content as containing specific passages that are misleading, incomplete, or erroneous in some way. If there are objections to particular portions of this article, they can be addressed on its talk page in the manner usually adopted for handling revision suggestions. Brews ohare (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Yes let's look at Google scholar. This returns (a) the subject object problem in architecture, (b) in anthropology (c) subject and object in Mandarin (d) a sociology article (e) "The deep structure of adjectives in noun phrases" (f) a paper about "dominance-submission economy of the sexes within the patriarchy", (g) theory of class consciousness. It should be obvious that these are all entirely different subjects, and different meanings and contexts of the same term. It does not imply that there is a single 'subject object' problem to which the same department or journal or historical study could be devoted. It's rather like googling the word 'and' and writing an article about 'and', based on the returns. Pure synthesis. Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the relevance of this comment is that avoiding the "obvious...entirely different subjects" is an unlikely skill unless you have an expert background and I guess the claim is that did not happen with this article. Of course, such an expert could provide expert guidance to improve the article, pointing out what specifics appear to be violations of WP:SYNTH. That could lead to improvements, but it would involve engagement rather than pronouncements. Brews ohare (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take an expert to see that this article is just the same as what one might find on some self-important personal internet page circa the 1990s. I'm sure you thought it was really fun to stitch together all these ideas into one piece, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this kind of amalgamation. Copy the content and publish it elsewhere where original research is allowed. jps (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jps: Your challenge is that this article is an "amalgamation", which I would take to mean a collection of unrelated tidbits. If that is so, you should be able to provide an example where this occurs. Can you do that? Brews ohare (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No source is connected to any other source, essentially. No source mentions any of the other sources. jps (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy does not require sources to be mentioned by other sources, although that might indicate the importance of a source to the community. It is a requirement that the purpose of a source in relation to the text be clear, for example, that the source supports the WP text, or amplifies the text by providing more detail. I believe this kind of connection is present for all sources cited. If that is not so, perhaps you can supply an instance? Brews ohare (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of WP:SYNTH. That's the end of it. This has typically been your problem at this website. It is why you are banned from editing certain other articles. jps (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. The claimed sourcing of the article is being done without coherence. This is really just bald original research. jps (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jps: It would be helpful if you could elaborate upon your finding of a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and what you mean by "sourcing without coherence". So far as I can see, the sourcing is used to identify the origin of various points of view and various quotations. I do not see any conclusions or opinions that are not those of cited reputable publications. Maybe your objection is that the article structure lacks cohesion, which would be a call for some reorganization rather than deletion? Brews ohare (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no secondary sources which connect all your disparate sources. If this is a standard idea in philosophy, surely you could point to one source that would connect a few of the mishmash of quotes you stitched together. If you can't do that, then you are simply doing something that is not allowed on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jps: Thanks for your reply. You request a single source that connects the quotes together. However, if more than one quote attaches to the same point, I see no need to find another source that connects the two. I don't see why two quotes supporting the same point need to be referred to by yet another source just to make clear that two different authors commented in their own way upon the same issue. For example, this section contains a quote from Velmans and another from Malpas that provide these two authors' definitions of subjective and objective. I don't think we need an additional source that says "Velmans said this and Malpas said that.." There may be instances where the connection of a quotation to the gist of the article is unclear, or there is some non sequitur, and if there are any such examples, they should be corrected. Perhaps you can point out some cases? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to show that you aren't committing WP:SYNTH. You have not met that burden. You are simply arguing that different authors who have no connection to one another are connected simply by their commentary on superficially similar ideas -- ideas connected only in your mind and not found connected in reliable sources. This is just not what Wikipedia is for. jps (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jps: It is not the authors that have to be connected, but their subject: in this case their definitions of the topic. The notion that their definitions in this instance are only superficially connected ideas is mistaken, as you will rapidly discover if you read their complete discussions linked in the article. WP policy is that one must provide a source for a statement when it is challenged, and obviously that requires the challenge to specify the difficulty so it can be responded to by a correction or addition of a source. Read WP:SECONDARY to check that this article is in compliance with WP policy. Brews ohare (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've included syntax and aesthetics in the same article as though these two are connected. I don't see any source that connects them. jps (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out an instance where syntax and/or aesthetics are presented without connection to the subject-object problem? Brews ohare (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how you demonstrate two subjects are connected. You are arguing something along the lines of if source A and source B both use the same vocabularly, they must be connected. That's just not true. jps (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This editor comes from a weird modernist approach to philosophy as can be seen from his references in this supposed philosophical "problem," or in other supposed philosophical "problem" pages he has created, such as the Dilemma of determinism page (Just go through the talk page discussion with this editor there, if you have the time for it). All these pages articles, which all refer to the same type of fringe modernist philosophy websites and references, should all be deleted. From a serious traditional philosophical point of view, all these supposed "problems" and "issues" are just a waste of time, in my view. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warshy: One might conclude without more detail from you that Thomas Nagel, Evan Thompson, Francisco Varela, Stephen Pinker, and I don't know how many others (maybe Immanuel Kant and Ludwig Wittgenstein?) are exponents of a "weird modern approach" to this subject. Brews ohare (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several issues confounded here. The subject-object topic is fundamental to philosophy and to the philosophical understanding of modern science. It is most succinctly developed in the section on the nature of perception in Plato's Theaetetus, which claims that perception and its objects, as well as its subjects are all subjective! 'Real' objects are later developed elsewhere from mixed perceptions and cognition. Unfortunately, Plato is still at least decades ahead of the current literature, and the topic is strongly counter-intuitive, so that it is more properly discussed only in a formal philosophical setting.

In this article, everything past the lead paragraph is worse than worthless, as has been pointed out above. The list of people and the quotes of ignorance only illustrates the confusion, and serves to muddy an extremely complex topic. Switching from subject-object to subjective-objective makes things even worse. BlueMist (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a look at the version I restored it to, from before it became a ÷dumping ground for search results, is acceptable or at least more easily salvageable.JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mist: It's a bit harsh on modern philosophers to say they haven't added much but confusion since Plato, if that is your position. Brews ohare (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said, nor is that my position. Modern philosophers have made huge strides, but not on this topic. Look at the SEP article on [Object] ~ BlueMist (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is an inappropriate measure: Deletion of the article is not the right way to handle claims of policy violations, of "incoherence", and of a "weird modernist approach". Specific instances of policy violations, or incoherencies, or weirdness should be identified on the article talk page, and dealt with individually. Blanket deletion based on unsupported, non-specific, vague reservations is not a constructive response. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unbolded the initial part of your comment as it looked like a second !vote and you only get to !vote once.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are valid past versions, it's obvious that one should revert to them, not delete the article! (otherwise someone can mess a good article and then the article will be deleted?!? LOL?!?) My opinion is that all these quotes should be moved to https://en.wikiquote.org/, and that this is a notable theme, and that instead of wasting time in this debate (not a voting, it seems...), the editors involved should start to work towards saving this (even if they have not worked on it before, because it's disrespectful and a great inconsiderateness, even evilness to erase the works of others -- this is not the attitude of true Wikipedians, the ones that prefer to improve things). Sincerely, Thetootpoem (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if there are objections to quotations, that is certainly not a basis for reversion of the article. I put a lot of verbatim quotes into this article because I wanted to assure the readers that what was said was a true reflection of what authors had to say about the subject, and not some crackpot WP editor's point of view. And, of course, the quotations often were more eloquently stated than my own writing. The upshot from the assembled is that this form of presentation is actually more controversial than just paraphrasing these authors and risking WP:SYN. In fact, the suggestion is made that such extended verbatim quotes from authors is a form of WP:SYN, as if I were putting words in their mouths instead of letting the authors speak for themselves. I find this view to be an alarming misreading of policy.

There is no "better" version to appeal to, and although Blackburne has suggested going back to the article as it was before my first edit, I am pretty confident that he is not going to engage in any rewrites. I undertook rewriting this article at the suggestion of MachineElf several years ago because this article was in terrible shape. Page traffic greatly increased afterwards (compare with May 2012), exceeding that for Mind-body problem. There was no hue and cry about these changes until now, and over time and still today, no-one has exhibited any inclination to actually do some work. If there are volunteers, they can go to the article talk page and begin proposing changes. Brews ohare (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not always referred to as the "Subject-object problem" (it is often referred to as "Subject/Object Dichotomy", as well as other similar constructs), this article covers a valid philosophical issue and as such should remain. There is even a pretty extensive discussion about this in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ormr2014 | Talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment where does SEP refer explicitly to the "Subject/Object Dichotomy"? Can you point me to other reliable secondary sources separate from other existing subjects, such as mind body problem? It might be resolved by a disambiguating page, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Damian, that you persist in the belief that the term "subject-object problem" is an invention of WP. However, we do have Cassirer's The subject-object problem, Letorsky's The subject-object problem in epistemology, Dourley's discussion of Tillich and Eckhart on the subject-object problem John Dewey Kosaka's statement: "There has been a longstanding issue, the subject-object problem in the history of philosophy. The problem arose from the premise that the universe or world consists of objects or entities perceived by subjects or observers."

I think you can convince yourself that this subject is not an invention, nor is it identical with or subsumed by the mind-body problem. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Cassirer is discussing a subject-object problem. As are grammarians who are concerned about grammatical subjects and objects. Where is the subject-object problem? This is just one more example of WP:COMPETENCE. Peter Damian (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with subject-object problem (aesthetics) or subject-object problem (linguistics), by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are happy with this kind of verbal sparring. I'm not. Cassirer is not limiting the subject-object problem to aesthetics or linguistics. And neither are the rest of these authors. Brews ohare (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment The question is how do you jump from Cassirer straight to Kosaka and information Technology. There is no such bridge or connection yet made in traditional, step-by-step philosophy. Only in your new-fangled websites such a supposed "bridge" or "connection" exists. Philosphy is still thinking the problem methodically, and until some real philosophers get to the IT stage, there is no point in wasting WP time with this type of pseudo-philosophy. In my view, at least. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its clear synthesis, an essay written by an undergraduate based on what they are interested in, or have found on the web rather than an encyclopaedia entry ----Snowded ^TALK 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we accept the opinion of editors that do not employ sources or analysis, do not address any specific portions of the article but castigate it in its entirety, and rely entirely upon their personal coronation as "experts" for credibility? Brews ohare (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis per Snowded. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis has been discussed in the works of Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many other major philosophers... Come on, just fully reference the introduction and save this article (keywords for Google Scholar: "subject object relation(s)", "issue", etc)... WP:TNT doesn't apply here because the introduction is okay, and one doesn't erase an article just because there are bad parts. Discuss with the others if what is below the introduction should or should not be removed (and if most agree that it should, then accept it). It's a simple procedure to save this article from deletion (but I won't do it because I don't edit Philosophy articles). 189.6.192.138 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that there is some sort of monolithic "subject-object problem" in philosophy is not a claim that has been established. Sure, philosophers talk about subject-object relationships, but the idea of a "problem" is one that has a very particular meaning in philosophy and it is basically an invention of Wikipedia to claim that it exists as such. jps (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - jps is correct. The distinction is closest to what this article is aiming for is the Being for itself / Being in itself distinction, although weirdly Wikipedia has no article on this, and note how " Being for itself" redirects to the article Being and Nothingness. Peter Damian (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been provided already to Cassirer and others who discuss the subject-object problem. One would think that a list of such occurrences would dispel the notion that this is a non-subject, or as Damian has suggested earlier, one restricted to the philosophy of art or aesthetics, but apparently not. One can weed this Google book search to find many more instances. The article Subject-object problem has many as well. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not seem to be a revision of the article that is not OR by synthesis to revert back to. If a properly sourced article can be written that identifies, in philosophy, the "subject-object problem", then we can write an article based on those sources. But WP:TNT until then. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it is a violation of WP:SYN to support text by citing WP:SECONDARY sources is a strange but widespread misconception. WP:SYN counsels that one should avoid making assertions or conclusion that are not found in secondary sources, not to avoid secondary sources. The article Subject-object problem makes no such unsupported assertions and draws no such unsupported conclusions. (A contrary belief is easily supported by pointing out any such offending items in the article.) It may be that Sławomir Biały has other sources in mind — he is free to add them, or that he supports some sourced opinion that is not mentioned — he can add that. Sławomir Biały also seems to think that the topic Subject-object problem has not been related to a proper philosophy source which seems to indicate a failure to read the article. Brews ohare (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your reassurances to the contrary, the article is most certainly a novel synthesis of sources. I don't know where you get the idea that we should avoid secondary sources. Indeed, we should summarize secondary sources. A non-original research template for an article like this would go something like "According to X, the subject-object problem concerns Y, where they discuss that project blue brain is relevant because Z." It's really alarming that an experienced Wikipedia would claim otherwise, and this post just looks like Wikilawyering to me. Let me focus on just a small example of this. The following paragraph, for instance:

"Some subjective personal experiences have aspects that fall squarely into the realm of objective fact, and have implications that can be objectively verified. An example is the experience of pain, an entirely subjective matter,¹ but one that sometimes (but not invariably) can be related to the objectively observable operation of receptors, communication channels and brain activity. The consequence is that the subjective sense of pain is sometimes empirically connected to observable events, but the fundamental experience of pain itself is subjective. Other examples are addiction and psychological disorders. Besides the subjective and objective aspects, one may discuss the mechanisms connecting subjective experiences and objective observables, and the role of programming upon these connections, such as psychiatric treatment, conditioning, and evolutionary limits."

¹David R Soderquist (2002). Sensory Processes. SAGE. p. 110. ISBN 0761923330. Pain is always subjective

Here the reference is to Soderquist, a neurology textbook having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article. In fact, the relevant quotation from Soderquist is "Pain is always subjective." We are going from a single pithy statement by an author to an entire paragraph of original conclusions pertaining to the subject of the article. Now that's clear original research. The rest of the article follows the same pattern: quote some peripherally relevant text, and draw conclusions from it (usually in Wikipedia's voice). Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sławomir Biały: Thank you for undertaking discussion of something specific in this article. I think it is clear that the gist of the paragraph is that pain is an example of a subjective experience with objectively observable correlates in some cases. This discussion appears in a sub-section titled Subjective-objective correlations, and seems to fit under that header. I would take it that in your opinion this entire sub-section is irrelevant to the article Subject-object problem. I'd argue that it is indeed relevant, because of its relevance to things like the hard problem of consciousness. The basic issue of course is whether things like pain are "nothing more" than the associated correlates in the brain/body or if the conscious perception of such things is something "extra and apart". Perhaps you feel this topic lies outside the subject-object problem, but then you seem to doubt there is such a problem at all, apparently doubting that there exist "some definitive accounts of this problem in philosophy". In any event, I'd suggest that deletion of the article is not a reasonable way to handle such a discussion, which should be done on the article talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To this I would add that even if it were the case that this topic is peripheral to the "subject-object problem", its supposed lack of relevance provides no basis for invoking WP:SYN or WP:OR as grounds for dismissal of this section. You can of course challenge particular statements in the paragraph, which according to WP policy then would require further sourcing. But until such a challenge occurs and it is found the challenge cannot be met, there is still no occurrence of WP:OR or WP:SYN. So, again, if there are statements here you wish to challenge, that should be done on the article talk page, and is not a grounds for deletion. Brews ohare (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is OR by SYNTH, that can be a grounds for deletion. As I said, the whole article consists of quotes from peripherally related sources on disparate topics, with the text then drawing conclusions from and making a narrative out of those quotes. If there is some core part of the article that is not original research, please state plainly where that part is. Failing this, deletion is indeed a possible outcome (per WP:DEL#6). Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, so far we have only assertions and no evidence of WP:OR or WP:SYN. The need is to identify violations, and more than that, that they are beyond repair and so egregious the article cannot be repaired and must be deleted. That is not the case. Moreover, there are indications that objections so far are more about the style than the content. Or, in your case, about inclusion of material you do not think germane, despite your lament that there is no clear idea of what the topic is. Brews ohare (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you evidence of WP:OR, which you dismissed because I hadn't tagged it and taken it to the discussion page. Yet, the entire article consists of synthesis of a similar style. "Or, in your case, about inclusion of material you do not think germane, despite your lament that there is no clear idea of what the topic is." No, I didn't say this. I said that the sources used in the article do not define the subject of the article. Instead, the very subject of the article has been constructed as a synthesis of those sources. For example, the entire first section has this character. None of the sources addresses the "subject-object problem" as such. Instead, various different ideas have been combined under the heading of "subject-object dichotomy". Do any of these sources refer to a "dichotomy"? Do any authors assert that project blue brain is relevant to the "subject-object dichotomy"? Do any authors hold the view that the hard problem of consciousness is relevant to the "subject-object dichotomy"? Or is Wikipedia making this synthetic claim? Similarly, the entire section "Model assessment", beginning with the first paragraph, is OR. Do Davies or Popper or Kuhn discuss "model assessment" in relation to the "subject-object problem"? Or is this a synthetic claim being made in Wikipedia's voice? Etc. So, I ask again, rather than have me go through the article and file the same critique against every part of it, please identify the part of the article that is not WP:OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sławomir Biały: You say "I gave you evidence of WP:OR, which you dismissed". No, what you actually did, contrary to your description of it, was to challenge one paragraph in the article as insufficiently sourced. I suggested that if you took this challenge to the Talk page I would undertake to find sources for those assertions you wanted sources for. If I could not meet the challenge, I said, then WP:OR would require their alteration or removal.

The remainder of your comment is not about WP:OR but a complaint that the material in Subject-object problem does not fit your idea of the subject. You would allow, I guess, that the article does have to do with what Kosaka says exists as a " "longstanding issue, the subject-object problem in the history of philosophy. The problem arose from the premise that the universe or world consists of objects or entities perceived by subjects or observers." You might allow that the hard problem of consciousness has a bearing upon the subject-object problem. Here is another Google search. I think your objection comes down to your opinion that this article should be exclusively and entirely a philosophy article and that (possibly) fields like neurophilosophy are not "true" philosophy, and that people like Kosaka involved in information systems are welcome to speak about philosophical issues (as rank amateurs, of course), but their comments are not to be used in philosophy articles. You probably feel that Schrödinger and Bohr are in the same boat (amateurs), and possibly the same applies to psychologists and psychological commentary, and cognitive science. In the realm of philosophy, you probably exclude enactivism as nouveau, and deem off-topic the comment by philosopher Evan Thompson in Mind and Life: "In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear to many researchers that cognitive science is incomplete. ..a complete science of the mind needs to account for subjectivity and consciousness." Because Thomas Nagel does not use the words "subject-object problem" you probably think an inclusion of his remarks about "mental rather than physical objectivity" would lie outside this topic. So far his remarks have not been included, but I'd judge they would fit in.

In short, the bulk of this argument of yours appears to be an argument over the title of the article and about your idea of what is "philosophical" and what is not, and is not an argument about OR and the accuracy of the content of Subject-object problem. Brews ohare (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or or possibly rename to something like Object and subject. Question. I do not have time to dig out many sources, but here is basic meaning of this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes subject (philosophy) and object (philosophy) are things that we have (rather poor) articles on. What does not seem settled is that there is a single thing called the "subject-object problem" in philosophy. I find Brews' advice that we are to look at the output of this Google book search most telling. It indicates, at least, the manner in which this article was likely written. What we would need for an article by this title would be some definitive accounts of this problem in philosophy, not a bunch of titles where the words "subject-object" have appeared juxtaposed in disparate settings. That doesn't seem like a recipe for an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this page looks to me like ~~garbage~~ nonsence (so perhaps delete), but once again, my background in this subject area is rather limited. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am dismayed that My very best wishes labeled the article as garbage despite a modest disclaimer of having a limited background, which apparently does not include reading the article or consulting the sources cited in it. I am further dismayed by Sławomir Biały, who now suggests as evidence of poor quality that my suggestion that those assembled might examine some books found by Google search should understand this suggestion as indicating the mode of construction of this article, ostensibly based uopn the occurrence of the words 'subject' and 'object' in Google searches. Has WP degenerated to this lamentable substitute for honest and careful appraisal?. Brews ohare (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is named "Subject-object problem". What is the problem, exactly? Yes, I know about this problem, for example. What is the "problem" here? Can it be solved and how? My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes: A reasonable question. According to the lede, the problem is to answer the question: "If the world consists of objects which are perceived or otherwise presumed to exist by subjects, how do 'subjects' relate to 'objects'?" In the section Subjective-objective dichotomy it says “the relation between the world 'out there' as perceived by the mind and the interior world of conscious events is much debated.” Malpas is quoted as saying "There is a common philosophical tendency...to conceive of the realm of belief and attitude as clearly distinct from the world of objects and events. This separation is typically presented in terms of a distinction between subjective and objective ...". Schrödinger is quoted as saying: "By this I mean the thing that is so frequently called the 'hypothesis of the real world' around us. I maintain that it amounts to certain simplifications which we adopt in order to master the infinitely intricate problem of nature. Without being aware of it... we exclude the Subject of Cognizance [knowing subject] from the domain of nature that we endeavor to understand. We step with our own person back into the part of an onlooker who does not belong to the world, which by this very procedure becomes an objective world." Another writer (Gorton on the Internet Encyclopedia) says: “These theorists argue that coming to understand a culture or society – or another person or even a text or work of art – does not involve producing an objective description of an independent object. That is, the philosophical hermeneutics approach rejects a subject/object ontology in which knowledge consists of an accurate representation of an external world in the mind of a subject.” It would seem this problem is not going "to be solved" but is going to be pried apart to reveal its various aspects.

Apparently there is a thirst among WP editors for a specific text providing a specific definition rather than accept a discussion of a complex of issues. You might note that Ernst Cassirer's article titled The subject-object problem in the philosophy of the Renaissance which discusses the background of this problem for an entire chapter, never does state a 'definition' of the "subject-object problem", but does say it has to do with the Renaissance concerns with self-consciousness and has its beginning with Descartes and the introduction of the thoughtful reflection of the mind upon itself.

I don't know if the lede identifies the topic adequately for you. Does the complexity of this topic make it unsuitable for WP? If this title is good enough for Cassirer, is it good enough for WP? Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s an example. “Like Kant, Chomsky and Pinker raise the issue of the mind's inherent programming [Kant never wrote about 'programming']. Chomsky selected as a particular example the acquiring of language by children.29 This study supplements Wittgenstein's use of an idealized model of 'examples and practice' to explain how a child learns language.88 A quick check on the sources shows no support for the idea that Chomsky's study supplements – as though a conscious addendum to or continuation of – Wittgenstein's work. My view, supported by scholarly consensus, is that Chomsky's view of linguistic understanding is not compatible with the later Wittgenstein. (Perhaps not the early Wittgenstein, but Brews' example is not from there). Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damian: Thanks for the example of your confusion. Of course you are right that Kant did not talk about "programming". He didn't talk about "factory settings" either. But I anticipate that most readers are not in a mind set where a reasonable description of early authors requires the exact wording they used to get the gist across. Of course, objections to using modern language instead of the exact wording of past authors who did not think about computers or factories are best met by deleting the article in its entirety. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes:

There is a subject-object problem internal to philosophy, which is the status of the relation between subjects (agents) and objects of perception or of science. Some claim that the world is made of the same objects that we ordinarily experience, some claim that all experience is subjective, and some claim that objects are the consequence of necessary interaction of objective possibilities (probabilities) and observers or observations (that's a basic postulate of all modern science but not of the philosophy of individual scientists). Unfortunately, this very important problem lacks adequate current professional understanding. Therefore, the problem cannot be reported in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia encyclopedic standards. BlueMist (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP is restricted to issues that have been resolved. See Free will for one that has been going on for millennia and still has no widely accepted definition, but instead exhibits an ongoing struggle to come up with one, largely predicated upon one's personal prejudices as to whether it exists or doesn't. Come to think about it: isn't that a suitable definition for philosophy? 😄 Brews ohare (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To WP, an ongoing struggle means peer reviewed secondary sources from established journals. BlueMist (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a suitable basis for a WP article is not limited to reporting what peer-reviewed secondary sources say. Whatever your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, the article Subject-object problem accurately reports what distinguished scholars and encyclopedic articles have contributed, notes different points of view, and is within the scope of suitable WP topics. Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. OK, after looking at sources in Google books [11], such as this, I am convinced that such problem exists, has been described in multiple RS, and therefore deserves a page. I can easily agree that the page is in a poor shape right now, but this is a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already mentioned that there are subject-object problems in the literature. I mentioned Sartre (for itself vs in itself). There is the ego/non-ego dichotomy. A similar problem is addressed by Wittgenstein's Private Language argument. Hume also famously addresses the problem of the 'I' and the 'soul'. The problem is that any article trying to synthesise these very different approaches by very different philosophers would be a masterful synthesis. Which Wikipedia is not allowed to do. No one to my knowledge has published a book whose focus is the 'subject object' problem, and which has shown how identifiably the same problem exists in Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer etc. If they had, we could have a Wikipedia article. For the moment, we have a bunch of separate articles.
- And who do you propose to 'improve' the article? That would involve weeding out all the sources which are clearly not about the same problem, but that would in itself be a synthesis. Peter Damian (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "masterful synthesis" is not what is called for. What is needed is a statement of sourced opinions. I think the main problem you have here is that, to you, the various subsections are not connected. So for example, you cannot see a connection between Shrödinger's observations about the limitations of objectivity as a methodological issue with science when the subject is removed to gain impartiality, and Nagel's comment "The separateness of physical science, and its claim to completeness, has to end in the long run. And that poses the question: To what extent will the reductive form that is so central to contemporary physical science survive this transformation?"

So the issue here for you is can we depend upon an understanding of standard English to connect these observations, or do we need another source that says -"Guess what, Nagel's remarks have a connection to the subject-object problem and so do Schrödinger's. Schrödinger says science has introduced the subject-object distinction as part of how it works, and Nagel says the consequent limitation of science to a reductive form has to be overcome if we want a complete picture." I think this connection is obvious. Maybe some added text can make it more obvious, but we don't need a source to do it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond my standard English, for sure. It is hardly clear what the subject-object problem is, hence difficult to connect these remarks. The subject–object problem, a longstanding philosophical issue, is concerned with the analysis of human experience, and arises from the premise that the world consists of objects (entities) which are perceived or otherwise presumed to exist as entities, by subjects (observers). This division of experience results in questions regarding how subjects relate to objects. An important sub-topic is the question of how our own mind relates to other minds, and how to treat the "radical difference that holds between our access to our own experience and our access to the experience of all other human beings", known as the epistemological problem of other minds. What is the meaning of 'experience' here? Historians analyse the experience of troops in the trenches using letters they wrote home, biographers analyse the experience of their subjects from letters, interviews, accounts of other people, other biographies. Is an 'observer' the same as a 'subject'? Why are observers not objects, given they can be observed by other people? Why is 'ontology' relevant? So the whole introduction is unclear. And why is there no explanation of why this is a problem? Normally if I introduce a paper about some problem, I try to give a strong sense of why it is problematic. Even some Wikipedia articles attempt to do this. E.g. Problem of other minds. "Given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?" Yup I can see that is a problem. What then is the subject-object problem? Peter Damian (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on what Noam Chomsky has written, this is a major issue in linguistics. The problem that I see is that too many other fields are bunched into one article. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps a separate article on the Subject-object dichotomy in philosophy needs to be created? Bearian (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..It is entirely possible that the page Subject-object problem could be divided into a number of pages each on an individual topic. Then an overview page could be written guiding the reader to the individual pages. I find myself completely open to such a suggestion, which would release the topic of subject-object problem from the prevalent myopic view that the subject must be narrowly philosophical. However, the ill will and calumny of this page and a recent launch of a topic ban against my further participation has soured my interest, and I do not intend to continue to edit philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian: I would very much like to agree with you. However, in philosophy, secondary sources are a crucial test of current professional interest in a topic, and when I search Jstor, I don't see anything promising. BlueMist (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- Don't cofuse this with Subject/Object Dichotomy or Subject/Object Relationship, S/O Problem is about perception of the world and S/O 'Dichotomy/Relationship is about interpersonal relationships
- There is a great amount of information present on the page, IMO reverting to this edit would be a massive disservive, but the content does need a thougher rewrite with a fine comb as much of the writting is poor --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 07:55, 15 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 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul sdr[edit]

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

I've removed some previously-applied but inappropriate-category speedy and prod tags (e.g., article contains claims to notability, so had to reject A7), but the article IMO does not pass muster. Apparent vanity project as the article creator appears to be the subject. Pax 18:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Mr RD 16:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. It was founded in January 2015 and neither has done any significant work nor has received any coverage to suggest that it is notable. — Yash! ^(Y) 21:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-promotional fluff with absolutely nothing to support notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 7 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 04:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aztez[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Indie video game by non-notable developer team originally scheduled to be released in 2014, pushed back to 2015, with no date specified in any WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉ 18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources as vetted at WP:VG/RS (?):

http://www.vg247.com/2014/03/17/aztez-a-2-d-beat-em-up-announced-for-ps4-vita-trailer-and-screens-inside/
http://www.polygon.com/2013/9/4/4695114/aztez-aims-to-empower-players-to-feel-like-a-badass
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-09-18-aztez-is-a-beat-em-up-with-a-twist
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-04-aztez-is-a-stylish-b-and-w-2d-hack-and-slash-mixed-with-a-turn-based-strategy-game
http://kotaku.com/5900797/at-its-most-primitive-aztez-is-still-more-fun-than-most-beat-em-ups
http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/17/stylish-brawler-strategy-hybrid-aztez-coming-to-ps4-vita/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/16/turn-based-biff-em-up-aztez/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/235984/See_how_the_striking_art_of_Aztez_was_crafted_at_GDC_2015.php
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/03/12-pax-indie-games-you-need-to-have-on-your-radar
http://indiegames.com/2013/09/pax_prime_aztez.html
http://www.pcgamer.com/meet-aztez-the-aztec-themed-brawler-with-impeccable-style/
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/10/17/looking-ahead-to-the-games-of-2015.aspx (2015 release date)

There's plenty more too. As for crystal, the game is clearly in production and has had coverage across several years. Missing one's expected release date is not grounds for deletion. Secondary source news outlets clearly care about the product. czar ⨹ 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Passing WP:GNG does not guarantee notability, or I would not have wasted my time nominating this. Everything you provided above gives it 'presumed notability', and per WP:GNG "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not", and it does violate WP:WWIN because it violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL as stated in the nomination. ― Padenton|✉ 19:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the vague wave. I think I've cited enough sources to show that interest is sustained and that it isn't an article about predictions, rumors, or speculation. czar ⨹ 19:56, 3 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) 02:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it's unreleased and doesn't have a scheduled date, but Czar has shown that there's considerable interest in this game from a number of reliable sources. As such, it is completely fine to have an article. Even if the game never is produced, the interest would make it vaporware of interest to keep an article on it. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Czar has demonstrated, the game has received enough coverage to justify keeping this article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient amount of sources and coverage for its own article on Wikipedia. Pretty notable judging from them too. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft until the game is released and there are independent in depth reviews and other sources . Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 7 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 23:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-chauvinism[edit]

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

This is a neologism with next to no coverage in sources that I could identify through a Google search. Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Note that the only cited source does not mention this term. Everymorning talk 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Couldn't find any evidence that this has any currency. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Doublefrog (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems a less flattering synonym for Ecocentrism (or maybe Biocentrism (ethics)). I don't know if a redirect is warranted. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Ecocentrism. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Even using different search phrases related to this, nothing came up. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEO. A meta-neologism of sorts, repurposing 'chauvinism' to apply to a different topic. Biggest results in google search are PhysicsWiki's article on Neologism (which has an entry in a list for eco-chauvinism, apparently copied and pasted from this article, and a few forums and personal websites. ― Padenton|✉ 18:55, 10 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) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Tim Richard[edit]

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

being involved in a strictly local controversy does not make a person notable. fails GNG and BLP, per WP:BLP1E John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I agree that WP:BLP1E seems to apply here. --bonadea contributions talk 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above Elgatodegato (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be WP:LOCALINT without any of the mainstream documentation that would push it up to meeting WP:GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No references from anything other than local papers. The incident was a shortlived local shitstorm over the controversial way he disciplined a couple of students who'd been fighting. valereee (talk) 13:38, 11 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) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veera Brahmam Gari Matham, Vijayanagaram[edit]

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

WP:Unreferenced, WP:NOTABILITY Vin09 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 17 April 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) 00:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly constructed article, but the topic seems to be Notable. You find better info in a search by not using the word "Vijayanagaram," which is a geographic location. Needs better sourcing, and it's already marked as such. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile:You find better info in a search by not using the word "Vijayanagaram," which is a geographic location. Brahmamgari Matham article already exits in wikipedia.--Vin09 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 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) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced article about an indeterminate topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, not about a notable subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:30, 10 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn, ~~with thanks to the user who (while kindly remembering to assume good faith), pointed out that the subject has significant coverage on Spanish sites (thanks for all the very helpful links!).~~ (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adán Amezcua[edit]

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

Subject has had a lengthy playing career, but appears to fail WP:BASE/N. I do not believe there is sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant coverage on Spanish-language sites. Though I'm pretty there is no checking done at all before these AfDs are thrown out there, if on the off-chance there is, I would suggest searching Google.com.mx for guys who have significant careers in Mexico. Alex (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, why don't you save us the snark and stick to helpful comments like this one? Oh, and maybe take your own advice, and search for sources before you de-PROD non-notable articles on the grounds that sources may be out there? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:40, 3 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 keep. Per SK1, nomination withdrawn and no other arguments to delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaio: King of Pirates[edit]

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

~~No longer notable. Dead, and little information will ever be available about it sufficient for an article. Elassint ^Hi 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elassint ^Hi 17:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NTEMP. Just because its cancelled doesn't mean its no longer notable. Has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A sampling of the significant coverage its received from sources that have a consensus for being reliable per discussions at WP:VG/S.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/10/5195502/inafunes-3ds-game-kaio-king-of-pirates-delayed-to-2014
http://www.siliconera.com/2013/01/01/meet-the-cast-of-kaio-king-of-pirates/ (which also mentions it received additional coverage in a Japanese print magazine V Jump)
http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/keiji-inafunes-action-adventure-game-kaio-king-of-pirates-canceled/#
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2015/03/14/keiji-inafune-39-s-kaio-king-of-pirates-cancelled.aspx

That's just a sampling of some of them, there are a ton of other ones that can be found in a Google search. Siliconera alone wrote over 10 articles about the game. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Marvelous (company). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Not positive it meets notability, but work has been done, and the nominator has withdrawn. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we really did take this approach, it seems like Keiji Inafune or Comcept would be better targets. Marvelous merely funded and cancelled it. They were the actual creators. That being said, I've added a lot to the article, so I don't think its warranted to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've given the article a complete rewrite, expanding it out of stub status using 10 sources that dedicated entire articles to the game, and that were all deemed reliable per WP:VG/S. There was a lot more known about the game than was present at the time of the nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- After seeing the article's rewrite, I've decided to strike out my delete vote for the article. Elassint ^Hi 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for reconsidering, I appreciate it. With my rewrite, and the nomination rescinded, do you have any further thoughts, Stuartyeates? Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 8 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's Not Dead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsigned band, making no claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC and citing no reliable source coverage — the sourcing here is almost entirely to Facebook, Tumblr and Kickstarter rather than to any publications that would count for anything toward meeting WP:GNG. The content is just barely different enough from the original version of the article that it doesn't qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of a deleted article, but the substance and sourcing haven't been appreciably improved over where it was last time. Delete, preferably with salt. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's different enough that it wouldn't qualify for speedy, but the band still has yet to pass notability guidelines per WP:NBAND and I can't find anything to change my opinion from the prior AfD. There's the poll listing, but that's not really something that would pass notability guidelines on that basis alone. I also don't see where them opening for Helle's Belles would really be major enough to pass on that alone. They have performed and they're not completely unknown, but none of that translated into coverage that would pass notability guidelines. I know that in the prior AfD someone mentioned a national tour, but all I could find back then were trivial gig listings. They're getting progressively more known, but they're not there yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 7 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) 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin de la Cruz[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, no sources that would pass GNG. Wizardman 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC) t[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage, fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable minor league player. Spanneraol (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:50, 6 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 23:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Philippines Rivalry (Women's Volleyball)[edit]

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

Erstwhile PROD was removed. Just like what I said on the PROD, nice game the other day, but no WP:GNG on whether this rivalry even exists. –H T D 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing three games isn't a rivalry. No context on the background of such rivalry, if indeed, one exists at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What rivalry? Given that the teams have only ever met thrice (indeed, the Philippine women's volleyball team was inactive for a cery long time), this makes as much sense as us having an article on North Korea–Suriname relations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of a rivalry. Article creator seems to have taken "rivalry" to mean simply "list of matches between two given teams" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable volleyball match series. There is no evidence of significant coverage -- as a rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loganair Flight 670[edit]

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

Non-notable, WP:GNG, etc., etc. Petebutt (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A plane crash with fatalities is notable.Iloveplanes2003 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cargo aircraft crashes are not normally notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an aircraft crash with fatalities is not automatically notable and the amount of coverage of this crash in secondary sources does not make WP's notability threshold. This crash is covered adequately (actually more thoroughly) in the Loganair article. YSSYguy (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hull destroyed with fatalities and more than enough solid reference's. Plus a valuable lesson about how to protect aircraft engines in winter storm conditions. Samf4u (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many cargo flight accidents have their own articles. Please see this partial list. — Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That list has no relevance to this discussion. Some aircraft crashes are notable, some are not. Some crashes of light aircraft are deemed notable, some crashes of Boeing 747s and the like are deemed not notable. This is a non-notable crash, because of the lack of coverage; the secondary sources in the article consist of a news report and an air-crash database listing. The other reference is the accident report, a primary source; such reports are made for every aircraft crash. YSSYguy (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion but beg to differ. Any aircraft that is destroyed in the line of duty with fatalities IS notable. This is not a car crash w/some moron behind the wheel. These are highly trained individuals flying state of the art aircraft. It's our duty to present these incidents for others to learn from. BTW, a quick search found these additional references. Cheers, your charming and delightful host, Samf4u (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An encyclopedias limit should have no bounds. If a person searches for this incident I'd like to have our article be listed first, with its proper references. Samf4u (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment which is why it should be added to List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft which would enable searchers to find a properly referenced summary, it doesnt need a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Significant additions have been made to this article since this AfD was proposed, including information regarding changes to the operation of Short 360 aircraft in freezing temperatures. This crash led to these changes. Also, the article contains too much information to be on a list. Samf4u (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information and articles I found on the internet is enough to give this article a keep!--Scantunl (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this article in The Herald on the report into the crash. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 11 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. Keep arguments based on GNG don't really show how EVENT doesn't come into play. On that basis the delete votes reflect a more accepted view of policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Charlie's prostitution of a child[edit]

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

A crime that has no noted legal or social consequences. Of course, it was widely reported in the news, but all major crimes are paparazzi fodder. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Clarification, since one voter found my nom nonsensical. Legal consequences: some crimes became notable because they set precendent and cited in other cases or even directly change the law. Social consequences: A crime rises awareness for certain neglected social issues or becomes "the last straw" or leads to riots, or to establishment of a "Foundation in Defence of Something", etc. The event in question has no such (or other) kind of notable consequences. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first for the fact that the nomination is nonsensical. And secondly because the article passes WP:GNG and WP:GNG. Also WP:IDONLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- re: DONTLIKEIT: And how about a bit of WP:AGF, if you like alphabetsoupspeak? I explained my arguments, didn't I? If you think it is nonsensical, please explain. May be my English not good, but I think I had reasonable reasons. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm getting really tired of seeing editors throw WP:IDONTLIKEIT around inappropriately. The nom had no WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Perhaps you should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT again and see what actually is and isn't an argument to avoid. ― Padenton|✉ 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as i am concerned Padenton it is logical to come to that conclusion when you nominate a GA for deletion, one can only assume you are not "improving" the encyclopedia by doing that. GuzzyG (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if/when GA has anything to do with an article's notability, perhaps that will be valid. ― Padenton|✉ 12:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An archetypical instance of WP:1E involving a perp who isn't independently notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Pax 08:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not temporary Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY, horrible name aside , if it had enough coverage to be a good article what has changed? User:Раціональне анархіст's One event rationale does not apply to this discussion as this is an article about the event and not the perp. WP:ONEEVENT is about not having a biography when there is an article on the event. From the sources it passes GNG. Crimes don't have to have consequences just pass GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability, and passed the GA review. I took the trouble of reading the sources. All looks in order. As for consequences, you have to only read Kathy Rochlitz's comments. She made it clear that this event was the watershed moment for small communities to realize that crimes like this can happen.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crime of essentially local impact and significance. No indication of any significance beyond the area and people directly involved. Newsworthiness isn't equal to notability, especially for somewhat routine events like crimes. Sandstein 13:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were a world encyclopedia? If it is of local significance in a village in Gabon then we should cover that too. Obviously this passes GNG as it would've when it passed the GA review. GuzzyG (talk) 06:54, 3 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, ― Padenton|✉ 12:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROUTINE. Regarding GA, GA does not determine whether or not a subject is notable and/or merits its own article. GA is only to assess the article's quality. See: Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#Beyond_the_scope. Being a world encyclopedia does not mean that we ignore policies (such as notability) in an attempt to balance coverage. It means that editors should put extra effort into making articles for notable subjects that aren't likely to receive as much attention. Nothing more. ― Padenton|✉ 17:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:EVENT, no lasting effects, local scope. Sex trafficking is a crime, people caught trafficking get convicted and sent to jail, there's nothing out-of-the-ordinary about this event. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, and is not ROUTINE as suggested above. I'm not sure EVENT even applies, as it's essentially a bio - it could be renamed "Stephen Charlie." --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a bio, it'd be a slam-dunk deletion on WP:1E grounds. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:1E thoroughly, and there is nothing in it that clearly sets out a criterion for deleting any article. Can you explain your reasoning? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you clearly haven't comprehended 1E. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E begins "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Neither is not one of the options. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes "neither" is one of the options: "unclear... or both".Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Sammy, hopefully your attention span can carry you through the rest of the section, namely the part that begins with "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event...". WP:BLP1E is what we use to bar articles on people who only receive coverage in the context of a single event. That is why things that grab a piece of news for a few days such as a woman who walks into a mall pool while texting, a guy that mounts his dead cat onto a drone copter, or a woman who hiccups 24/7 do not get Wikipedia articles. There will never, ever be an article titled "Stephen Charlie" based on what we know at present about this individual. But since that articles does not exist anyways, this tangent is largely academic. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of local interest only, also per Padenton, Tarc, Sandstein, and Pax. GregJackP Boomer! 06:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The notability largely comes from the fact that the police intentionally made this a public example, to warn people about a broader problem. (At least according to one RCMP officer.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous is not the same as "notable". It says that quite clearly in WP:1E, which you apparently didn't read completely. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and please don't get excited. I think you fundamentally misunderstand WP:1E, which is entirely about the question set out in its first line. On another note, I'm arguing that the event is notable in part because of the social significance the RCMP intended to place on it, not just that the perpetrator is "famous." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have successfully deleted scads of articles over the years on 1E grounds, son, so my understanding of it is quote solid. But that's besides the point, which is a discussion here about whether the event, not the person, is notable. Thus far there has not been a good counter to the deletion argument that it is just routine news. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, dad. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

— Duplicate vote: BabbaQ (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.― Padenton|✉ 18:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babbaq, did you forget that you cast the first keep vote above, back on April 25th? Tarc (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A horrible crime but of local interest and without larger implications. It just involved two people and the sentencing was 3 years and is probably over at this point. If he commits additional serious crimes, it might be deserving of an article but this is way too much detail on a local crime story that reads like a feature article in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia entry. And, yes, the article title is atrocious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein and others. WP:1E applies here - Cwobeel (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E is about whether to write an article on the person or the event, not whether to delete them both. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong, as explained to you above already. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to offend you as your English is certainly much better than my Polish, but you unambiguously misread that sentence. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on any grounds. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Weak Delete - Don't know. Looks like there are a lot of references from reasonably high quality WP:RS which would seem to indicate it would pass WP:GNG. However, WP:EVENT is pretty clear here with "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes ... are usually not notable". Funny policy question really, b/c it seems like WP:GNG and WP:EVENT will probably conflict at times. But then I guess conflicts probably won't be too uncommon. As a side note here, if we do keep, the title of the article has to change, b/c at the moment it seems a bit ridiculous. NickCT (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I think I'm leaning delete. WP:RECENTISM seems to come into play here too. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally routine. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article about a nasty but routine crime that fails WP:EVENT. There is nothing about this run-of-the-mill though disgusting crime that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a side note, the title is forced and bizarre, and the prose is repetitive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre title is an additional argument it was nonnotable: usually paparazzi are good at making catchy monikers. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Routine crime reports. Clearly a POV and unencyclopedic topic to boot. Carrite (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite's reasoning. I came here for this discussion after seeing a post about it on Jimbo's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:EVENT, local event, has not had a lasting effect or historical significance. GA status does not exempt an article from the deletion policy. Esquivalience ^t 01:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. I think the indication of the merit of such an article lies in the "Responses" section at the end of the page. For this article, there are a couple of quotes from a police officer, but nothing regarding changes in laws, government policies, public opinion, or anything else that suggests the event has had a notable impact. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why the whole Wikipediocracy machine has turned out to get this deleted, but BLP1E is not a rule that bans covering an event in any way, only against presenting it as a balanced biography of a person. The case abundantly passes GNG. The three-year sentence doesn't make the case less notable - if anything, it is an elegant demonstration of the usual judicial rule that it is apparently less culpable to rape a little girl a thousand times than to rape her once. Wnt (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, we know your raison d'être is to be an unhinged paranoid when it comes to anything to do with the Wikipediocracy, but you cannot dismiss the entire breadth of deletion arguments and lay it on their doorstep, as most of the editors above have nothing to do with that site. So please, after entering your vote to keep, which is a right any editor has, kindly shut up. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re "an unhinged paranoid" - There's good old Tarc, showing all how to behave civilly again. NickCT (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:what's good for the goose is good for the gander, my dear wiki-stalker. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarc: - Don't flatter yourself Tarc. I'm here because I stalk Jimbo. I'm commenting on your post b/c it's the most ascerbic thing on the page (as usual), and b/c you keep ECing me.

And wikt:two wrongs don't make a right NickCT (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about, but there is no doubt that offsite canvassing is occurring that distorts vote counts. And I can't help but be gobsmacked by the mindless bias behind the "NOTNEWS" brigade. I mean, if you want to talk about a "routine" event, how about any one of the fucktillion items on the List of WWE pay-per-view events, some of which are honored as Today's Featured Articles. Yeah, yeah, I know - national newspapers covering a police case of widespread interest are local coverage, tabloid journalism, maybe you'd allow an article if only we took all the facts out of it ... whereas wrestling trade journals covering an event like SummerSlam are, oh my goodness, the highest and most exalted sources on Wikipedia, more than sufficient to provide comprehensive and absolutely reliable coverage of topics of the highest import to our civilizsation. There's no honesty here, is there - just some unfathomable morass, an echo chamber of spin for spin's sake. People who regard it as too simple-minded, too gauche to let people cover what seems important rather than the things that have promoters and sponsors behind them to keep them going. Wnt (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, "But other stuff" arguments are quite unbecoming, you know better. Nominate any of those silly WWE lists you care to, I'd gladly vote to delete. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERCRAPEXISTS may not be an article, but what about OTHERCRAPWASRUNONTHEMAINPAGEASTODAY'SFEATUREDARTICLEONSEPTEMBER92013? (See Talk:SummerSlam (2003)) You can't tell me that people just haven't gotten around to deleting that yet, not after this. It seems to me that decisions like what is "routine" end up having nothing to do with philosophy than with the strength of the lobby behind the subject matter. Wnt (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: - Assuming everyone calling for delete is part of the Wikipediocracy machine is a bit unfair. Agree with your assessment of WP:BLP1E, I was a bit confused why people were citing that as well. WP:EVENT does, however, expressly advise against the notability of routine crimes. I think WP:EVENT should be worked on a little, b/c it begs the question, what constitutes a "routine" crime, but regardless, it would seem that most feel this crime is routine. I agree that off-hand it would seem WP:GNG is passed, but given WP:EVENT and WP:GNG seem to conflict a little here, I'm inclined to lean towards the policy which more specifically applies to this situation. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt has every reason to question an off-wiki site lobbying to get an article deleted, if that's what's happening here. I just saw this mentioned on Jimbo's talk page, looked at the article and the deletion discussion, and came here. I think this is more problematic if people off-wiki are combining (as I have seen) to protect their friends and their own website. But I see no COI or misconduct here. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: - Oh he can question it. It's not right to assume it that everyone weighing in is part of some conspiracy theory though. NickCT (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple, his broad brush included you, Liz, Sandstein, and Pax, who as far as I know are not part of the Wikipediocracy. It was an ugly attempt as poisoning the well, and in no way a legitimate comment. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right, I'm just expressing empathy for his position. This article, on its merits is actually quite a doozy. What I'm saying is that off-wiki lobbying is a valid point to raise. In effect, I am here indirectly because of that. But in this instance it doesn't matter, as this is a deletion discussion of an article that should be deleted, it is not a case of WP:OWN coordinated off-wiki, which I have indeed seen in the Wikipediocracy and MyWikiBiz articles. Coretheapple (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course they do, as anyone has a right to discuss anything, even off-wiki. We...we as in certain elements of this project...need to start tearing down these walled gardens that have been erected over the years. People with no presence on-wiki whatsoever are free to criticize whatever they like, and those who are actual Wikipedia editors are free to follow their advice and criticism if they feel it would better the project, and they should be free to do that without some two-bit yahoo waving a McCarthy-like blacklist in teir faces every time. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes everyone has a right to say what they want off-wiki, just as it is perfectly possible for a checkuser on this project to be an administrator of a website that engages in "outing" of people on Wikipedia. That checkuser should not be a checkuser, and there should be consequences when persons go off-wiki to WP:OWN articles about people or institutions they like, or dislike. This "McCarthyite" stuff is simply horse shit. Wnt is raising a very good point, though I don't happen to feel that it is a reason to vote to keep a bad article. That point needs to be raised where it is relevant. But sure people can assemble anywhere, say what they want. But Wikipedia doesn't have to respond by sticking its head up its ass. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does something bad on-wiki, then follow the appropriate steps at dispute resolution or behavioral referrals (ANI, RfC/U, and so on). The problem here is a certain core of old hand Wikipedians who seek to discredit any offsite criticism. Recall how this started; I don't know why the whole Wikipediocracy machine has turned out to get this deleted... along with other moronic comments that I see now on Jimmy's talk page such as Wikipediocracy is a cancer - it's dominated by trolls, griefers, egotists, banned editors with a grudge and washed-up malcontents who spend their time dripping poison into Wikipedia.... The sentiment in these comments is "If the Wikipediocracy supports X, I will support !X. I'm heartened to see that you yourself don't fall for that BS, but sadly others do. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Coretheapple: - re "off-wiki lobbying is a valid point to raise" - Oh, agree. Valid point to raise for sure. But the way it was raised was more of a brush stroke, than a pointed concern.

I'm sorta curious whether there are people here who were legitimately off-wiki canvassed, or whether it's just idle speculation. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because of this discussion on Jimbo's talk page, which was clearly for the purpose of publicizing the Wikipediocracy discussion. It's perfectly OK to raise the point that Wnt is raising, which is that off-wiki discussions are influencing Wikipedia. Let's not split hairs between what is canvassing and what is not. Even so, as I said, at the end of the day this article has to go. I'm not going to vote "keep" because people off-wiki want this deleted. That's daft. What needs to be watched very carefully are attempts to hurt Wikipedia, such as by the allowing articles on the website and its friends/regulars from being allowed to remain as puff pieces. But this is just a clearcut case of a bad article, so it seems silly to keep it just because there is some kind of off-wiki campaign against it, if there is. Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: - re "watched very carefully are attempts to hurt Wikipedia" - I think we can all get behind that NickCT (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we want Loyalty Oaths now? I came here because I peruse the day's AfDs most every day and comment on the interesting ones, and this title is certainly unusual. I am no longer a active member of WO, read it a few times a week though, and Jimmy-bob's talk page is off my watchlist for obvious reasons. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't want "loyalty oaths." An editor has expressed suspicion that an external website has motivated this AfD, and that concern is valid, regardless of why you or I came here to vote. In fact, since it was posted on Jimbo's page for the express purpose of drawing people here, and I am here for that reason, I certainly am indirectly here because some people outside Wikipedia don't like the article. Whether that's good or bad is a separate issue; I do feel the article should be deleted but I also think the "keeps" have made some valid points. This prostitution scandal seems to be a big thing in Canada. Part of the problem is the writing of the article and its title, which is off-putting. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the part you still don't get, it seems; whether or not an external website has motivated this AfD is entirely irrelevant to the discussion itself. All you're doing is perpetuating one large ad hominem here...in effect still fighting the old WP:BADSITES ridiculousness from years back. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with whether a site is "bad" or not or an "attack site," whatever that is supposed to mean. An external website can be as benign as a newborn baby. If content decisions are instigated off-wiki, people resent it and I don't blame them. You seem to have an immense blind spot on that point, given your wild rhetoric. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with the mindset that still supports wp:Badsites. If people resent a content decision based on no other rationale than where the discussion was held, then that is a logically flawed and fallacious position. Period. Tarc (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring. I'm not seeing anyone here supporting the existence of this article based solely upon the fact that this AfD was initiated off-wiki. I'm just seeing considerable unease, especially on the part of one yes !voter, and also expressions of cynicism by others on the same point. If that "mindset" bothers you, well I think you may have to lump it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: delete on any grounds. Fylbecatulous talk 14:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficently notable one-event fodder. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NOTNEWS. That said, I wonder if Wikipediacracy is going to start targeting the myriad of news story only "articles", or if they are going to continue to be highly selective on what articles they oppose based only on whether or not they can harass editors they dislike in the process. Reso lute 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:EVENT, specifically WP:ROUTINE, refers to "crime logs," not "routine crimes" as stated above. (And a crime may be typical but not routine - this one was, and so was the beating of Rodney King.) WP:1E is totally irrelevant. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. The only other policy that has been brought up as a reason for deletion is WP:NOTNEWS. As for this one, condition #1 clearly does not apply here as this is not a firsthand report. Condition #2 asks for enduring notability and excludes routine news such as announcements, sports matches, and celebrity gossip. This article continues to get about 10 page views per day, so is certainly still of interest to people, evidence of its continuing notability. Multiple stories were written about different aspects of the case; it is not routine news. Condition #3 is a reason not to have a separate article on the perpetrator (just like 1E). Condition #4 doesn't apply at all. So, in spite of the overwhelming number of delete votes, I can't see that there is any policy-based reason for deleting the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crime happens every day. In any local news outlets you fill find dozens upon dozens of stories about fires, met labs, stabbings, shootings, and so on. Bad things happen to innocent people day in and day out, including, yes, rape and prostitution. Real news stories appear about this stuff, not just police blotters. Local example; Joseph Lawrence, 62, has been charged with shooting and killing his wife, Darlene. WMUR, local CBS affiliate, and NECN have coverage. This would never be something we'd have an article on though, it is run-of-the-mill crime reporting of no compelling national or global interest. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not making reference to the actual policies. The ones cited so far don't refer to such situations. The kinds of crimes you cite are excluded under WP:109PAPERS as they did not receive lasting coverage, but the reports on this case spanned a few months so that policy doesn't apply. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I and many others have referenced WP:EVENT on numerous occasions, and how the subject matter runs afoul of it...routine coverage, local scope, duration of coverage, and so on. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "routine coverage" you mean WP:ROUTINE - this refers to "crime logs" and clearly not to cases such as this. This is a crime log: [12]. By "local scope" you mean WP:GEOSCOPE - this incident made national news in Canada. By "duration of coverage" you mean WP:PERSISTENCE - the reports on this case spanned months, not a news cycle. By "and so on" you mean to exclude the possibility of your argument being refuted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, your tendentiousness is getting tiring. The policies I cited above are the reasons to delete this article, the same arguments made successfully over the years in dozens upon dozens of deletion discussions; most were successful. There is nothing special, unique, or newsworthy about this story. A smattering of Canadian press covering a routine crime over a period of a few months is not a topic that is of encyclopedic value. bad people do bad things, and reports talk about it, all the time. We make decisions on what is and what is not appropriate for this encyclopedia, and by the norms of the project and the guidelines agreed to by a consensus of the community. Maybe when you've been here a bit longer, you'll understand that. Good day, I will more tan likely not be addressing you on this matter again. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem arguments, assertions of your superior expertise, WP:OTHERSTUFF, vague general statements about what you feel is encyclopedic, a holier-than-thou explanation of what Wikipedia is, and an ultimatum. This one has it all, except explicit reference to policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: Can you please stop commenting on every !vote? It is becoming disruptive. Let the AFD run its course. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: I understand this concern, but I also think it is reasonable to respond when I am accused of bias. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy1339's comments seem right on the money to me, and I'd ascribe any tendentiousness to someone who takes the argument to a personal level rather than conceding or disputing the policy points. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Definitive WP:BLP1E. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that applies to BLP's and advises that the article should be written about the event instead of the person, which this one is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassing. I meant WP:EVENT. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd never heard of "wikipediocracy" before. Now I have. The article under discussion is criticized here: [13]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the sources. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a one-time event. WP: NOTNEWS. Dogbert (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither BLP1E nor ROUTINE applies here. BLP1E applies to BLPs (which this one isn't) and ROUTINE is about run-of-the-mill events, not a crime case that has received coverage that spanned several months. I'm not seeing how the rape and forced prostitution of a minor and the conviction of the rapist is "routine". If anything, the fact alone that the rapist got caught makes this case extremely unusual because only a tiny fraction of rape cases, let alone cases of forced prostitution, lead to convictions. If ROUTINE really meant what many editors seem to suggest, Wikipedia's content would be severely biased in favor of false reports of crime and wrongful convictions because they are rare statistically and therefore not "routine". Parents murder their kids, (semi-)famous athletes gang rape woman, JPMorgan Chase broker involved in million dollar fraud – meh, "routine" crimes that happen every day. But parents/athlets/stock brokers wrongfully convicted or falsely accused – now that's rare (and therefore notable). So the argument goes. While counterstereotypical crimes (e.g., small kids murdering parent, girlfriend beating up boyfriend, ballet dancers sexually assaulting the football team) may indeed get more coverage, this criminal case was obviously atypical enough to receive extended attention. Good article in line with our notability guidelines, so keep. --SonicY (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Peeling the onion to evaluate the significance of this relative to the broad topic of prostitution in Canada, I removed this article from {{prostitution in Canada}}, which was used to draw undue attention to this living person. Looking at what left in "what links here":
- Stephen (where notable persons with the given name are listed): Stephen Charlie (born 1990), Canadian criminal – Having a criminal record does not, by itself, make a person notable
- Charlie – Is he notable for being the only notable person with that surname?
- List of people from British Columbia: Stephen Charlie, criminal convicted of prostituting a child online
- Anthony Palmer (judge) – hmm, this strikes me as an undue cherry-picked selection (i.e., WP:SYNTH, WP:OR) of cases that appeared before this judge. Not very becoming for a BLP.
- Prostitution in Canada § Prostitution issues by province: In 2012, Stephen Charlie of Victoria was convicted on charges relating to the prostitution of a child online. He was sentenced to three years in prison. – No context is given for why this is particularly significant. Was this the first such conviction? Was the sentence unusually lenient or harsh? If this is one of many such convictions, then mentioning it here gives it undue weight.
- Prostitution of children § Survival sex: In Canada, Stephen Charlie was convicted of charges relating to the prostitution of a child online in 2012; Charlie had encouraged her to prostitute herself as a means of making money, kept all of her earnings, and threatened her with violence if she did not continue. – It's unclear to me whether Charlie, the underaged girl, or both, are doing this to "survive". This case isn't mentioned in the detailed article on the topic, which brings into question whether it merits a mention in the summary of that detailed article which is given here. "Survival sex" occurs when a child engages in sex acts in order to obtain money, food, shelter, clothing, or other items needed in order to survive. In these situations, the transaction typically only involves the child and the customer; children engaged in survival sex are usually not controlled or directed by pimps, madams, or other traffickers. – It's unclear to me how Charlie's case even relates to the topic.

Wikipedia should not hang this permanent badge of shame on this living person, given the three-year prison sentence they served. They have a right to be forgotten and to start a new chapter in their life. If the local authorities want to hang such a badge on them, fine, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that the "good article review" seems to be simply a local consensus; the GA was awarded by a single editor? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literal facepalm on this one. You're seriously worried about this guy's "right to be forgotten", which is why Wikipedia can't index the news about him in an article, or indeed, anywhere. What is this, Be Kind To Pimps Week? Pimps are sort of like biting flies, perhaps it is un-Christian to take too much pleasure in their suffering, but to do so would not be high on the list of crimes against humanity. If you think the article, which cites many sources, is biased (which is certainly possible, but you've cited no proof) then find some sources that back up that POV. Wnt (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and if this guy made thousands of dollars (6+ figures) from running his "pimp business", and did the same thing to several girls, and not just one, I would likely agree. However, reading stuff like: "It is probable that he was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. He grew up depending on food banks and living in homeless shelters. His relatives were former victims of the Canadian Indian residential school system who drank to the point of blackout and also underwent failed suicide attempts. At 9 years of age, Charlie began consuming alcoholic beverages. He became part of Canada's foster care system when he was 11 and became depressed by the time he was 14. He had begun using cocaine on a daily basis by the time he was 19." gives me more sympathy for his plight. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I shouldn't have bitten on the red herring here: my real point is that we shouldn't be trying to judge whether we like or don't like people before deciding whether to detail media coverage of their notable and widely publicized criminal cases. The data is out there, we cover it, end of story. Is that cold? Well, not as cold as putting someone in jail or printing the newspapers in the first place, so I don't think we have to feel guilty about it. Whether to have an article or quash it, how to spin it for or against someone - these aren't plums we should be handing out depending on what we think of the defendant and/or victim, but simple documentation of what is out there. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not based on whether I like or don't like Charlie. I don't really know him. I don't like what he did, i.e., those things for which he is serving a prison sentence. My opinion here is in spite of the fact that I don't like what he did. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the case has received on-going attention beyond coverage of the trial in local papers, hence fails notability. Some editors have said that the fact Corporal Kathy Rochlitz, head of Community Policing at the West Shore RCMP Detachment, talked about the case makes it significant. But police frequently comment on cases. It might have been noteworthy had the RCMP Commissioner called a press conference in Ottawa, but that did not happen. TFD (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Oh, sure, nothing but local papers - like the Huffington Post, National Post, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail. True, three of these papers are local to Toronto... but these events occurred in British Columbia! Have a look at a map of Canada - you'll find one on the right side, the other on the far left. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, national media picked up the story from the wires when Charlie was charged, and all the external media stories are dated Feb 1, 2012. The National Post article for example credits Katie DeRosa, who is a journalist for the Victoria Times Colonist. But they did not send reporters to cover the case or the trial, and probably did not even mention the verdict. Nor did foreign media descend on Victoria. TFD (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do our guidelines say an item is more notable, an article more worthy, if a newspaper sends a reporter in person rather than calling officials on the phone? Sending a mob of in-person reporters to read their blurbs while standing in front of the courthouse... that seems obsolete to me, dating back to the days when companies actually hired people. Now we should count ourselves lucky if it's a person making the phone call and writing the story and not an AI. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our guidelines say so. And they are called "common sense". If reporters don't lift their ass, that's because they decide not worth effort. Yes, today bloggers generate lots of global "news" by simply regurgitating the feeds. So what? When some reat shit happens, they do flock in, cameras and all, hired or not. Calling a sheriff "hey boss, what's up?" is hardly a way of decent coverage even today. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That this article passes WP:GNG seems obvious to me. The national interest in this event is not impinged upon because external reporters were not sent in for additional coverage; what is relevant is that several of Canada's most major news outlets decided that readers across Canada would want to read a full article on the subject of this event. WP:ROUTINE is not relevant to this case; the closest thing that WP:ROUTINE guards against is articles based solely on crime logs, which this article clearly is not. There isn't anything else in WP:EVENT that suggests that we should ignore the applicability of WP:GNG in this case. As has been amply demonstrated above, WP:BLP1E is not relevant to this article as this article is not a biography but is about the event itself. Because a significant number of the "delete" comments above cite one of these inapplicable guidelines, and because of the canvassing concerns raised above, I would urge the closing administrator to be especially judicious in weighing the arguments and not the number of !votes on either side. Neelix (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E relevant: (a) it says: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." - clearly not persistent; already dropped and did not enter into books or other more "permanent" media. (b) The article de facto and "de-title" is a piece of Charlie's bio, so it is applicable even formally. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE is a guideline; its list is not an exhausting law; just most common items. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, if many people consider this case routine, you have to indicate what exactly makes this event outstandling, i.e., non-routine. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that national papers picked the topic is IMO a clear case of "tabloid journalism", actually covered by WP:ROUTINE; Again, it is just a kinky news, unless you prove otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, let us teach these sloppy admins how to do their job. I can do the same: "Because a significant number of the "keepers" above insist that inapplicable guidelines were used <bla-bla>...". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that this case was picked up by national newspapers, but in brief articles. That does not make it a "national story," and it is plain from looking at the coverage that this was indeed a local story. What I would suggest is that if this article is deleted, that interested editors keep a version of the article as a user subpage, and if attention to the case ever rises to the level that it warrants a Wikipedia article, that it be re-created at that point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "this article is not a biography but is about the event itself." That's a bit of a stretch, since you originally created this as a bio, and only moved this article to a title which reads like a sub-article (per WP:Summary style) of the main biography of Stephen Charlie in order to obtain "good article" status. Linking Stephen § Other, Charlie § People with the surname, and List of people from British Columbia § Others shows that you viewed him as sufficiently notable to have a bio. If you want to focus on "the event itself", then anonymize him, just as the authorities did for the girl. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the lead asserts no notability whatsoever. Delete per WP:ROUTINE, not-notable, one event, WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the coverage in the majority of citations is barely a paragraph in length. This article creator seems sadly bent on creating massive walls of text about insignificant localized events concerning prostitution, events which are better suited for a single journalism article or blog post, not for an encyclopedia. There is nothing remotely encyclopedically relevant in this article, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the tail end of the two-paragraph lead finally does get around to establishing the reason this particular case became "notable": "Corporal Kathy Rochlitz of the West Shore Royal Canadian Mounted Police asserted that many of the smaller communities in British Columbia don't regularly investigate similar cases, but the RCMP wanted to share information about this particular instance of child prostitution "to make people realize it does happen" and that "it may be seen more regularly in bigger centres." Given that, an article could cite this case as a reflection of the police's opinion about the frequency of child prostitution in British Columbia, and the frequency of prosecution of such cases. But, as this case was seemingly hand-picked by the police to set an example of what they believe to be an under-prosecuted crime in the province, that suggests that we should anonymize both the perpetrator and the victim. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a corporal in the local police detachment commented on the case does not make it notable. Police frequently comment on cases. But when cases are noteworthy to a community, the head of the local police (in this case an inspector) calls a press conference and it is attended by representatives of the media that consider it significant. I think there is an ethical aspect too, since the Wikipedia article draws attention to this individual, rather than merely reflecting the attention he already has. TFD (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sadly routine crime, with nothing independently notable about the perpetrator, nothing unusual about the facts of the crime, and no big legislative or legal change associated with it. The sentence is very small which supports its being a fairly ordinary crime. Seems like an example case for something that happens every day. Might work as an example subsection in some larger article on child prostitution, but nothing about this warrants its very own article. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the sources, it appears that this crime was given coverage over a period of several months by a number of prominent, independent newspaper outlets. The number of sources and quality of sources is sufficient to justify the existence of a Wikipedia article.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage was very brief, not significant (as required by GNG); the only significant coverage was in a local paper, the Times Colonist, so it still doesn't meet GNG. Except for that one entry, it's all just routine local coverage in February 2012. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story was covered by multiple news sources over a period of months. The arrest was covered, the consequences of the arrest, and finally the sentencing. This meets Wikipedia's standard for WP:GNG. Some reviewers are saying that this is WP:ROUTINE, which is a policy giving the example of news about an interesting animal in a tree. The persistence of coverage over months, updates on developments, and opinions presented from multiple perspectives make the coverage more than routine. Calling this typical news or a single event is a divergence from precedent on Wikipedia, where "one event" rules come into play typically when there is one story at one time, typically from only one perspective. The sources cited feature the concept for this Wikipedia article as their own subject, so they meet WP:RS criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage was very brief, not significant (as required by GNG); the only significant coverage was in a local paper, the Times Colonist, so it still doesn't meet GNG. Except for that one entry, it's all just routine local coverage (as for any crime) in February 2012, so it wasn't "covered by multiple news sources over a period of months". Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender I hardly know how to respond. I feel like my interpretation is conservative. You seem to challenge that the sources cited meet WP:RS then further challenge that even if they meet RS, that collectively they do not constitute WP:GNG. I am not sure how you came to your views as I think my assessment here is routine and typical. If you have information which I am not seeing then if you shared I could change my mind.

WP:ROUTINE is a challenge to WP:RS. I would agree that the first reports are routine if they stood alone, but in the context of these reports being the first part of a continuing story published in multiple media sources over time, I do not agree that it would be usual to dismiss them. Collectively I would grant that all these initial reports constitute 1 reliable source, because they are based on the same content. Another reliable source could be the Colonist source, and then the two Goldstream Gazette pieces about bail conditions together make another source for me. I count three reliable sources here for the purpose of WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you seeing that I am not? Do you think my interpretation is unusual as compared to the norm? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wbm1058, pointy WhatLinksHere spam, can be rewritten from scratch by somebody without agenda. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you feel the article promotes an agenda? Opposing the manner in which an article is written is not a reason for deletion, nor are incoming links. Neelix (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surely uncontroversially. It's hard to credit that people are really suggesting that something purporting to be an encyclopedia should include a lengthy entry on an individual criminal act and subsequent trial, under this ungainly title, simply on the basis that it has been reported on primarily in a couple of contemporaneous news-in-brief stubs in local papers – and, by implication, that every such incident should have its own WP entry. Those who, as so frequently happens in AFD debates, are simply saying "Keep – meets GNG", presumably on the basis that "it has sources", need to read a little deeper and think a bit harder both about actual policy and this topic. GNG is simply a broad statement of the minimum standard for notability (and in any event requires "significant coverage", which is defined as "more than just routine news reports"; a further qualification states, "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage"). And even if a topic is deemed to reach the standard under that broad guideline, it still has to not fall short of the policy WP:NOT, which explicitly says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Then, even if that hurdle is cleared, we still only have a "presumption" – not a "guarantee" – that a standalone article is merited.
Further detail and clarification is provided at WP:EVENT, especially the section WP:EVENTCRIT, which explicitly says: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". Subsequent subsections clarify how the geographical scope, depth and duration of coverage, and whether the incident had wider lasting effects, affect notability. Can anyone seriously read those sections, review the pretty sparse coverage being relied on for this article, and say those requirements are satisfied here? N-HH talk/edits 13:42, 15 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) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thach Thi Ngoc[edit]

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

This woman was never part of the South Vietnamese Olympic team. That country only ever sent two women to the Olympics and she was not one of them. Without that, there is no notability as all the sources only relate to the son of the subject. SFB 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 April 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, Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This person didn't compete at the Olympics. This article was created by a user who is now blocked for long-term copyright issues, and I suspect this could easily be a WP:COPYVIO of some kind. The only saving grace for the article is that she held the national high-jump record. But this is unsourced, so the WP:BURDEN is on the article creator to source this, if it is indeed true. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no evidence of her competing at the Olympics and the article's source is a passing mention from an article that appears to have been written by her son. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:49, 8 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) –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Technologies[edit]

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

Primary sources only, notability not established by the references. Bfpage |leave a message 12:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in India media plus very notable company. However the page and citations needs to be improved. Some citations found by me: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Mr RD 16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work but the notability of a ~1.3 billion dollar Tata group company that, as Mr RD points out, has received considerable media coverage is not really in doubt. (see this and this for news coverage about its financial and tech. activities respectively) Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the story, MrRD? Those links are all going to the same page. Awaiting you response before I decide on this one. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, I've put in different links, please try finding them through wiki script if you can not go to them directly. Also you can search for citations here, this is the custom search engine for the purpose of Indian news articles (as many of them do not get indexed by Google. Cheers, Mr RD 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are all going to the same page. Not for me (except for Mr RD and I having listed one link in common). Could you check your computer/phone and try again? Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tata is one of the prominent groups in India. Despite of the poor quality of it, this article is very notable. A quick search shows some significant coverage: [18] [19] [20] [21]. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. — Yash! ^(Y) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a big multinational company. Even if the internet presence is not huge is it clearly significant. Mtpaley (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:01, 6 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. An article on the RabbitsReviews website is a possibility and it can be mentioned within it that they give awards. It is generally felt in this discussion that other porn-related site are not considered WP:RS for establishing notability for this porn topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RISE Award[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sourcing. All refs are either published by the subject or based on its PR material. NN award sponsored by NN website which periodically spams itself in Wikipedia articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator) - covered by adult industry press (including one with its own separate awards program) also related to WikiProjects other than Porn. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, as the article creator, you know perfectly well that reposted ( and sometimes slightly retouched) press releases do nothing to establish notability, and are not the reliable, independent sources needed to support an article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you unilaterally believe to be spam on Wikipedia articles is not reflective of everyone's opinion. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scalhotrod's reasoning. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding notability Could editors be clear whether or not they think it is notable, and if so by the application of which notability guideline (general or a specific one) and with what references? --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unique within the industry as it appears to be the sole awards program focused exclusively on adult websites. If there are others, I have not found them. It has also hit the 5 year mark which several other Notable awards did not achieve. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to what policy and what reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are not going to be any reliable sources for this, because it's just something Scalhotrod made up. It's not true. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding keeping as a stub If editors are arguing to keep it as a stub, then under what policies/guidelines? --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a List article, not a stub. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same question then, as a list. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts: Full name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); website:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); website:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per nom and Ronz (whose questions have sat unanswered). No independent sources. Pax 08:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Do to failure to identify applicable policies and sources in response to my questions above) Not notable. The temptation to expand it beyond a stub appears too great, and violates WP:SOAP and WP:BLP when doing so without any secondary sources other than reworked press releases. Most importantly, such awards need to be clearly notable as they are themselves are part of our notability criteria of WP:ANYBIO and WP:PORNBIO. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uniqueness is not a criterion for notability or retention. Lack of reliable independent sources is a good reason for deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with reasoning by Scalhotrod, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a no reliable independent sources. –Davey2010^Talk 03:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails Gng and even turning it into a list doesn't overcome that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:48, 10 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 as WP:A7 (notability for persons) and as WP:G5 (a blocked user evading their block). Article has also been salted and a formal SPI has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsachintomar, although this is a clear WP:DUCK scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SACHIN TOMAR[edit]

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

No indication of notability, CSD-A7 tag removed by IP editor beyond my limit of patience. Recreation of Sachin Tomar, itself speedy deleted several times. I would also suggest a pinch of salt. GILO A&E⇑ 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like there's some sockpuppetry going on here, so I'll start up an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 3 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) 18:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosegreen GAA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I added two references from local coverage, but I couldn't find anything to support WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG. Has beent agged for notability for 7 years; last AfD closed because it attracted no comments. Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 26 April 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 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 April 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) 09:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking non-local coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 7 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) 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Bryant (photojournalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last 2 AfDs closed because they attractedonly one comment each although neither of them was a keep. I couldn't establish that this man meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 05:43, 26 April 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 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 April 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) 09:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sources about this person, and the only references are to his work, not to information about him. I looked up the books that are given as references and his name was listed in one of them, but along with many many other photographers. I couldn't get a look inside the other three. His sites say that he was nominated for a Pulitzer, but I can only find lists of winners, not of nominees. There's also the weirdness in the history of the page, where an article about a Canadian footballer was turned into the page for the photographer diff. Although some disambiguation work took place, the footballer isn't on it. LaMona (talk) 02:04, 9 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! 14:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Olinger and James Bell[edit]

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

~~Delete~~ Merge with Billy the Kid article:
No offense to these victims but they are non-notables per se. No particular sourcing, if any. Any salient info -- very little anyway after trimming cruft and OR -- can be transferred to Billy the Kid's article. — all salient info transferred to Billy the Kid's article Quis separabit? 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have copied material from this article to Billy the Kid, the page history cannot be deleted because that will violate WP:CWW. Correct attribution is not optional. It has to be maintained in order to comply with terms of the creative commons license that we use. James500 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so let's do a merger, then.Quis separabit? 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E (twice). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 April 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 01:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable WP:VICTIMS of notable killers. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Billy the Kid. These individuals satisfy GNG. A search for "Robert Olinger"/"Bob Olinger"+"James Bell" in GBooks produces more than twenty results, including, for example, dedicated encyclopedia articles: [22]. (Inclusion in another encyclopedia is a very strong, often conclusive, indication of notability). The nature of the coverage is such that I think that if BIO1E or VICTIM are even applicable, they are satisfied. And I doubt they are even theoretically applicable, since Robert Olinger is said to have killed several men, including Frank Hill in March 1880, and is described as a "murderous cut throat" etc. So he is notable for other events as well. "Delete and merge" is not a possible outcome of AfD because it would violate WP:CWW. What would be required, as a minimum, is a history merge without a redirect. As a plausible redirect to Billy the Kid, this page is not eligible for deletion, and should not have been nominated (WP:R). I very much doubt that VICTIM is relevant to any killings that happened in 1881. VICTIM specifically does not apply to a person known only connection with an event that consists of a civil wrong or civil proceedings, which suggests it is concerned with BLP. (What other purpose could the distinction serve?) Parts of VICTIM are taken almost verbatim from BLPCRIME. Criteria 1 refers to the victim's role being "consistent with WP:BLP1E". This article is a non-BLP twice over. No one involved in any way in the killings could possibly be alive today. Whether these individuals are presented separately, or in an article on the killings, or in an article on the killer should be determined by clarity of presentation alone, as notability is not an issue. James500 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative would be to move this article to Bob or Robert Olinger, and re-work it so that it is clearly a biography of him, as he is clearly notable. I suspect that might be the best option. James500 (talk) 11:07, 1 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) 08:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Inother (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E only applies to living people. The acronym "BLP" stands for "biographies of living people". These two individuals have been dead for more than 130 years. BLP is wholly irrelevant. James500 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Meant BIO1E. --Inother (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The rubric of BIO1E seems to be in favour of redirection rather than deletion. It mandates that various types of people should be redirected but does not mention deletion. James500 (talk) 07:26, 13 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 Wrong Forum. This a redirect so if anyone thinks this should be deleted they should take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Davewild (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artlunga Historical Reserve[edit]

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

Original article title was misspelt, page has been moved to correct title Arltunga Historical Reserve Mcarneyaus (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: the nominator has put this in the wrong place, and is nominating the redirect, not the article, for deletion. It's a fairly conceivable typo (which is partly why it wound up there in the first place!) so it's probably a good redirect to keep anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:48, 3 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 23:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrGrab[edit]

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

Not notable. A search brought up no independent sources. I thought about tagging for speedy deletion but it appears that another editor already reviewed the article and didn't tag it. Pishcal — ♣ 06:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Have modify the content,Hope to get help,Thanks!--羊葱头 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried US, Australia and Malaysia financial newspapers and got zero hits. The company has sites in a half dozen countries, but I'm not finding anything about it. LaMona (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 9 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 23:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgovind das[edit]

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

Despite the claim of sainthood, Google produces little in the way of notability with Facebook as the top search returns. The only ref that works links to an organisation that he is a member of. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ANYBIO. All the sources I could find were things like Youtube and Facebook. Jbh ^Talk 12:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not nearly enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Problems with reference syntax.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:28, 10 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) 21:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wendi and Brenda Turnbaugh[edit]

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

This biography doesn't meet WP:GNG. The twin sisters' only acting role is a minor part on Little House on the Prairie (TV series). The two sites referenced in the article are the twins' official website and a fansite. Random86 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like pure puffery to me. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. All references I could find were either their own websites, vanity sites, or minor 'human interest' type articles in local papers. valereee (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we usually, but not always, delete stubs on child actors who have not had major roles. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 12 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) 18:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Girls Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A Non-notable television series with no evidence of notability, it fails WP:GNG. The subject of the article is not the same as Girls Club (TV series), in which multiple reliable sources may probably exist. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, nor verifiable, nor GNG. Also written like a press release, possibly a copyvio from the website, should anyone care to register and check. — Wylie pedia 08:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can barely find any evidence this even exists. The first season is supposed to start in 2015, so maybe it's not yet aired? valereee (talk) 13:32, 11 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. As noted, this is what Commons is for. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: XII. Surface anatomy and Surface Markings[edit]

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

Many of these galleries were created in 2006 when a large amount of content was taken from Gray's Anatomy 20th edition (1918) and put onto Wikipedia, a process that greatly expanded our anatomical content.

However, Wikipedia has now expanded beyond the point where these galleries are useful to readers. Readers would be better served by going to commons where there are a wider variety of images from more sources of more structures and many in higher quality. I think the reason that these were created in general was to help create articles and because commons did not have the widely accepted function in 2006 that it does not. Now that articles have been expanded I think these have fulfilled their purpose n We do not have "List of images in [source]" for any other groups of articles I can think of. As Wikipedia is not a gallery (WP:NOTGALLERY) and in view of what I've said, I'm proposing deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. While informative, this image index has no place in an encyclopedia, whether masquerading as an article, list, or whatever. Organizing the content at Commons, Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity is more appropriate.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LaMona (talk) 02:19, 9 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona–Johnstown. Despite myself voting it seems the AFD isn't gonna be closed anytime soon so may aswell do it myself. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cambria Catholic School[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article about a combined elementary-middle school. Neither middle schools nor elementary schools are presumed to be notable, and I could not find any significant coverage of this school in reliable sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC

Redirect to the "Schools" section of Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona–Johnstown, per standard practice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona–Johnstown per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:- to Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona–Johnstown per our outcomes. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect:- to Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona–Johnstown per our outcomes. Jacona (talk) 12:06, 5 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 deletion by User:RHaworth for a host of speedy issues. Article has been salted as this is one of several similar articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latest research on solar power generation efficiency[edit]

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

Appears to be Original Research. TheInfernoX (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator may be right that there are elements of original research here, but I think the greatest problem is that this not an encyclopedic topic, and is really more of a homework assignment or an essay than an encyclopedia article. "Latest research" is a time-specific approach and we are writing an encyclopedia for the ages, not to highlight what's "latest". That, plus the fact that the article is almost unreferenced and we already have a variety of much better articles about solar power. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 3 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. Also, the potential of a merge can continue to be discussed on an article talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gail F. Goodman[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited i.e. CEO of notable company is not necessarily notable. Fails WP:GNG due to little independent coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a noted gender bias on Wikipedia, I wonder if a male 15 year CEO of notable company would be up for deletion? I found that she is an author of a book on engagement marketing and has had some degree of notability in the press. I will take the responsibility of making this article better and adding more citations and references.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note This AfD was originally suggested at the teahouse by a new and female user, so I have doubts that this nomination is the result of the systemic gender bias on wikipedia. However this women may be notable enough to have a wikipedia article so, Keep with changes to verify the notability of the subject
As the new and female editor in question, the nomination was due to me stumbling upon the article and finding it odd that a CEO of a company I had never heard about had an article just mentionning she was CEO, and a notability tag. I searched a bit and could not find any independant coverage. I would have done the same if it had been a guy. In fact I might have been quicker to report it. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 20:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Constant Contact. The redirect could still be categorized in a manner to help alleviate gender bias. My rationale for merger = she is notable for being the CEO of the company and nothing more at this time (i.e. she is notable due to one event ... WP:BLP1E). It is quite possible that she will become notable in her own right in time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resources If anyone is interested in getting this article to a Keep, I added a list of resources to Talk:Gail_F._Goodman including New York Times and Boston Globe/Boston.com interviews. I don't have time this week to work it. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Constant Contact. The company is notable, the CEO possibly. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The head of a really notable company is probably notable, but this is a borderline notable company, and there is nothing specific to hter otherwise in the article. There's nothing worth merging except the bare fact that she is ceo, and that is already in the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Many ideas here, but a consensus thus far has not been forthcoming. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constant Contact, assuming the latter is a Notable company. I looked her up in Bing.com, and there is just one Forbes article. Not very much there. " . . . multiple sources are generally expected." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added more info to the article, and one (soon 2) more cites. Most of what I find is about the company, not about her, but she sits on boards and has been interviewed at length about her business philosophy. I didn't get that latter into the article because I wasn't sure if interviews are considered RS. There are more sources on the talk page. LaMona (talk) 02:57, 9 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. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Theatre[edit]

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

A non-notable band formed by a non-notable person. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no evidence of passing WP:NBAND either. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Youtube cannot establish a subject notability. See WP:YOUTUBE. The number of times the music was played on radio is irrelevant as all music either notable or non-notable are often played on radio.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vinyl Theatre's single "Breaking Up My Bones" from their 2014 debut album "Electrogram" held a position on the Billboard 200.^[1] The band has also been the subject of media coverage from reputable sources such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.^[2] "Breaking Up My Bones" was given the number 16 position on the Sirius XM Alt18 chart.^[3] The band also have gone on national tours, spanning across the United States, with bands such as Smallpools and Magic Man.^[4] (See "tour" section of website) Vinyl Theatre also toured with Twenty One Pilots during their "Quiet is Violent" tour in 2014.^[5] In addition, Vinyl Theatre was featured in issue #321 of Alternative Press Magazine, listed as one of "100 bands you need to know in 2015.^[6] The band was also featured in the Alternative Press "Photo of the Day" for Spring 2015.^[7] micahjahns 23:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC-06:00)

~~micahjahns you can't !vote twice, And youtube videos & images aren't reliable sources, –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thanks for merging all your keeps in to 1 :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.billboard.com/song/vinyl-theatre/6457447/breaking-up-my-bones
^ http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/musicandnightlife/milwaukee-band-vinyl-theatre-signs-with-fueled-by-ramen-b99337806z1-272612761.html
^ http://blog.siriusxm.com/2015/04/06/matt-kim-grab-the-no-1-slot-in-this-weeks-alt-18-33015/
^ http://www.vinyltheatre.com/
^ http://i2.wp.com/www.theyoungfolks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/quietisviolent.jpg
^ http://www.altpress.com/magazine/issue/321_pierce_the_veil
^ http://www.altpress.com/photoop/entry/photo_of_the_day_spring_2015

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: analysis of sources and chartings against policy would help resolve this Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to (yet) have sufficient notability.--Rpclod (talk) 11:36, 21 April 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 02:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep meets two WP:BAND criteria. 1) "Breaking Up My Bones" charted at #46 on Billboard which should automatically confer notability (Electrogram hit Billboard #35 on the Heatseekers Albums [23]) and 2) it has been on a national tour of the United States per the Milwaukee Journal article. Their notability isn't marginal at all to me. Royal broil 05:07, 30 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Royalbroil and these sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] Everymorning talk 18:04, 3 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. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Greg Wilson[edit]

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

only one significant role, but in an exceedingly unimportant file . The controversy section is trivial negative BLP inappropriate for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are issues with the page that really need to be adressed this character does appear to be notable and the article is well sourced. He has been involved with notable television shows at the least. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Wilson has been appeared on many notable shows which indicates some level of notability. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of biographical material available, but there appears to be just enough to justify a stub article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 25 April 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 01:53, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 3 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 23:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Coast Connection[edit]

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

non notable local group with only local references DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. This organization has been featured in L.A. Times and Variety and receives support from notable filmmakers Alexander Payne and Jon Bokenkamp. ArtemisCE (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)ArtemisCE[reply]

Ths article should not be deleted. This organization has been featured in numerous national media including video, print and online. Reference sources include the Omaha World Herald, Omaha Reader, University of Nebraska Lincoln, LA Times, published books, NTV (an NBC affiliate), and Variety Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.124.50 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed the format of this page as it affected the format in the AFD log. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 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 01:53, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 3 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) 18:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmira Bulldogs[edit]

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

This is a non-notable basketball team. Fails WP:ORG as there isn't significant coverage in secondary sources (except for local WP:ROUTINE coverage, which doesn't count). Tavix | Talk 02:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 02:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 02:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Always played at a very low-level (semi-pro or amateur), never completing a season. Corning Bulldogs is a redirect to that page that should be deleted too with this. LionMans Account (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All redirects of deleted articles are speedily deleted per WP:G8. You won't have to worry about that. Tavix | Talk 00:14, 23 April 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 01:52, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 3 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) 18:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MMICC[edit]

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

I would love to see evidence of the notability of this competition. So far, I've seen nothing, and there's nothing in the article--except that I get the distinct impression of a PR machine. Anyway, such competitions are notable only if thoroughly discussed in reliable secondary sources. This one doesn't seem to be. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 April 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 01:52, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 09:18, 3 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) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IF? Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find coverage to pass WP:GNG except [28]. JzG declined speedy. The Dissident Aggressor 01:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable band, 10 years later and still on a free-hosting domain!, Proves my point really. –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 19 April 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 01:33, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 3 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) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Ellis & The Alpha Theory[edit]

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

A music group I'm trying to find notability for-I found one website for them so far that is not on Facebook or youtube. Wgolf (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 April 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 01:32, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources independent of the subject. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:49, 3 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Miller[edit]

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

Not my field, but this appears to be a promotional article about a non notable musician. I would tend to discount the coverage as press releases. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to pass WP:MUSIC by the skin of its teeth--two of the sources are from The Express Tribune, a major Pakistani paper, and the BBC. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Request to remove the deletion tag as the page is created with reliable sources. --IamNaqvi (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She doesn't have many sources, it is true, but she is notable for what she is and does — she is an American who sings in Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi. The articles about her are in truly significant and WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 09:21, 3 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 The High Life (TV series). merge as appropriate Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor and Barry[edit]

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

Fictional characters that I'm having a hard time trying to find things for. Only ref goes to Youtube also. Wgolf (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masson or Cumming. Does not appear to be notable on its own.--Rpclod (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The High Life (TV series) as a precursor of that show (unless more references are found). They made a very small amount of TV as Victor and Barry - a mockumentary for Scottish TV [29] and a pilot for late-night ITV called Automatic Transmission[30] but that's hardly primetime success (I'm basing this on Cumming's very detailed website). There is probably some press coverage of their late 80s/early 90s comedy performances, so the topic might be notable, but needs more references at the moment. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:59, 20 April 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 01:11, 26 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 3 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) 18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Armstrong[edit]

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

Actress with only 3 roles-and when Leprechaun 3 was your biggest role.... On another note this has to be one of the oldest in age articles put up for a AFD that was not a joke (article started in 2002 and surprised nobody ever afd it!) Wgolf (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Two direct-to-video movies and a commercial definitely aren't going to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 April 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 00:54, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:25, 6 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) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indrani Krishna[edit]

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

Falls below the standard required by the General notability guideline. No sources found beyond the single news story, which indicates that the subject is a low-profile individual who is likely to remain so. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - winning a college debate competition is not enough to meet GNG. No other claim to fame. -Zanhe (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page may have been vandalized recently. I'm not sure that blanking the page was the appropriate action. See: Diff JeremiahY (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the edit summary it looks like the editor concerned was acting in good faith in removing the personal puff piece rather than vandalising the article. It has no bearing on the AfD outcome since all the info removed was unsourced, which is acceptable under Wikipedia biographies of living people policy. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. I'm still not completely up to speed on AfD policies. I only found this page as it was flagged for CE by GOCE. JeremiahY (talk) 07:38, 24 April 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 00:41, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 3 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) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Jules Ginet[edit]

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

As stated by Azurfrog on the talk page, source 1 doesn't mention Ginet, 'Pâtisserie of Tomorrow: The Who’s Who' doesn't exist as far as I or Azurfrog can establish, and there is no indication of notability, coupled with no reliable sources available on the internet that I can see. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Secondary sources are weak, to say the least. Moreover, I just could not find any mention of this Fauchon: Study of a Modern Pâtisserie outside of Wikipedia. Strikes me as an advertisement page/original research to support the nascent notability of this self-proclaimed "world expert on the macaron". --Azurfrog (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 17 April 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 00:41, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 3 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 Tala Hadid. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline but the redirect makes sense. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Poet[edit]

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

The notability of this film is very hard to verify. Apparently it was made as a student undergraduate project, and there is almost nothing in the way of explicit coverage in reliable sources. Its significance in the study of the work of Pasolini therefore seems questionable at best. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find anything online about this either.--Rpclod (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to filmmaker Tala Hadid as this can be researched and sourced as her work. Unless one counts it being archived as meeting a leg of WP:OEN, we can at least send readers to where in can be spoken of in relationship to her career. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:48, 19 April 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 01:32, 26 April 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 04:05, 3 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. Soft Deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derketo (Conan)[edit]

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

Character from the Conan series that was barley ever used at all-probably a redirect or merge be the best for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added some words to article about character being in a mmorpg and so added to wikiproject videgames deletion list. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 23 April 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) 00:32, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 3 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 Belmont High School (Los Angeles, California). Davewild (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dentler Erdmann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD resulted in no consensus 6 years ago. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years. I think that this could possibly be a valid redirect, preferably to Belmont High School (Los Angeles, California), but he doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria for an independent article. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Belmont High School (Los Angeles, California). REthinking in light of first AFD. Sourcing now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no clear claim to notability (a state teacher of the year award is not in any guideline), so I agree that redirect would be a good choice here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect. I think to make a case for notability on what the article presents, we'd need better sources than a local one-man newsmagazine and a line in a state database. Actually, the first AfD did dig up one better source [31] but although it's a much more major newspaper it's still just one line about the subject, not enough I think for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment There may be enough on Erdman to make an article, but it will take significant digging, since his career predates the web.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 22 April 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 01:11, 26 April 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 04:02, 3 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The One (series 1)[edit]

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

Non-notable season of a series. The series does not have its own article on Wikipedia, and I can't find sourcing on the season or the series. It appears that the series exists (I found Youtube videos mentioning it). Also, some of the refs on this article refer to The X Factor New Zealand, which does not seem related to this show. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bundling The One (series 2), as the 2nd season of this non-notable series.

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge the notability, but it has quite a smell of advertising. The Banner talk 00:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable in NZ NealeFamily (talk) 01:33, 22 April 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 00:32, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent, non-trivial mentions to pass ISGCOV. Most citations are merely promotional and do not establish notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:21, 14 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) –Davey2010^Talk 18:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Thatcher[edit]

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

Weakly-sourced article created by its subject, of dubious notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I first came upon the article in new page patrol and had cause to propose deletion as it then had no references, and tag it for various issues since including apparently being an autobiography and being about a subject of questionable notability. But it has been improving and I was wrong about the notability: the references and subsequent better research seem to me to provide more than sufficient evidence of it - in particular, I am happy that someone featured in The Sydney Morning Herald and Limelight (magazine) (both per refs) plus The Daily Telegraph (Australia) ([32]) and Music Australia ([33]) is indeed notable. The article needs further improvement but that is no reason to delete; it is the sound basis for an article about a notable person. RichardOSmith (talk)
Keep, clearly notable by the refs - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I had no problem finding internet articles {same as RichardOSmith) describing the subject, as well as this. He has trained and performed both nationally and internationally.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - however the bare urls used in the references need to be converted to proper citations. Dan arndt (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable as per refs. Doublefrog (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable as per refs. Ormr2014 | Talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 8 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 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ismet Jashari[edit]

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

A non notable person with a notability tag since 2008. The only reference on the page is a 404 error and I cannot find any additional sources on the person. Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person was one of the main KLA leaders. Streets in Kosovo are named after him.^[1]

^ [1]

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) 00:32, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 3 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 23:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pierce[edit]

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

A Google search turned up nothing proving WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 17 April 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) 00:32, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, not having enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage at all. Fails GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:33, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frane Selak[edit]

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

The story is a hoax Bro(sv) (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received international press interest over a period of several years, which normally makes someone notable. Even if an individual achieves fame through false claims they may still be notable, e.g. Anna Anderson, Princess Caraboo. But it would be nice to find more sources that discuss whether he is a fake: parts of the article are close to original research. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content in the article is about a man who almost died seven times, and I agree that it is absolute relevant. But the truth is that it is about a music teacher who lied to a journalist, it is obvious that the story is fake and that makes the article irrelevant! /Bro(sv) (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By chance, just recently - one year after I raised some doubts in the Selak article's talk page - I've created List of disasters in Croatia by death toll. Now, Selak allegedly survived at least one incident (1963 aircraft crash) that would have easily made that list, but I still could not find anything about it apart from what Selak claims. This is highly suspect. On achieving notability through false claims: no problem with that, but there are apparently no sources that state his claims are false (BBC only goes as far as "not independently verified"), so Selak is not even notable as a hoaxer. GregorB (talk) 09:58, 23 April 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - given that there was apparently no independent verification of these claims, the WP:SIGCOV standard isn't really met - if we just have detailed assertions and no corroboration, we can't say we have (f)actual details. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while almost certainly a fantasist, he has received coverage across multiple countries, languages and decades, with in-depth coverage and evidence of journalist fact-checking / skepticism. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Future edits to the article should be based on lengthy, skeptical, in-depth sources, as opposed to brief, credulous, sensationalistic sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 5 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. Consensus against deletion is clear. The merge is No consensus and may be proposed again on the article talk page(s) as soon as anyone cares to. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Occupied Times of London[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article is not notable. I've searched for suitable references but apart from those already listed, there's nothing. Besides, they date from over three years ago with nothing more recent. It's not clear if it is still a printed newspaper or is online only and updates are somewhat irregular. The latest edition is from April, the one prior to that in October 2014, the one prior to that March 2014. On this basis, I propose deletion. Horsemask (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Visual Media and Culture of Occupy". pp. 98–101.
^ Visual Media and Culture of Occupy. p. 41.
^ "Occupy London: The First Edition Of The Occupied Times Hits The Presses". The Huffington Post UK.
^ Stella Tsolakidou. "Greek Graphic Designers Behind 'The Occupied London Times' Paper". Greek Reporter.
^ "St Paul's protesters publish newspaper". Press Gazette.

– Of note is that the most recent edition of The Occupied Times of London was published in April 2015. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the sources you've provided kind of prove my point. At the end of 2011/beginning of 2012, everything Occupy London did got some sort of press attention. Doesn't make it notable and deserving of its own article, especially when there has been no sustained or even recent coverage. Ultimately, it's just an irregularly published student ezine that got a name-check in someone's PhD thesis once. Horsemask (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For additional rationale regarding this topic's notability, see also WP:NTEMP, Notability is not temporary. Also of note is that the book source I provided above is not "someone's PhD thesis". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also okay with a merge to Occupy LSX. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Occupy LSX I can't see how the paper is notable in and of itself, the publication of the first one was reported on, but that seems to be about it. Paulbrock (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Occupy LSX makes sense given the very limited notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 23 April 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 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The book and newspaper articles clearly establish that the subject is notable. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is applicable here.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Occupied Times of London to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Seems to have numerous credible sources specifically written about it. AusLondonder (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nom has been blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet , series of politically-motivated AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came back for a 2nd look. This small paper got a small flurry of attention, really pretty small, when the Occupy movement was all over the news. It has gotten very little since, and even what did get later tends to be shortly thereafter and referring back to that moment (see for example: Open Democracy, October 2012 "with expert activists and popular education (see for example the “Occupied Times of London[18]”) or with..." [34]) Therefore, I continue to think that it is most appropriate to have this information form a section within the main article on the topic. Merge into Occupy LSX. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Occupy LSX for the reasons explained above. Bfpage |leave a message 18:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oppose merge, subject is notable and notability is not temporary.--Darrelljon (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG based on the 4 references presently in the article. The book cited by North America above increases this notability - Visual Media and Culture of ‘Occupy’ by Pamela Odih, published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014, chapter three: Occupied Times: Print Media and the Revolutionary Press, pages 98 - 132 - discussion of "print-capitalism", the development of "multiplatform digital media" and the "phenemenolgy of The Occupied Times of London as print media."Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 14 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 00:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Aziz[edit]

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

This article was written by sockpuppet of User:Rachitrali please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akbaralighazi/Archive , this article is written about him based on resources he left on internet. Mjbmr (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not written this article. This article is written by some wikipedian. I have no relation to the Writer of this article. please remove the deletion log- - Rachitrali (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not written this article. This article is written by some wikipedian. I have no relation to the Writer of this article. please remove the deletion log- - Rachitrali (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This originally contained a header titled "Request for Undelete" that was messing up the way the nomination was showing up in the AfD archives, so I've removed it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mjbmr, the sockmaster for this appears to be Akbaralighazi and you've listed Rachitrali as a suspected sockpuppet at this investigation. There have been other editors that have edited the article since its creation in 2012 (Bgwhite, Hamneto, Salamurai) so it may be better to argue for deletion based on criteria other than sockpuppetry. Some of the editors I've mentioned edited the article quite extensively and while these were undone by confirmed socks, this doesn't make it a clean delete on that basis alone. There is a decent assertion of notability here so it would be better to clean the article up to remove promotional content or any WP:PUFFERY than to delete it outright due to sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 Do you mind checking the resources too? Is he even notable? Mjbmr (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Tokyogirl. It was written several years ago and has been edited since then. Sockpuppetry is no longer a reason to delete. A brief look at the sources (some are not reliable) looks like he is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources are pretty poor and the only one that appears to be remotely usable is this one by the Pamir Times. (I can't find any sort of proof of editorial oversight so even that source is dubious.) There are, however, some pretty big claims in the article that would make for a valid assertion of notability if they can be backed up to prove that they are as major as they claim, like the national award. Now if you can prove that he isn't notable then that would help prevent recreation of the article if the consensus is to delete. (See WP:G4) However in order to prove he is non-notable you will have to show that the awards he received were not major enough to give partial or complete notability and that his coverage in the news (or other reliable sources) was so trivial that it can't be considered reliable. For example, if he was brought on to a show to comment on something else then that would not be considered something that would give notability. However if he was brought on to talk about something that he did (ie, himself and his specific work) then that would count for notability as long as the source is reliable. A blog source would not show notability. It doesn't help that this guy has spammed the Internet with various blog claims (like this one that claims that he received a major award from Wikipedia but actually just received a barnstar), but there are some sources out there that do show that there may be more coverage in one of the non-English languages spoken in Pakistan. ([35], [36], [37]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow wikidata item d:Q3240863, you can check creation user and creation time and delete log of each article on each wiki, for example check delete log in Persian Wikipedia, I actually reported that back in 2011 to Mardetanha when there was no such a resource about him, most resource are for 2012 now. Then Mardetanha created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (delete log) then he created the article in a different title, or check creation user on Arabic Wikipedia, it's even himself not his socks. Recently he also tried to join language committee of Wikimedia by referring to what he is based on this article (archive log). Mjbmr (talk) 07:00, 21 April 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 01:10, 26 April 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 03:59, 3 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) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Hurrell-Zitelman[edit]

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

Non-notable college swimmer. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). There is no specific notability guideline for swimmers, but they often qualify under WP:NOLYMPICS, but this swimmer does not, having never competed in the Olympics nor any other senior international swimming event. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like she is retired as there is no mention of training for 2016. Records are school records only and not national. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 17 April 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 17:02, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No national titles and no international experience. Her college titles and/or records alone doesn't warrant a page. Philipmj24 (talk) 18:55, 3 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 00:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan DeFelice[edit]

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

Past president of a minor college. Not at all clear that he passes the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong, Last week I began working on the article for the current president of Saint Anselm, and it appears that the discussion has resulted in the possible deletion of Fr. DeFelice's article. I welcome the opportunity to update this article to correct the errors to meet the guidelines, and of course the article received approval when it was first launched - the author is no longer with the college - I recognize some bio content was not cited/cited correctly, so I made edits today to improve these and add notable content. An equivalent article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Leahy, which was marked "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification." and not marked for deletion. Thank you in advance for your comments and the opportunity for further review and discussion. Best, 184.75.195.194 (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: Today I noticed a new message posted on this article: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline...." Is it possible to provide some feedback on the yesterday's revisions: content edited; citations that had been removed from the internet were fixed; and citations added - all supporting notability, and in general college presidents are considered notable and have separate articles across Wiki. Thanks in advance! 184.75.195.194 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Update. In the new message I followed the links to find more citations and added a bunch from the 'newspaper' link. I'll check 'news' tomorrow, but if you could please let me know if there's enough citations to remove the deletion and/or it's moving in the right direction, that would be helpful! Thanks! You can reach me at User talk:Dyan at SAC Dyan at SAC (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Testing signature difference logged in or not logged in. (User talk:Dyan at SAC) 184.75.195.194 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint Anselm College. No independent notability from the college to sustain a separate article. Cavarrone 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cavarrone, Might you be able to share what is the criteria of notability for a college president? I've been adding citations that demonstrate notability/Defelice is a significant public figure in New Hampshire, the longest standing president in the state, and someone who has made a positive contribution within the community. Other college presidents have separate articles on Wiki, which is why I ask about the criteria. Thanks for your time and feedback. Dyan at SAC (talk) 14:48, 24 April 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, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dylan at SAC and the other users on this page that are against the deletion. As the founder of this wikipedia page, I support it's continued existence... --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'Strictly according to WP:PROF, it's only presidents of "major" academic institutions that are presumed notable, but in practice we have for many years been accepting the presidency of almost any university or 4-yr college (in the US system; equivalents elsewhere). There have been a few very minor ones that haven't made it, but St Anselm's is fully important enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 28 April 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 03:58, 3 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megan (RFR character)[edit]

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

Non notable fictional character that is written completely in universe style. Wgolf (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. I don't see any analysis or coverage of the character that is not otherwise a summary of the show. maclean (talk) 20:04, 17 April 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 17:05, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No references to be found except for a bunch that appear to be simply mirroring this article. Even the article simply refers to her as 'a very quiet person.' valereee (talk) 19:18, 11 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 and redirect to Sitting Target. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kulick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Film producer with just a few credits total that I can't find much notability for. From what I can tell only one of the films is even notable. Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, I think better, redirect to Sitting Target, I did find mentions, even a couple places where he got a whole sentence of coverage, but I don't see sources meeting WP:BASIC. Ping me if something substantial is found. --j⚛e decker ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirect is actually a great idea! Wgolf (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 17 April 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 17:07, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Barry Kulick Two Gentlemen Sharing -wikipedia and came up with several mentions, but just as part of the list of the main people involved with the film. Maybe WP:TOOSOON ? valereee (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sitting Target. I was considering closing this, and given the past AfD history, I think a few more voices would be expected before we over turn that, even if notability criteria are much stricter now, there was strong support for keeping it in AfD1. That said, I a redirect sounds like a great solution. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:41, 15 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. The discussion is leaning keep, but due to a lack of participation, closing as no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Indian Ocean Cable Company[edit]

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

An wholesaler of telecomms and internet connectivity. Little evidence of notability but any case is a specialised company like this of interest in a general encyclopedia? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 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) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as something a general interest encyclopedia should cover. Appears to be notable enough. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- per significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 30 April 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 03:56, 3 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 23:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SATMAP, Inc.[edit]

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

This article is based on regurgitated press releases and PR pieces. In the Highbeam Research alleged reference is a press release. There are references to Gartner, these are behind a paywall, not a drawback in itself, but difficult to verify. There is no asserted and certainly no verified notability here. Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 April 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, 25 April 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 03:55, 3 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flavour Magazine[edit]

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

Article about free magazine with no indication of notability and apparently no reliable references since 2008. I've looked at the first 10 pages of ghits and can't see any. (I've declined my own prod as it seems to have been prodded once before.) Peridon (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous prod appears to have been declined because the tagger was tagging other magazine articles after his was deleted at AfD. In this case, I feel he was correct and the prod should not have been declined. (His prods for Loaded and Nuts were fairly certainly not going to get anywhere...) Peridon (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:55, 22 April 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 17:12, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, google search brings up nothing. article originally created by User talk:Flavourmag (now banned - spamblock) who appeared to be a wp:spa.Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 14 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 merge to Business Recorder. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Recorder Group[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Search on Google News shows no relevant articles. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 07:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Business Recorder as obviously that's their notable flagship service and notability is not inherited to the org. Info such as ownership of AAJ TV by the same corp and a minimal list of other ventures (if verifiable per WP:ABOUTSELF) needs to be preserved into the Business Recorder article. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. It certainly has no WP:Notability by itself. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:56, 23 April 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 00:38, 25 April 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 03:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with Business Recorder--I think it's still up for discussion whether there's anything in this article worth saving (as it's unsourced). Article definitely fails WP:GNG by itself. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:08, 10 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 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Jaisingh[edit]

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

Too soon with only 2 roles so far per TOOSOON Regards, KunalForYou ^📝^☎️ 15:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-too soon. (Though I do find it funny that someone with the same first name is putting up the AFD as the name of the page lol-just a observance!) Wgolf (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 April 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 17:16, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and is only an upcoming actor and is case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Might be notable in the future, but not for now. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:05, 10 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! 14:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winiso[edit]

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

Article about software which does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article passes WP:NSOFT. In particular, it fulfils "The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers," by appearing in a number of instruction books. The book search link at the top of this notice finds a number of books suggesting the use of WinISO in the context of system administration and troubleshooting. In addition, the article lists WinISO as "the first ISO editing software in the world," which would lend it historical significance if true, though the citation references the software's website and might not be reliable. 129.67.156.156 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user at IP address 129.67.156.156 makes a good point: That's a pretty significant, albeit unverified, claim. And it does get mention in various sources. I'm certainly no fan of spam Wikipedia articles that have no effort put in to them, but I'm also not a fan of deletion nominations that are WP:JUSTAPOLICY, either. If this article is demonstrably bunk, it deserves to be deleted, but that hasn't been demonstrated. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:48, 22 April 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, Nakon 23:55, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (which is an essay, not a guideline or policy). It does not fulfill the subject of multiple third party materials criteria as it is not the subject of those books. Brief mentions do not grant notability. The only source for "the first ISO editing software in the world" is the software's website, so doubtful, and likely does not grant it notability anyways. ― Padenton|✉ 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Configuring VMware ESX Server 2.5 (Syngress, 2005) devotes three pages to discussing how to use the software, which is more than "trivial mention". But the others Google finds do seem to just mention it in passing as a product that fits a need, so that's a valid point for them. I did find one worthwhile review at TechRepublic, but it doesn't assert notability. I disagree that "first in a field" would not grant notability. Being the first of something is almost always significant. However, the lack of reliable sources does make that claim suspect, and I haven't been able to find anything reliable to back it up, so it's highly dubious. On the third hand, WP:NSOFT does say that "Simply stating 'non notable' and 'unreferenced' is not a valid criteria for deletion.", so I'm still concerned that this is being nominated for deletion just because people are not looking. (If people are looking and just not finding, they should please say so.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:40, 12 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MedPost Urgent Care[edit]

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

Non-notable subsidiary. Only independent ref focuses on parent. PROD removed by editor most of whose edits are to this article. If deleted, redirect to Tenet Healthcare. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is similar to MinuteClinic and Concentra. I've also added additional independent references focusing on MedPost and their expansion plans. Cdjarman (talk) 2:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is shocking that this dinky little walk-in clinic could be considered WP:Notable. Who are we kidding here? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:12, 30 April 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 03:50, 3 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! 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV Petelin[edit]

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

Non-notable local music TV station. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - could be mentioned in the articles Telemach (now provided by Petelin d.o.o.) and Saša Lendero [sl].[38][39] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:59, 22 April 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 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, much less any indication of notability or reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:58, 25 April 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 03:50, 3 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippines national football team hat-tricks[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not pass WP:GNG. AndaleCaballo (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of notable people doing a notable achivement. Part of a bigger scheme of hat-tricks by team and could easily be improved to FL status, compare with List of England national football team hat-tricks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the topic can be notable, but is not automatically, and this particular example fails WP:GNG. Also bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 07:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:SAL and then get back to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. That is a MOS guideline about how to lay out these lists, not about their notability. Try and find that and then get back to me. Giant Snowman 12:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LSC, a section on that page, addresses this subject, though this is just an observation on my part; I haven't considered how it might apply here either way. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that such things are notable. These are things that's "if it's notable at X, then it's good enough for Y. In other words, it's apples and apples. Those who are voting for deletion mean any mention of these should be extinguished at Wikipedia. I don't think people meant that; so that's a merge. Is this list and the parent article both long enough to warrant WP:SPLIT? –H T D 12:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is completely wrong, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 13:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I'm not bound to abide by an WP:ESSAY. AFDs need consensus for deletion, no consensus defaults to keep. Articles existing for a long time are perfectly valid precedents. If this has to be deleted, the reasons have to be better than "because other articles have it, but this shouldn't". –H T D 13:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument may be valid or invalid but if a list of hat-tricks done by international players of Australia, Scotland, Belgium, France, Japan and Romania are notable enough to warrant their own article why not by Philippine players isn't. A hat-trick is a notable acchievement. Systemic bias may be in play here since the Philippines isn't one of "football powerhouses". It doesn't matter if an article made by international players of Brazil, Bhutan, Guam or any FIFA member nation is created as long as it is sourced in my opinion which is the case of this article.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:11, 25 April 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 03:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to make of this. On one hand, elevating the England version and deleting the Philippines version feels very much like WP:BIAS. On the other hand, this list looks like synthesis—most, if not all, of the references only support that a given hat trick occurred, rather than discussing the putative topic of Philippine national team hat tricks. The England article is better about this, though a majority of its references seem to only regard a single hat trick. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 6 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. Claims of inherent notability need a consensus to support that argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Lauren Glakas[edit]

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

This is a vanity page about a beauty pageant contestant that doesn't meet [WP: BASIC]. Of the three sources, one points to a general registry.com page; the other two are articles containing quotes of her responding to a statement made in 2008 and don't make her notable. Chillllls (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Chillllls (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per strong prior AfD precedent. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Hartley for some good "keep" arguments in an identical deletion discussion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 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 03:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as winner of the Miss Virginia Teen USA 1999, Miss Virginia USA 2004, and Miss Virginia 2005 titles, any one of which would be sufficient for notability, and one of just seven women to compete in all three of the related national pageants. - Dravecky (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:53, 6 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 both--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transilvania International Guitar Festival[edit]

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

Neither of these two topics has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:18, 25 April 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 03:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced.- Andrei (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Both fail GNG because neither of them has any significant independent coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:28, 8 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 United States presidential election, 2016#Debates. No objections to anyone reverting the redirect once more info & sources pop up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election debates, 2016[edit]

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

this is way too soon to have its own article. we should not create it until at least just before the first debate (unless the decision process becomes particularly newsworth). redirect to CPD and put a small note there for this info. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States presidential election, 2016#Debates until actual details are mentioned; everything here is the same as it is in the main article. Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there had been no information available about these debates, I would have opted to redirect, but since the process has actually started (i.e. venue selection), there is material available on the topic, so it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. Number 5 7 13:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nate, for the time being. Restore to article form when more information/content becomes available. Until then, no need to duplicate content.--JayJasper (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Number 57's point. Gage (talk) 13:28, 2 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 03:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:Duplicate article. At the present time, it is a mere duplicate of United States presidential election, 2016#Debates, so a standalone page is clearly redundant at this point. As Nate and JayJasper have pointed out, the article can be re-started when there is more information and the content expands beyond what could be reasonably be contained in the aforementioned section. Seems like a no-brainer, really.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Indeed, quite a no-brainer that the article is an unnecessary duplicate of the main article until the debates actually happen. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, until more information is available. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:23, 7 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) 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1901 Census of Rajputana[edit]

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

This is a transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless.

I am sure some other articles in this same series, by the same creator, have already been deleted. I will try to track them down and leave an additional note here. Sitush (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my creation of Census of India prior to independence. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- Sometimes a bad estimate is better than no estimate. This purports to be a summary of about 25 pages of data. If that existed somewhere else, it might be appropriate to have a short critical article with a link to an external data source. I have read Census of India prior to independence (which needs renaming to Censuses in India prior to independence), from which it is clear that the British had difficulty in obtaining accurate data. Nevertheless, however bad they are, the results exist, which measn that it is appropriate for WP to report them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of keeping rubbish? Only ARS usually want that. We have a critical article, as you have read, and both the figures and the links in this nominated article are wrong. They are not even estimates but rather flawed and inconsistently enumerated exercises in scientific racism. It wasn't so much that the Brits had difficulty getting the information as they didn't understand it, either before, during or after each census: thus they couldn't plan properly and they couldn't analyse. Many millions of people appeared and disappeared in the records for each area/community etc and, worse, the Brits ignited the fuse of caste rivalry with their stupidity, ignorance and flawed attempts to control, resulting in the mess that is Indian society today. If you have not understood their fundamental lack of understanding from the Census of India prior to independence article then either you need to re-read the thing or I need to rewrite it.
Time and again, this stuff has been deleted and I see no reason why this particular example should be any different. Take a look at all of the article creator's "X clans of Y division" articles that have been deleted, all relying on censuses such as that of 1901 and all merely regurgitating the tables as is done in this particular article. People want to read that? Fine, they can: the creator has left WP and is now happily republishing this nonsense elsewhere. Here, umpteen experienced contributors the India-related sphere have consistently said "delete". - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can certainly see the value in covering this topic with an article that outlines the context, methods, results, consequences, etc. of the 1901 census, but that appears to be what Census of India prior to independence does. If the population estimates are useful, then they can be summarized at Rajputana, where they can be put into context. As it stands, this fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 2 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 03:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this clearly violates WP:NOT#STATS and WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK. I trust Sitush's expertise on this subject. 50.248.37.26 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... the concept is almost certainly notable as for any census, and especially one this modern, almost certainly commentary exists discussing its significance and implications. None of those sources are cited here and it is a requirement that Wikipedia articles meet notability criteria. Right now the article is a sort of transcription. Definitely this text could go into Wikisource, but not in its current abbreviated and revised format. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 13 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. There seems to be no consensus here for batch deletion. Feel free to renominate individual articles. (If your going to nominate many of them, spread them out so its not flooding AfD all at once, and people have time to look for sources for each article, doing them too quickly can cause objections to mass nominations) Monty ₈₄₅ 17:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amateurs Radio Algeriens[edit]

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

A series of 83 articles on amateur radio societies: generic copy&paste content, tagged for notability since 2010.

Full list of nominated articles

For comparison purposes, articles not part of this nomination because they have more content (but still questionable notability) and are better suited for stand-alone discussions:

Articles NOT part of the nomination
South African Radio League Radio Society of Great Britain Trinidad and Tobago Amateur Radio Society Wireless Institute of Australia New Zealand Association of Radio Transmitters American Radio Relay League -- most developed article

Renata (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Amateur Radio Union. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Amateur Radio Union, where basic descriptions can be added to the list there if anyone endeavors to do so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Royal Union of Belgian Radio Amateurs, slight keep: the appellation "Royal" is awarded by the state and is not really common - it certainly indicates that the society has official recognition as a civic organization, rather than just being a non-notable band of enthusiasts. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But "official recognition as a civic organization, rather than just being a non-notable band of enthusiasts" is actually true of all of them. The existence of a national representative organisation for amateur radio in member countries is an explicit requirement in terms of the rules of the International Telecommunications Union. Such organisations are required to exist by international law. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Roger. All of these societies are organized into some soft of non-profit entities. But just because they exist, does not mean they are notable. Renata (talk) 18:28, 26 April 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 03:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - for all of them. J 1982 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:J 1982, why? Renata (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont see any real argument to delete. This massive network of radio amateurs are notable, as they are presented in media, we have sources about them, and looking as a joint entity its even more important. radio amateurs were vital part of international struggle and most of then needs to be expanded, and not redirected... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Anastan What sources in the media? If you have access to independent reliable sources for these stubs please add them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each of these articles must be evaluated on their own merit and these should not be AfDed in a aggregate nomination. The premise of the nomination, that these topics are not notable because they are short and mass-produced, it not viable. Notability is assessed independent of article length or quality; it is the potential and availability of sources which is important. I have investigated Norsk Radio Relæ Liga, which represents one of the smallest counties. Said organization has an entry in a general-purpose encyclopedia ([40]), the gold standard for notability. The organization is part of the official search and rescue capability of the country, collaborating closely with the Ministry of Justice. A news search found 171 entries printed news sources, many of which were about the organization. It is natural to believe similar amounts of information can be located for other organizations, emphasizing the need for an independent investigation of each case. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I searched French Google for sources and found one news article about the 50th anniversary of this organization. I added that. If anyone found one more source then this article would meet WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 13 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. A smattering of brief mentions in other contexts does not meet GNG and there is sufficient analysis of the sourcing to confirm that is the case. For an AFD to set aside a guideline or wider accepted inclusion standard a clear consensus is required. That isn't here so the votes based on policy considerations win the day Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Historical Society[edit]

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

Small local society. No significant independent sources, only a smattering of mentions in mostly local sources. Does not meet any notability guideline (specifically: fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG). Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support keeping - I have added some further references to the article and included mention that the society is the third oldest in Victoria, the second largest, and has been involved in numerous commemorative events and dedicating monuments, is often cited as the authoritative source on early Geelong people and history and has also played a major role in the preservation of Geelong's Historic Monuments such as the Barwon Sewer Aqueduct. It was instrumental in the establishment of the Geelong Historical Records Centre as an approved place of deposit for historic local government records, giving it an official role in the preservation of historic records in the state. Having looked at the range of other historical societies with Wikipedia articles List of historical societies, I would say the Geelong article falls in the middle in terms of notability of the subject. Given the significant role that historical societies generally play world-wide in the recording and presentation of history, as a group they might be considered important contributors to Wikipedia projects, so that rather than discourage their participation by over zealous deletion, some greater encouragement could be given, or even some assistance in developing the articles to improve their quality and adherence to Wikipedia standards. After all one of the five pillars WP:IAR tells us to be bold.Garyvines (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with Garyvines' interpretation of the soruces and their importance. Being "the third oldest in Victoria" is hardly a claim to notability (actually, being the oldest local history society in Victory wouldn't even be much of a claim either). Of course such a society organizes commemorative events and dedicates monuments. Tnhat only contributes to notability, though, if it has been noted, as verificable through significant coverage in reliable sources, which is not the case here. As for "often cited", that really is something I don't see. The references provided here show a handful of in-passing mentions in mainly local sources. The Geelong Historical Records Centre itself does not really look notable either. It's only logical that such a society has an archive and there's nothing really special about that. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS really isn't a strong argument either. Nor am I convinced that this is a case where IAR is applicable. (Indeed often abused as noted in Piotrus's op-ed in this week's Signpost). --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't really see the relevance of Piotrus's op-ed - am I right in my reading that he is talking about spam, self promotion and advertising?, not small but significant community organisations which make an important contribution to social capital, something Jimmy Wales was actually on about in starting Wikipedia in the first place. It took you only a few minutes to decide the article was not notable and that it should be deleted - when it might involve hours of research over several weeks of months for someone trying to find the sources and seek out the networks of other editors that can help establish notability. Do you think only fully finished and supported articles should be put up on Wikipedia? If so, this would seem to negate the whole collaborative effort idea, since how will anything last long enough for the collaborators to find it and come up with the additional sources. Perhaps you may have noticed some of the comments on Piotrus's article - quite a few make similar points, such as "Wikipedia deletion processes are drowning in frivolous nominations for deletion: is it a surprise that those who know how to navigate this convoluted system are thriving, while good faith contributors are leaving Wikipedia?" and "if all good faith contributors are chased out of Wikipedia there will be no one left to contribute content that brings readers here, and no one left to fix errors" and in reference to company articles "The point is that amateur editors without expertise in every topic area cannot always be expected to distinguish the stub of a notable firm which should be kept and worked on from a less notable firm whose article appears to be better developed and referenced. We don't want to punish the firm who doesn't spam by deleting a good-faith stub about them which may have been created by a disinterested editor who may not have the time or motivation to finish their stub, and is hoping someone else will do it." I see much of your editing is policework, rather than creating new content. How about just giving people more time like a warning instead of dragging them off to the lockup.Garyvines (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus' op-ed has no other significance here than what I already said: it also argues that IAR is otften invoked for no good reason, i.e., to argue for keeping an article on a non-notable subject, as you do here. As for your argument that we should first spend months to research notability, yes, if you get consensus for that view, we can do away with WP:AFD. In the meantime, once an article is at AfD, the onus is upon those arguing for it to be kept to provide sources that show notability. Obviously, I cannot show sources that show non-notability, all I can say is that to the best of my knowledge, significant independent sources don't appear to be available. As for my editing habits, please comment on the issue, not people. As for the warning: there was a PROD giving editors 7 days time to improve the article and come up with sources. Now that it was removed and we are at AfD, there still are 7 days to go to do this. If nobody can come up with good sources in a week, then they're probably not there. BTW, I take offense at your use of the expression "frivolous nominations". This nom is firmly based in policy, please withdraw that remark. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"frivolous nominations for deletions" is comment on Piotrus' op-ed, not mine. My comment on the issue is that eagerness to delete articles created in good faith is limiting inclusiveness and therefore not in the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative process. I simply ask for greater patience from the deleters - "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception".Garyvines (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree that it fails GNG. I think the referencing could definitely be improved, but it clearly has independent coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could tell us how it meets GNG. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it meets GNG in the following way: - references so far include nineteen sources in total referring to the society spanning over 60 years, only two of which not independent of the subject, they include a thorough history of the creation of the society. These are reliable third party secondary sources, including newspapers and published books. Sitting down here at the bottom of Australia, and with a special interest in the history of Victoria, Australia, I recognise my own biases, and could see why others elsewhere in the world would not see this.However, within the admittedly smaller publishing world down here, notability may still be evident at a local level. Garyvines (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, the sources are minor (e.g., the Geelong Advertiser's obituary of Peter Alsopp, a -brief- paragraph on Peter Alsopp mentioning that he has been president of the society), the mentions in, for example, the Burke book are just in passing, as is the mention in the Fyfe book; one "reference" is just a description on a memorial plaque posted on a related web site; the reference of the magazine in Ulrich's is meaningless (Ulrich's is an all-inclusive directory publishing user-provided data); the "reference" to Heritage Australia is a page with a collection of links (and if you click through to the entry for this society, it turns out to be just a directory entry); another "reference" is a Word document with a report on a proposal to nominate something a heritage object that only mentions the society once; etc. There is, in short, not a single independent source discussing the society in-depth, making this a clear fail of GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to concede there is no "single independent source", but the effect of numerous minor references along with the broad chronological coverage might stand for something. Although it is not referring to notability the article WP:NOTFATRAT gives me encouragement that my view is more in the spirit of Wikipedia. In looking through the reasons for notability policies WP:WHYN, I can tick all the boxes: *"significant coverage" so that we can actually write a whole article" - coverage is in a variety of sources over a long time period (- even if they are minor), including one comprehensive history of the subject organisation; *"reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip etc. - the sources are all reliable; *"independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article, tick; *at least one secondary source - tick; *multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article - tick; *organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed - tick. Again I feel that this article is in the spirit of Wikipedia, and while a narrow and aggressive application of the rules might be applied, I feel my approach is more in keeping with the philosophy of Wikipedia, as Dennis Denuto would say, "its the vibe of the thing". Garyvines (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Geelong Heritage Centre (itself of dubious notability). All I see are mentions in passing. Did I miss any non-self published source that discusses this in depth? It fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), and also my proposed liberalization of it, which would accept all regional, national or international organizations recognized as significant by a number of peers. This is a local (city) organization, and I think there is a line we have to draw. Until such a point that someone (newspaper, scholar) writes a piece describing the history of and significance of this org, we are not Yellow Pages, listing all local businesses and NGOs. That said, my op-ed was intended to shine light (and bring flame) to the for-profit spam; this article was created in good faith and is not intended to advertise somebody's business or appease someone's vanity. Unfortunately, not all NGOs are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks Piotrus for your views. There is a self published source that discusses this in depth, (Peter Mansfield, "The Multiple Births of the Geelong Historical Society", Investigator June 2012 pp.63-70), but of course this would not be admissible under the notability rules. Similarly the large corpus of material published by the society itself would probably not be sufficient. The problem I see, is that there a range of volunteer organisations, which make considerable contributions to the knowledge base in a quiet way, and therefore do not get the sort of secondary promotion that is generated in the for profit section. The result is a very unbalanced coverage in Wikipedia, where the most insignificant and short-lived commercial organisation can meet the rules but a longstanding and prolific volunteer research and publishing organisation that has had an important impact on its local area misses out.Garyvines (talk) 09:56, 19 April 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, Sandstein 15:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Geelong Heritage Centre. I appreciate that Australia is a young country, but I would have thought that all public archive repositories were notable. I note that it is designated by the state institution. Public Record Office Victoria. The Society would seem to be notable mainly for gathering the collecteion for the Centre and can probably be covered sufficiently in that article. I am surprised to find that I did not commnet on the previous discussion: I thought that i had. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Local History Wiki page [Geelong Historical Society] be modified in sync with whatever is decided here (and can be made use of). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:30, 28 April 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 03:18, 3 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. elected, WP:NPOL no longer an issue. KTC (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Blackford[edit]

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

My re-direct and then Prod reverted by article creator and main content contributor, User:Drchriswilliams, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Ian Blackford's main claim to fame and, it appears, the reason this article was created is because he is a candidate in the 2015 UK general election. WP:NPOL is clear that being a candidate does not make you notable. User:Drchriswilliams argues that "article is well referenced bio about a person who is not just an election candidate". There are 9 citations given:
1. Page not found.
2. Primary source, not secondary source. Not mainly about Blackford
3. Primary source, not secondary source. Not mainly about Blackford
4. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
5. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
6. Brief data listing about his two past candidacies
7. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
8. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
9. Candidate selection
WP:GNG is clear that citations have to provide "significant coverage" of the individual. These do not. Notability requires more than articles quoting an individual: they have to say something substantive about the individual. I favour speedy deletion, or rather a re-direct to the relevant constituency. Should Mr Blackford be elected, then material can be restored. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Drchriswilliams has since helpfully expanded the article with additional citations, so my numbering in the above assessment is now wrong. I haven't been through the new content myself yet; others may judge whether it now demonstrates notability. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The stuff there looks like standard C.V.-type stuff, and doesn't establish notability. Not notable until (if!) he wins the election.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.138.233 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2015‎
Keep I'm disappointed that the nominator went straight for suggesting deletion of this article, rather than adding some improvement tags. For anyone who hasn't realised, there is an election in the UK and there is some increased activity around articles with a political connection. I have added some further references (there are now over 30, mostly from newspapers and other secondary sources). I would disagree that it the suggestion about "cv-type stuff"- please look at the article, not simply the proposer's initial comments. The subject of this article has had a successful career as a banker and has been active as a member of civic society. There is no criteria for notability for a buisinessperson but I think he does meet WP:GNG through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources- he has been written about in multiple newspaper articles by journalists. He was also previously the treasurer of a political party who had a high-profile fallout with the party's leadership which had significant media coverage of this beyond the articles listed above, such as here: [41], [42], [43] and [44]. On this basis I think he may also meet WP:POLITICIAN He has also provided expert opinion about banking to political debate, such as here: [45], [46] and he was a high-profile person during Scotland's recent referendum. Just for clarity, I don't have any connection with the individual in this article, or their political party. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC) and I updated these comments while waiting for others to post. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The coverage looks to be significant enough to establish notability now that the article has been expanded since it was nominated for deletion. The Observer article here and the BBC article here particularly persuade me of this. Indeed there is some in the Observer article about his earlier expulsion from the SNP and a period in the Labour party which could be used to expand the current article. The subject of the article is not just notable for his present election campaign, so an article can stand whether or not he is elected. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 20 April 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 17:37, 25 April 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 03:16, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All In: How Our Work-First Culture Fails Dads, Families, and Businesses--And How We Can Fix It Together[edit]

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

Non notable just-published book--worldcat shows10 libraries have placed an order, Two trivial reviews, of which one , Kirkus,has become so indiscriminating that it is unreliable. In conjunction with the article on the author (see adjacent afd) amounts to pure advertising DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I question whether the Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews would be deemed "trivial" or anything about the article is "advertising", and in any event the book is receiving more reviews even before its formal publication date. Further, the book is based in large part on an EEOC case that (as noted in this NYTimes article) is non-trivial, and (as noted in the closed Josh Levs AFD) the book itself is receiving press. The EEOC case, in which Levs prevailed, is "one of the first complaints with the EEOC alleging discrimination against fathers" (per Washington post article). Though formal publication is two weeks in the future, we're already past the point at which WP:TOOSOON would even apply. RCraig09 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews from Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly are sufficient to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:41, 1 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 03:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note That this isn't even published yet. The pub date seems to be May 12.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
defer It doesn't pass WP:GNG yet. That requires some coverage of the book in RS beyond reviews in the trade press (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly). However, given the ongoing, pre-publication publicity ABC [47], LATimes [48] It seems unreasonable to delete it now, given the amount of sourcing already there, but equally unreasonaable to decide to keep it now, when it is still possible that the book when published will fall flat. Any decision made now depends on a CYRSTAL BALL, and I have misplaced mine. Therefore I suggest we defer a decision until, say, late May, when it will very probably be a Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe our notability guidelines for books are all too easy. This is more or less promotional in intent, but it does cite multiple reviews and is well enough done as these things go. Passes the Special Notability low bar for books. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 10 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Ideas[edit]

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

Propose to delete on notability grounds. It was a short-term squatted space some three and a half years ago. Most of the references on the article were the Bank of Ideas website which was a primary source and no longer exists. Horsemask (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occupy London. Even considering the versions before the Bank of Ideas article was radically reduced in size, I'm not convinced a separate article is required. If necessary their plenty of room of expand the Occupy London article with more information about the Bank of Ideas and indeed that article already covers it in various places on the page. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 20 April 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the article needs work I'm seeing sufficient sources specifically about the Bank of Ideas (rather than a mention in a larger piece about Occupy) to satisfy WP:GNG. Some of those (and some which talk about this substantially in connection to Occupy) see Vice, Guardian, Timeout, Adbusters, Dazed, New Statesman, Independent, Londonist... These were on the first couple pages of ghits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 30 April 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 03:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites. There are clearly a variety of sources on the subject. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a source review, passes WP:GNG, thus qualifying for an article. Also, notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 10 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Ahmed Ashai[edit]

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

Prodded in 2012. Still without sufficient RS. Appears to fail WP:BLP1E (newsworthy only for his killing). Pax 02:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I probably wouldn't say WP:BLP1E applies to someone notable for their death, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find much for sources to pass WP:BIO1E or WP:GNG either. I did find this but not much more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Death of Farooq Ahmed Ashai as is usual with killings of this sort I think this article form The Hindu [49] plus the long section in the Human Rights Watch report that User:Rhododendrites found are sufficient ot establish notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the proposal by E.M.Gregory, if BLP1E is the issue and notability of the event is established, then we just need to change the title of the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E .Thousands of people have been killed in the Kashmir Conflict now each one of them is not notable.This individual seems to have no significance except for being the victim of a crime and there is no significant coverage of the subject and there is no continued coverage beyond mere mention of his death.Clearly lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:DEPTH and is a ostensible discussion of its nominal subject .Now Several Doctor,Lawyer ,academic have been killed and everyone cannot have separate article merely because there death may mentioned in the media and everyone briefly mentioned in a human rights report also cannot have a separate article.

Lodi News-Sentinel - Feb 19, 1993 This merely mentions he was killed and it is the day of his death is a routine news about a death.
The Hindu more of a general article about Doctors being caught in militant crosshair and mentions the deaths of 3 Doctors including Dr. Abdul Ahad Guru and Dr. Sheikh Jalal-ud-din who were also killed in different incidents in addition to the subject .
[50] The Subject's death is mentioned in the Human rights report .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:44, 9 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 merge to Museum Boerhaave. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's Pen[edit]

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Pishcal — ♣ 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability may not be inherited but this item is on display in a museum of history and science. bbx (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to imply that an item on display in a museum is notable for being on display. Where is this mentioned in our guidelines? Does that make millions of artifacts on display in 55.000 museums (De Gruyter) notable? Also, how are you going to control for the display changes? Museum collections contain many more items. gidonb (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per other nom in article. We cannot have an article on every object in evry museum. It this case the object is only notable for an inherited reason. In its own right it is a NN pen. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Since this is an item in the collection of Museum Boerhaave, I had previously suggested merging this article into the entry of the museum (see discussion). Current references do not support an independent entry. gidonb (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While this pen may indeed be in a museum, it does not warrant an article in its own right. If this is permitted to remain as is, it could begin a trend that could be problematic in the future. Consider such articles as Robert E Lee's Wallet, George Washington's Handkerchief, or even Malcolm X's Boxing Gloves. While such things may warrant notable mention elsewhere, they do not justify unique articles in and of themselves. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:29, 7 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Lillienne[edit]

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

Non-notable music project, article created by the musician after his autobiography was deleted as A7. As an aside, unconnected with the notability of the topic but possibly relevant to the article history and this discussion, the user is indeffed for sockpuppetry on it.wp. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not even have a corresponding article on the Italian wiki. Elgatodegato (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources provided are not close to reliable. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:57, 10 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.billboard.com/song/vinyl-theatre/6457447/breaking-up-my-bones

[2] ttp://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/musicandnightlife/milwaukee-band-vinyl-theatre-signs-with-fueled-by-ramen-b99337806z1-272612761.html

[3] ttp://blog.siriusxm.com/2015/04/06/matt-kim-grab-the-no-1-slot-in-this-weeks-alt-18-33015/

[4] ttp://www.vinyltheatre.com/

[5] ttp://i2.wp.com/www.theyoungfolks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/quietisviolent.jpg

[6] ttp://www.altpress.com/magazine/issue/321_pierce_the_veil

[7] ttp://www.altpress.com/photoop/entry/photo_of_the_day_spring_2015

[8] [1]

[9] "Visual Media and Culture of Occupy". pp. 98–101.

[10] Visual Media and Culture of Occupy. p. 41.

[11] "Occupy London: The First Edition Of The Occupied Times Hits The Presses". The Huffington Post UK.

[12] Stella Tsolakidou. "Greek Graphic Designers Behind 'The Occupied London Times' Paper". Greek Reporter.

[13] "St Paul's protesters publish newspaper". Press Gazette.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]