Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 November	14 November >

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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Winnipeg poppy box thefts[edit]

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

With the greatest of respect to the Canadian veterans and others shocked by these crimes, I believe that this article does not meet the notability standards for high profile criminal events. A theft of $5,000 would not normally warrant an article if the perpetrators were not notable. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news that didn't get far beyond Winnipeg or the "in other news" rolls. Criminal tried, convicted and jailed, nothing more to say. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is news, and it is certainly old news, so it is unlikely this will ever become a notable event. WP:NOTNEWS Ceosad (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the others. Local story about a series of unremarkable thefts. If it causes a change in law or has some other lasting effect, then the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep till December or January Lacks notability, but it would be disrespectful for war veterans, people fighting for peace, victims and people harmed by war and violence (especially after yesterday's awful terrorist attacks in Paris) and for people harmed by this theft as Remembrance Day was just a few days ago. User:Red Icarus of Jakarta 17:09, 14,November 2015
Keep till December or January In support of User:Red Icarus of Jakarta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joburg Joe (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just isn't notable enough for an article. It happened and one of the two suspects were convicted and served time, but the crimes were not major enough to really gain the coverage needed for an article. Most thefts don't receive this coverage. Other than a handful of news stories around that point in time, there just isn't any coverage out there. We also can't justify keeping this around for a few months because articles need to show notability in the here and now. There's also a mild BLP issue here since only one of the people was actually convicted in court. I also note that per WP:CRIMINAL, neither person is particularly renowned and the motivations for their crimes aren't particularly unusual. The theft of charity boxes (of various types) isn't even that unusual as a whole, since it sadly happens all the time with various different charities. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Single event, non-notable. -O.R.^Comms 16:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Moneybox thefts are a common thing here in the UK (even on Remembrance Day!) but none of those have articles and so with the greatest of respect I don't see anything special here, Fails ONEEVENT, NOTNEWS & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 articles. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Kramer (author)[edit]

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

Writer with no discernible claim to notability. Article comments that he is "co-author with Diana Alstad of two books", which seems to be an attempt to garner notability from someone else. Unfortunately, the only claim to notability on her article is that she is "especially known as a co-author with Joel Kramer of two books". Hence joint nomination for deletion of both articles. Emeraude (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: Clearly fails WP:GNG. Also: WP:NOTINHERITED Ceosad (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems an attempt at self-promotion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - while there were a number of hits on the search engines, none appear to be about this person. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - changed vote above after researching second article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as I thought as I had comment before but my comment either way is that they're not currently outstandingly notable yet and nothing to convince otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CMU Treblemakers[edit]

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

Non-notable college choir - I came across this article after a redlink was added to List of collegiate a cappella groups but failed to find a single reliable secondary source about the group, so removed the entry. Reaching one of 29 (!) ICCA quarter finals is not really a major triumph and doesn't, in my view, help the subject get anywhere near close to Wikipedia's notability threshold. Sionk (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles in the List of collegiate a cappella groups are more built out than this one. I don't see a great barometer to measure off of because most don't have great sourcing, but this one is really bare. Also, I don't think the recognition is enough to make this pass. It should be like many of the other a capella groups that are included on the list page, but don't need its own. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability per WP:BAND, and the only coverage I can see of them online is their own posts to social media and some mentions in their university's PR. Norvoid (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 5-yo college singing group. No substantial coverage from reliable sources offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The other page mentioned should be nominated separately, if desired, since it has not been explicitly discussed here. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingpin Skinny Pimp[edit]

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

Appears to fail both the relevent notability guidelines and the general notability guidelines. There does not appear to be a lot published in reliable sources about him I can find. Mdann52 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Mdann52: You could have deleted this as a speedy delete, as this is a recreation of a previously deleted page. See: WP:G4 Ceosad (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ceosad: 1) I'm not an admin, so I can not. 2) this isn't clear-cut, so I decided to start another discussion - especially as the least deletion discussion was 7 years ago, and I cannot review the previous page to ensure it is near-identicle. Mdann52 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: My mistake, I somehow missed the fact that the previous nomination was so old... However, I too tried to find any independent sources or interviews, but I couldn't find anything to prove notability. Even the article in its current shape does not seem to imply that he would have been very active since the last nomination. I wonder if it would be justifiable to make him a redirect to the Prophet Entertainment. Here is an another related and problematic rapper: Al Kapone. Should he be bundled with this nomination? Ceosad (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he's simply not notable and with no better signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything here beyond the fact that he is a local musician with a bunch of small label releases but without any impact or significant press. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parenting_styles#Other_parenting_styles. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin parenting[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:NEO coined by either Shimi Kang or Shawn Achor a couple of years ago (the article has been edited back and forth to credit just one of them), with all sources being books or interviews from one or the other of those two people. Not seeing any sources demonstrating wider adoption. McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it has very questionable notability. I could find only Parental investment and Parental care in birds, so I guess it is not worth of doing a redirect either. Ceosad (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been previously redirected to Parenting styles#Other parenting styles where it has a short paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that. It would be a good place for a redirect. Ceosad (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe others out there are doing similar work, but it looks like only one author and book talk about this research. Maybe the information is important enough to include somewhere, but I don't think a full page is doing anything but promoting a not widely researched idea. The 'News response' links could be used to discuss on Parenting styles as mentioned above. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parenting styles#Other parenting styles. clpo13_(talk) 04:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Security Practices and Research Student Association[edit]

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

This doesn't look like it meets WP:ORG to me. I'm seeing minimal coverage from sources not affiliated with RIT. Most student organizations aren't independently notable, and that certainly seems to be the case here too. BDD (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find anything substantial for this to establish notability. Ceosad (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also found nothing to suggest obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominate to delete because there is simply no third-party sources to justify this page. To keep it, the page needs heavy documentation from third-party sources. As it stands now, I recommend this page for deletion. WikiWatcher987 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zude[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Insufficient Audience. The media cited are of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals). The one citation that would meet this (boston.com) makes no reference to Zude in any manner. Independence of sources, other citations are self published or are not sufficiently independent. Finally advertising and promotion is rampant in the article and needs to be significantly cleaned and scoured. Nomination on behalf of Tomtasget. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply no better improvement. Notifying tagger Safiel. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ceosad (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. SelgeBrown (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Sock of Tomtasget, the nominator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~per nomination.~~ Safiel (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing participation in this AfD Given that the nominator Tomtasget was engaging in sockpuppetry and given what I have observed on the article talk page, this AfD appears to be, at best, tainted. Withdrawing my vote. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet our standards as set out at WP:CORP and elsewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or merge You can all hash it out on the talkpage. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danger, Will Robinson[edit]

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

This pseudo-article is nothing but a giant trivia section, which has somehow survived for over a decade, and other than one (minor) point, the entire thing is completely unsourced. This is exactly what Wikiquote is supposed to be for; the (minimal) salvageable content would be of far more use to the reader as a sentence at Robot B-9. ‑ iridescent 17:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danger, Wikipedia, Danger It's easy enough to find sources as the catchphrase appears in thousands of books, including the following encyclopedia: Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia; The Encyclopedia of Sixties Cool; An Encyclopedia of Robots from TV, Film, Literature, Comics, Toys, and More; A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century; The Lost in Space Encyclopedia. The worst case would be merger into another page such as Robot B-9. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, I'm not seeing any case for deletion here. Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This got me wondering who the guy was who would slap his mouth: "fun *pop* fun *pop* fun *pop*". It turns out that we have this covered too – see Zumdish. Kudos to the editor who did that. Andrew D. (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add in enough redirects so you would always be able to find the mouth popping guy, because you will forget his name in 24 hours or less. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's more than just an article about B-9's catchphrase, as the phrase was uttered once on the show but has had much larger pop culture ramifications, so I don't think it needs a merge. Plus, as Andrew D. points out, there are plenty of sources out there that can be used as references, as the article is light on citation. Fuzchia (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering that the article is about a catchphrase and rest of it is trivia about usage, I guess WP:NAD applies here. Ceosad (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand WP:NAD does not apply, it is not a defined word, it is a phrase with the provenance explained and examples of the usage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases are included in the policy, but I guess WP:WORDISSUBJECT is overly vague on these cases. Phrase usage guides are explicitly banned in WP:NAD, and much of the article is all about examples. Ceosad (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Phrase usage guides are explicitly banned". The guide, WP:NAD, gives No worries as an example of what a phrase article should look like and it contains a usage section, so what is going on there? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the section about Wikipedia is not a usage guide in WP:NAD, and the WP:WORDISSUBJECT states that such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. The article itself says the following: "Despite the popularity of the phrase, it was said only once on the show." The article would need to be vastly expanded on the cultural significance of the phrase to avoid WP:NAD. For instance about that hacker culture thing mentioned in the article. I do not think we could find enough sources to say that this phrase has cultural notability etc. No worries has good sections on Cultural origins and Influence, and multiple independent sources, unlike Danger, Will Robinson. Ceosad (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much distressed arm waving between weak keep and merge and redirect to List of catchphrases (~~which has only British examples for TV: Danger! Danger!~~ Now it has some Yankee ones). Variety does call it an "iconic catchphrase". Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After much spinning around and falling down, and being completely confused by WP:NAD (I really do fail to comprehend WP:WORDISSUBJECT) - Keep VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 852 Google news search results proves [1] its still a common expression used today for a large variety of reasons. Dream Focus 01:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm all against fancruft and useless info. But as other editors have pointed out, this phrase has widespread use and some staying power. And I really liked the above discussion regarding NAD, and can see both sides. But all things considered, I !vote keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or it least, don't delete). There's some material out there, although I'm having a hard time finding it reaches signficant coverage of the phrase, one paragraph in an apparently self-published book notwithstanding. Still, surely a merge or partial merge to Robot B-9 would be of more preferable outright deletion, per WP:ATD, and I don't see an argument against retention via merge. Moreover, the cultural impact of the phrase *is* part of the cultural impact of the show, I'm mystified as to why combined coverage would be seen as a negative here--for our readers, I would expect it to be a benefit, not a drawback. --joe decker ^talk 07:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs sources, sure, but the phrase has entered popular culture far beyond its original use, as can be easily seen with a news search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lost in Space or elsewhere. The huge trivia section is worthless cruft, and the rest would with some compression fit into another article. Sandstein 19:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lost in Space. It's relevant and notable in terms of the show's enduring legacy, not on its own. The article at present doesn't pass WP:WORDISSUBJECT because none of the sources extend to significant coverage of the term besides its use in other media, which isn't enough to sustain notability for the phrase itself with an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a10, see Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. I'll move the deleted text to the author's userspace for purposes of his grade. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MERS-CoV - global health consequences ?[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY. Article reads like its out of a science magazine. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William,

This article I've created is for a group project at university. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia and don't exactly know what I'm doing. I need to provide my professor with a link for the page so that he can grade us. The project is worth quite a lot of marks and is due tonight!! Is it possible to leave it up for a month and then have it taken down? I'm sorry to have caused any trouble...

Hashtag-Benji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtag-Benji (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SK#1. Please address merging through normal channels of editing and discussion. See also WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Code Lyoko: Evolution characters[edit]

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

Not enough info to warrant a separate article, does not even include the main characters. Merge into Code Lyoko: Evolution. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Hill III[edit]

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

Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with his position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p b p 14:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has a published obituary written by staff in the Deseret News. Their content is not directed by the Church. Beyond this, I have found references to Hill's position as director of the office of Coal Research, and since that was back in the 1970s, it is a bit much to assume that all such references will show up in a quick google search. If you search "George R. Hill" and coal on google, you will find multiple articles by Hill on the subject. Hill was also a member of the National Academy of Engineering. I am not sure how this is optained and whether it would cause him to pass the notability requirements for academics. I also found a Chemical and Engineering News article from 1973 on Hill.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National Academy of Engineering membership is equivalent to National Academy of Sciences and therefore meets WP:ACADEMIC #3.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a third-party source for this is here [2] in Chem. Eng. News, 1989, 67 (9), p 6 --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He seems notable beyond the LDS faith, based on new links included in article and on this page. I dunno about NAE quite equaling NAS, but they were created by the same law.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 07:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MowJoe[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No evidence of any coverage anywhere. Speedy deletion removed by an account other than the creator. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Talk page also seems to indicate sockpuppetry, user that removed the speedy template has very similar style to editor that created the page, might be worth a SPI. FrameDrag (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything that comes up under "MowJoe producer" is just YouTube videos of songs and social media. Too soon for this producer. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, frankly it showed very little coverage at all, even trivial. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belk Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

Another in the too-long list of college football game broadcasters lists. No evidence of notability as a list subject. Prod removed without comment or improvements. Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article without a use; unless ESPN somehow completely falls apart/gets anti-trust-busted they're always going to broadcast it, and only a few care about the radio broadcast that's rarely picked up nationally; they'll just listen to it the regular way, through the team's radio network. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Belk Bowl). Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. ESPN sources identifying its own broadcasters are not independent. Moreover, and while their may be significant coverage of the bowl itself, there is no significant coverage (i.e., more than passing mentions, WP:ROUTINE announcements of broadcast team, etc.) of Belk Bowl broadcasters in reliable sources that I am able to find. Nor are these persons notable for having broadcast Belk Bowl games. Cbl62 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Cbl62's rationales above. Per ample precedent, we really need to delete all of the articles in this class. No one is writing books about past Rose Bowl broadcasters, let alone broadcasters for the Belk Bowl. This is sportscruft/trivia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I would be surprised to find significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources for broadcasters of any bowl game. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, we should expand this into a group TV for all of these bowl game broadcaster lists? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two bowl announcer AfDs underway with both heading toward deletion. I'd suggest letting these two run their course, setting a precedent, before pursuing a broader challenge. Just my 2 cents. Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral if it isn't here in a list, it will be included in the main article. I can see reasons to do both.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN with no independent sources that cover this grouping. We don't create lists merely because the content is true.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie McMichael[edit]

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

Whilst most reality TV contestants with Wikipedia articles meet notability guidelines because they have a notable post careers or had made an impact enough to be notable themselves. I do not know if three failed reality TV appearances maketh a Wikipedia page in the case of this largely forgotten contestant, hence why this is being nominated or do Wikipedia have a three-strikes notability guidelines for contestants who scraped beyond the first hurdle of reality TV. Fails WP:ENT, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ONEEVENT times three (and virtually forgotten in all three shows). Donnie Park (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created as a redirect and never intended as an article. When I received the afd nomination just now I found myself asking "who the hell is this?" Answer, she was a minor Big Brother contestant from 2008, and I created the name redirect along with all the other minor Big Brother contestants from that year. This is Paul (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and creator; reality hanger-on who can't seem to let go. Nate • (chatter) 01:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in searches to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hippy Chick (Boat)[edit]

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

Non-notable boat. Apparently, someone bought an old scuttled boat and is renovating it. So? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article, no references and no indication at all of notability. Not sure why this wasn't speedied, to be honest.Neiltonks (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was nominated for speedy deletion. That tag was removed by the author, and before I could revert that, another editor came along and PROD'ed it, which was also removed by the author. So, we come here as the next step. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Also see this talk page edit; not sure if this counts as WP:G7 or not (I could easily see a typo "appropriate" when they meant "inappropriate"). Ignatz mice•talk 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Shame, hippy chicks with long green hair sound ... interesting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hippy Chick has 23 followers on Twitter [3]. That is more than most boats, but not enough for notability. Found no other references to it. Martinogk (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too bad boats don't qualify under any speedy deletion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 R. J. Adams. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order Castles of the Third Reich[edit]

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

This is a strange article - the subject of the film is a documentary about some Nazi facilities, but the article really seems to be about the facilities themselves, which already have their own articles. There's no evidence the film itself is worthy of an article. Kelly ^hi! 10:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Films-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, it will need to be extensively pruned to remove the long sections discussing the history of each section. While I'm aware that they're the focus of the documentary, going into depth about each location puts WP:UNDUE weight on the topics. Actually, I think that I'll clean this up now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect R. J. Adams. I cleaned the article some and you can see the original format here, but I was unable to find anything that covered the documentary itself. Offhand the sources appear to be about the buildings/facilities and not the film and since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, the best we could have here is a redirect to the director's page. I will say that the director's page will need some cleaning, as it looks like it was written by a PR person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect as a sensible outcome. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per criteria G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ng[edit]

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

I previously added a PROD to this article. The PROD was promptly removed by the article creator, who provided the following rationale on my talk page:

"I saw you placed Notability and Deletion tag on the article. It appears you have not gone through the references! If a detailed coverage in Daily Telegraph and BBC doesn't establishes Notability I don't know what else does. Anyway if you still have "issues" with the content discuss it on talk-page, Reinstating those tags will force me to consult an admin and ask him whether or not the article is Notable or not. Good luck."

Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), that the subject has received coverage in two reliable sources does not necessarily confer notability. The subject has not received wide-ranging coverage in secondary sources as required. The coverage is not particularly "detailed". Google results are very sparse and dominated by self-published and promotional stuff.

Furthermore, the article creator is a single-purpose account and the article is written in a promotional tone of voice. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete probable AUTOBIO . Created suspiciously by single purpose editor and only claim to fame is being CEO of a non notable company. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems solidly in favor of deletion on the grounds that the content in question is not sufficiently discriminate or encyclopedic as presented. The "keep" votes have easily demonstrated that bird stamps are notable as a topic, but do not, in my judgement, directly address many of the concerns regarding these lists in particular. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds on stamps of Bophuthatswana[edit]

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

This is a nomination of all 51 articles in Category:Lists of birds on stamps. Yes, stamps have an image, of birds or reptiles or churches or painters or ... and yes, people collect stamps by topic (or country or year or ...), just like they collect cigar wrappers by topic, or figurines of owls, or ... It's a smart commercial move by the stamp issuing offices. But they aren't encyclopedic articles, they are one of countless possibilities of listing characteristics of stamps. It doesn't convey any necessary information on the birds or on (in this case) Bophuthatswana, and a rather random piece of information on the stamps of the country.

These lists are unsourced or only reference the general stamp catalogues (which are not topically sorted). An article like List of birds on stamps of Finland is generally useless.

Also nominated:

List of birds on stamps of Abu Dhabi
List of birds on stamps of Afghanistan
List of birds on stamps of Aitutaki
List of birds on stamps of Ajman
List of birds on stamps of Åland
List of birds on stamps of Albania
List of birds on stamps of Algeria
List of birds on stamps of Andorra
List of birds on stamps of Angola
List of birds on stamps of Armenia
List of birds on stamps of Aruba
List of birds on stamps of the Australian Antarctic Territory
List of birds on stamps of Austria
List of birds on stamps of Azerbaijan
List of birds on stamps of Azores
List of birds on stamps of Bechuanaland
List of birds on stamps of Belgian Congo
List of birds on stamps of Bequia
List of birds on stamps of Bermuda
List of birds on stamps of Bhutan
List of birds on stamps of Biafra
List of birds on stamps of British Guiana
List of birds on stamps of the British Indian Ocean Territory
List of birds on stamps of Burma
List of birds on stamps of Cambodia
List of birds on stamps of Cape Juby
List of birds on stamps of Cape Verde
List of birds on stamps of Croatia
List of birds on stamps of Estonia
List of birds on stamps of Fernando Po
List of birds on stamps of Finland
List of birds on stamps of Guinea-Bissau
List of birds on stamps of Ifni
List of birds on stamps of India
List of birds on stamps of Italian East Africa
List of birds on stamps of Italian Somalia
List of birds on stamps of Japan
List of birds on stamps of Latvia
List of birds on stamps of Macau
List of birds on stamps of Madeira
List of birds on stamps of Malta
List of birds on stamps of Manchukuo
List of birds on stamps of Mozambique
List of birds on stamps of Pakistan
List of birds on stamps of Portugal
List of birds on stamps of Rio Muni
List of birds on stamps of Sao Tome e Principe
List of birds on stamps of Spanish Sahara
List of birds on stamps of West Irian
List of birds on stamps of Zimbabwe Fram (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree these are not encyclopedic and if allowed to proliferate offer endless permutations, all similarly useless. There is already a parallel "Fish on the stamps of xxxxx" which could be included. This was discussed at the Philately Project. If I remember correctly the consensus was that "People on the stamps of XXXX" was OK as those people are normally highly connected to the country of origin of the stamp, but opinion was divided on the other "on the stamps of" lists. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree on all counts. I haven't included the "Fish" lists or the lone "Bonsai" list to keep this somewhat controllable. If consensus here is for delete, I plan on nominating the other similar lists as well. And I agree that the "people" lists should either be left alone or considered separately, as they do provide information on the people and the country (i.e. which people are considered notable in which country, period, ...) which is absent or much less prominent on the animal lists. Fram (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For reference, I think the discussion you're referring to is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philately/Archive_6#Notability_of_topical_lists after several of these lists were PROD'ed in 2010. -- R45 ^talk! 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unnecessary Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I disagree with them being "pointless", not one of these lists has any references and most have been around for 10 years with nothing to verify the information. They all could be revamped and become Featured Lists at some point in the future, but right now, they show no levels of notability, no third-party coverage and no sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "totally unnecessary" is not a reason to delete things on wikipedia - almost every list could be said to be useless or unnecessary by someone who doesn't care about the information it contains. There is a concern about the lack of references, that's a fair comment. However it is not "unencyclopedic" to include detailed information in a list that you are not interested in. There are plenty of lists that other uninterested editors would find completely unnecessary. That is a quality statement and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete a page. JMWt (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of number-one records on a chart groups a major characteristic of certain records (same genre, period and level of success) and an essential characteristic of the chart. A list of birds on stamps of one country list a completely unimportant characteristic of a bird (it doesn't indicate anything about the bird (except that one national or quasi-national institution thought it a good commercial idea to picture it), a completely unimportant characteristic of the country, and a minor element of the stamps of one country (leaving you with a too narrowly defined intersection of characteristics to be a good list subject). There is little or no relation between the stamps on one of these lists (which bird is pictured in 1984 has little influence on which one is pictured in 2002) and no relation between the different lists (one country will hardly care which bird is pictured on stamps from other countries). In total, they are a collection of loosely related information grouped on non-defining characteristics. I gave the Finland example as one egregiously useless list: but being useless was not my reason to nominate these, being rather random and endless was. That they are mostly unsourced and unmaintained are additional but in themselves not sufficient reasons to delete them. Fram (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone had done an article (or even a list) about the Birds of Finland on the stamps of Finland, now that might have been OK, but as Fram indicated, there is not a shred of analysis, discrimination, or wider significance in these lists. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these lists are a convenient reference or serve as a good directory for philatelists, but they serve no encyclopedic purpose. I think an alternative outlet devoted to stamp collecting would be more appropriate. I googled "stamp collecting wiki", and the first non-Wikipedia entry I came up with was http://stampcollecting.wikia.com/wiki/Stamp_Collecting_Wiki; I suggest we contact them, give them an opportunity to copy all of these lists across to their wiki if they so desire, then delete. Aspirex (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Aspirex, this stuff does not belong to Wikipedia, but rather to some fringe Wikia. They may have these, if they wish to. Ceosad (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All these articles seem to have been created in 2005, by User:JPPINTO a contributor who only seems to have only made about 700 edits, in total, most of them in 2005, and who hasn't contributed since 2010. While the articles have all had dozens of edits, since then, they seem to have all been cosmetic edits, to the metadata.
I think that it would have been more appropriate to have used 51 {{prod}}s. This AFD is a waste of time.
I think JMWt made an important point. The problem with these articles is not their topic. People do write about postage stamp design. If there were good references on stamps with bird designs there would be no problem with the topic of these articles.
It is quite possible, likely, in fact, that newbie JPPINTO, the articles' creator, had access to reliable references, back in 2005. Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to postage stamp design. Keep revision history. Geo Swan (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that that article has no information whatsoever on any of the above 51 lists, and would be overwhelmed if you added info on these (and on the 30 fish lists, and ...), it makes no sense to redirect them. It is better to make it obvious for a hypothetical reader that we have no information on a subject, than to redirect them to an article which tells them nothing about their search item. Fram (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's a bit hard to reconcile "this AFD is a waste of time, ProD would have been better" with "do not delete, redirect with history preserved" which would never have been the result of 51 prods anyway. Fram (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the deletionists are missing some important points about these lists. Topical stamps are a very popular form of stamp collecting so much so that there is a specific Bird Stamp Society as well as about 50 specialised study units of the American Topical Association. Many countries issue stamps illustrating their native and sometimes foreign flora and fauna, such as Definitive postage stamps of Ireland#Birds that are important issues for those countries more so when they are definitive stamps but adding such list would not enhance such article which is why lists such as those for deletion are created. An alternative to deletion would be to merge the lists into the Postage stamps and postal history of ... articles such as List of birds on stamps of India into Postage stamps and postal history of India perhaps even in a collapsed form to avoid overwhelming those articles where they already exist.

As an encyclopaedia we are a great resource for stamp collectors and can do much more in that regards so such list may not seem so important to some as specific stamp articles but neither are they a dictionary. In the previous discussion on topical stamp lists, Mike Cline and Stan made some very good points about such lists that you should probably consider before a final decision; there was no agreement to delete them then and I see no good reason to delete them now either. The many deletionists might spend some more time finding the many less significant lists that abound Wikipedia instead. ww2censor (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, the tables are beautiful, and I can see they could be a useful resource to experts in stamps -- if they know they can trust the information. But the tables are completely without documentation.
  JPPINTO may have been one of the world's experts, on stamps. There are wikis where this information would be welcome, even though it is completely without substantiation. In 2005, when JPPINTO added this information, standards were lower, but today, it requires references.
  Volunteering information on the wikipedia can be frustrating for genuine subject field experts. Our rules don't let them rely on their hard won knowledge. They have to rely on authoritative references, same as everyone else.
  If you are a stamp expert, and you think you can find WP:Verifiable WP:Reliable sources, then I suggest you request userification, to give you enough time to add the references the articles need. In my opinion they need some introductory text, to add context, to those of us who are not stamp experts.
  If you commit yourself to bringing the articles up to today's standards, I'll change my opinion here to userify for improvement. And, I'll offer my opinion as to whether they are ready to be restored to article space, once they have references, and text to provide context to non-stamp collectors. Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The value of these lists, plus the difficulty of constructing and then maintaining them accurately, is one of the motivations behind my long-term effort to generate them automatically; this bird list at stampdata.com shows the current state of the work (note the WP links, which is part of the mechanism to ensure name accuracy). Another possibility, if these lists' existence is hurtful to people's eyes, is Wikibooks, which already has a good chunk of general catalog, and could certainly just justify adding topical lists. Stan (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a second, your table uses information from these tables, combined with references to http://colnect.com, which has a wiki of its own, with detailed entries like this one on the Abyssinian Ground Hornbill? Where did the detailed information at colnect come from?
1. Where are the references used to construct the detailed entries at colnect? Have you, or other stamp contributors, considered bringing these articles up to date by citing those references?
2. Have you considered porting these tables to the colnect wiki? JPPINTO contributed it under a free license. People at the colnect wiki are completely free to re-use that table, so long as they acknowledge the original author(s). Under US law lists of facts aren't protected by copyright. This list may meet the criteria for being considered a list of facts not protected by copyright. Geo Swan (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. List of birds on stamps of Afghanistan has four columns for stamp catalogues, that lists "Scott", "Yvert", "Mitchell", ""Sta. & Gib." Maybe you stamp experts can instantly recognize what these columns are for, and what the numbers in these columns mean. But these articles should be comprehensible to general readers, who aren't stamp experts. Could you fix this table, so a reader could understand these columns? Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is a little confusion, both stampdata and colnect have their own database, each independently developed, each with a completely different internal structure, and both independent of JPPINTO's tables (which were probably generated from a private database - many collectors have developed their own). All the databases typically confine themselves to agreed-upon facts, gathered from existing catalogs or authoritative websites such as the UPU. Personally I've been putting my time into coding and database massaging for stampdata.com, so as to get to a point where Wiki{pedia,books} could have lists based on an authoritative online source, but it's a big undertaking, has sucked up all my former Wikipedia time. In the meantime, the existing lists are not great, but not harmful either. Stan (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Cline: in a 2010 discussion, referred to above, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 6#Notability of topical lists, you wrote:
1. In the catalog columns, add an in-line citation to each catalog on the header line. No need to source each entry to a specific page, just each column to a specific catalog.
2. Add a legend at the top to explain the possible entries in the column type. I assume NOR means Normal but who knows. A legend, common to every topical list would be a big improvement.
3. Strengthen the lead-in to say a bit more in summary about the topic in the context of the country. Leace no doubt as to the inclusion criteria. Source those comments.
I agree that these were excellent points, just what these lists need. Do you know how much progress those interested in stamps have made to follow your 2010 advice? Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow many philately related articles so I can't say one way or the other.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: On two grounds. 1) I object to these mass deletions because of the strong bias it gives to delete votes!. One who votes! Delete merely has to generalize without any specific evidence of non-notability on any given entry. Whereas a Keep vote! is forced to either provide generalized evidence of notability which can be typically dismissed or is forced to provide entry by entry specifics. 2) Neither the nom or those voting! delete have provided valid rationale for deletion. Notability of lists is clearly spelled out in WP:NOTESAL a guideline that took a lot of work to achieve consensus on back in the day. The relevant portion of WP:NOTESAL is: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable,…
Without any doubt, the topics of these lists have been discussed as a group in American Topic Association (a national philatelic organization) publications and most likely discussed as a group in country and region specific philatelic publications or in Fédération Internationale de Philatélie Thematic Philately Commission publications. As a philatelist of some 60 years and once active in the highest venues of national and international philately as an exhibitor, I can say without any doubt, that most if not all of these lists meet the requirement of WP:NOTESAL and should not be deleted but improved. –Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked WP:NOTESAL, which refers to WP:Stand-alone lists, which says:

Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.

These lists aren't verifiable, as they cite no references. If you, or other contributors knowledgeable about stamps, can provide references, and some explanatory text, then I would change my !vote, and I believe some others who weighed in here would too.

If you need time to dig up the references I suggest you request userification, to give you that time. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geo - You miss my point completely. I contend these lists are notable IAW WP:NOTESAL and it is highly probable that reliable sources exist to support that notability. The fact that those sources are not listed is not a valid reason for deletion. If is was then the 218,603 articles in this category Category:Articles lacking sources would be ripe for deletion as well. AFD is not WP:Cleanup. Enough said. Time for someone else to decide. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too suspected that it is highly probable that reliable sources exist that cover stamps with images of birds, of ships, of politicians, of writers and artists. When JPPINTO drafted these tables, in 2005, the wikipedia had far far looser standards for article inclusion, and far far looser standards for how articles should be referenced. In 2005 we hadn't yet begun to use <ref name=x></ref> tags and {{cite}} templates.
The wikipedia still includes lots of articles from 2005, that have been updated, so they measure up to the reference expectations of today. In spite of suspecting references existed, seeing that no one had made any effort to provide those references, during the last ten years, made me suspect no one would provide those references during the next ten years.
If you are asking for the lists to be kept because reliable sources probably exist, that it a non-starter.
If you are asking for the lists to be kept, because stamps fans will start to work through these lists, and will gradually make sure they all explicitly cite references -- sorry, I think that is problematic too. That is why I suggested the lists be (temporarily) moved from article space, to be restored when they do measure up to our current referencing standards.
Um, are you suggesting the lists don't need explicit references? Geo Swan (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list cite 1-4 references per stamp. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

- Really? Actually, many of them don't, and the references that are there (general stamp catalogues) say nothing about the list subject. You can use the same sources to create "list of stamps of Manama with perforation 13 1/2 by 14" or "list of stamps of Danzig with a crown watermark" and so on. Taking a catalogue and making your own selection from it based on whatever criteria you prefer is not a reason to keep a list as begin "sourced". You need sources about the list subject, showing that "birds on stamps of Ifni" is a notable subject, not that you can find them among all other stamps in catalogues which are not even ordered by topic but by country, type, and date of emission. Which you are all quite aware of, but why give a policy based reason? Fram (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to the Draft space, to have the changes suggested by @Mike Cline: in 2010 made to them. Those with expertise in stamps say reliable sources exist, and AGF, I trust them. Restoration to article space should wait for referencing to measure up to today's expectations. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I guess these could be shoved in one article but quite honestly I don't have time for that and I imagine no one else does either, Sourcing these individually would be next to none impossible and so the only best outcome here to delete these as they all fail GNG, (Had this been 5 or 6 articles I wouldn't mind moving to userspace/draft but moving 50 odd individually is just creating unnecessary work and if the creator wants these saved they can either move them themselves or go to WP:UNDELETE. –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re sources: Lack of sources is not a reason to delete and anyone with access to a set of hard copy stamp catalogues, Scott or Stanley Gibbons, or even an online database like Colnect.com could easily source these lists. They just need some time and motivation which obviously none of the deletionists have. I have sourced each stamp, except for one, in the List of birds on stamps of India and was able to do so by mostly using the UPUs WADP Numbering System has most, if not all, stamps issued since 2002 and can definitely be considered a reliable source. ww2censor (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone of these lists could be sourced in part from:
Theme Birds on Stamps by Kjell Scharning

Reference Books Stanley Gibbons Collect Birds on Stamps 2003

ATA CHECKLISTS—A MEMBER-TO-MEMBER SERVICE—TOPICAL LISTING

ATA Topicals Online]

Birds of the world on Postage Stamps

Wildlife of Pakistan Bird Stamps] (lots more like this)

----Mike Cline (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge I observed this nomination at the outset but the selection of topics seemed too bottom-up and tiresome, when a top-down approach might be more sensible. So, I started the page bird stamp and was wondering whether anyone would notice (it doesn't seem so). The topic seems notable at that level as sources include:

Bleeker, Sonia (1966), The Golden Book of Bird Stamps
Daly, Kathleen (1955), Bird Stamps
Eriksen, Hanne; Eriksen, Jens (1996), Collect Birds on Stamps, Stanley Gibbons, ISBN 9780852594087
Esten, Sidney (1954), Birds of the World on Stamps, American Topical Association
Bird Stamps of All Countries with a Natural History of Each Bird, Grosset & Dunlap, 1935
The World of Birds on Stamps, Hayes, 1975
Jackson, Christine (1978), Collecting Bird Stamps, ISBN 0854931260
Koeppel, Dan (2006), To See Every Bird on Earth: A Father, a Son, and a Lifelong Obsession, Penguin, ISBN 9781440627033
Lant, Hugh (1975), Bird Stamps of the World Check-List, ISBN 0950476803
Collect Birds on Stamps, Stanley Gibbons, 2002, ISBN 9780852595329

But the lists we have here all seem to be for minor countries. Where are the major countries like the UK, for example? I suggest merging this up into a higher page such as list of bird stamps as an alternative to deletion. If the philately project then gets this topic area fleshed out more fully, the country-level pages can be opened up again as needed. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here through an article alert for List of birds on stamps of Croatia. I knew nothing about birds on stamps before I read this list, and after reading the list and clicking through the links, I think it's fair to say that I still know nothing about the subject. The list is formatted as some sort of a specialized philatelic topic, with type, value and catalogue columns that I basically can't read. But they also then combine excessive biological classification terms - who exactly really cares if it was Linnaeus that first identified that bird in 1758, and why does the taxonomy matter in the context of stamps, when we can just link the bird article instead? In general, the list doesn't even seem to attempt to answer the question why? Why was a stamp released in '93 in Croatia with the white-tailed eagle on it? Usually when I come across this sort of information in general-purpose media (such as encyclopedias), it tells me things like "someone wanted to commemorate this specific item because it relates to them for reasons x and y". What is the encyclopedic value of this list when it doesn't convey this basic piece of information? The suggestion to move to a wikia and delete seems best, for this article at least. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it a joke? Such lists do not belong to Wikipedia. Zezen (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly merge all into list of bird stamps that's currently a redirect to Bird stamp, but I think it could reasonably exist as a stand-alone list which incorporates all the content of these various smaller lists. The problem is, according to Bird stamp, there's 10,000 of them. It's unlikely we would list all but a small fraction of them, and I don't know what the inclusion criteria would be. If we merged these into a big master list, we would have to address the issue raised by Joy that much of the data is cryptic. There would need to be some introductory material which explained the type, catalog, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I agree with Joy that these lists lack any encyclopedic value and should move to some specialised wikia, if they don't already exist (catawiki anyone?). On a sidenote, I am slightly annoyed by the consistently incorrect spelling of the "Mitchell" catalogue in these lists, which should be "Michel". - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think Bird stamp has potential to be a really nice article about the subject, but the individual lists don't really tell us anything. If they were solidly sourced and said something about the stamps, rather than just a list, they might be appropriate. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Keepper WW2censor. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see where many of those opposing this deletion are coming from, but topical collecting fixating on certain objects is simply too specific for Wikipedia. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same opinionated arguments were made against Bibliographies in the 2008-09 timeframe--they were indiscriminate, they weren't encyclopedic, they were useful, yada, yada. At the time there were only about 50 in the encyclopedia but reason won the day and WP:NOTESAL eventually became the guiding precept for lists of all kinds. Today we have hundreds of useful bibliographies for readers to review and use on all manner of subjects.--Mike Cline (talk)

Keep This oddly enough seems like the classic encyclopedia subject. FYI - There are even exclusive duck stamps and duck with retriever dog stamps! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FancyKey[edit]

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

This was originally prodded by User:Swpb with the following rationale: "No references or indication of significance." It was deprodded by User:Wojingdaile, creator, with the following rationale "add references". The new refs are, however, not sufficient. In my view the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing obviously better yet but draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be promotional article spam produced by single-purpose account about a non-notable product. The body of the article is simply a list of article features, which belongs on a product website, not in an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than a few trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage to show it passes notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philidor Rx Services[edit]

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

Recently, the consensus at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) guideline resulted in a section (disclaimer: I supported adding it, and I am it's co-author): based on WP:BIO, we now require that to estabilish notability, companies have to be notable for more than one news-worthy event (also, see WP:NOTNEWS. The subject here is a pharmacy that received coverage, recently, due to troubles of its Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (where there is already a section about it). I do not believe that this pharmacy has stand-alone notability, per NOTNEWS, CORPONEVENT, and otherwise failing NCOMPANY. Given the controversial coverage, WP:CRIMINAL also has some relevance here. PS. I'll ping users who participated in the NCOMPANY discussion to add the CORPONEVENT section: ping User:Jbhunley, User:WhatamIdoing, User:The Drover's Wife, User:Blueboar - would you agree with me that this is a good case to test our understanding of this new section? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think if this is considered to fall within that parameter, the parameter needs to go: there are a ton of sources about this company and they're only about "one issue" in a really broadly (too broadly) defined sense - if that. Half of Wikipedia's business content could go on that definition. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - while I would agree that most of the coverage focuses on Valeant Pharmaceuticals and its troubles, I think that there is enough coverage of the parent company (with a broader focus) to make this more than just a ONE EVENT article. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The change to the notability guideline was not supported by a sufficient consensus and I have removed it. The idea that, even if it were valid it would justify removal is thoroughly wrong: The underlying event was highly prominent, with extended coverage in US national media like the New York Times, the organization's role in the event was not minor but central, and there is no reason to believe the organization will remain low-profile, especially since it's already become rather high-profile. Corporations are not people, and the special considerations that underlie BLP1E have absolutely no applicability to matters like this. This deletion and whatever precedent it would set would be a godsend to corporate publicists and those trying to cover up business malfeasance, and do serious damage to Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 November 2015‎
- The more important question isn't whether it meets a particular line in a guideline; the more important question is what encyclopedic value is provided. So far, your argument appears to be that having a separate article about this business will help WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'm not going to buy the argument that media coverage for 13 days (from 19 October to 02 November 2015) is "extended". Any other arguments? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but perhaps delete for now unless better coverage can be found. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that the change to the notability guideline is no longer present and in any case would be contradictory -- an interesting event that is well covered in the sources would make a company notable. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if, so far, we have evidence that it was "interesting" for only 13 days? Picture this five years from now. Would you still want to have an article about a company that was in news for 13 days five years ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, why not? If we were to delete old articles that were no longer timely, there would be a lot of interesting articles getting deleted. Sbwoodside (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Stuff that looks interesting at one point, but like a media flash-in-the-pan later, gets deleted all the time. (You do realize that "It's interesting" is actually on the list of invalid arguments against deletion, right?) WP:Notability requires "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" for subjects to have separate, stand-alone articles. "Thirteen days" is not generally considered to meet "over a period of time".
      Of course, the lack of separate notability for this business doesn't mean that the interesting bits don't belong in the English Wikipedia; it just means that they don't belong on a completely separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Certainly I should have worded it as "interesting articles about notable subjects". In any case, WP:Notability doesn't define a time factor except for BLPs, and states: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". See also Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Companies_notable_for_one_event for a discussion on single events. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Valeant Pharmaceuticals#Philidor. There's little to be said about the business except that it may have been operated by Valeant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oppose merge per The Drover's Wife and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I oppose a merge because there is enough information in Philidor Rx Services for it to be a stand-alone article. A merge would either lose information or be undue weight for the parent article.
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Klaiman[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. No signs of being notable on his own. Amortias (T)(C) 23:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong Keep If we start invoking inheritability re: notability for record company executives, we're going to have valid deletion arguments for half of them. I have added references to the article to the point that it may qualify as WP:OVERKILL. ~~I will add references to the article (and clean it up/rewrite when I have some time).~~ There are ample sources: Billboard, Variety, Hits, New York Post, FMQB, and R&R, among others. ~~although I'll do more digging - this is a very quick search: Billboard (and quick google search to Billboard articles alone Hundreds of results from Hits, including feature FMQB cover story .~~ It still needs a rewrite/cleanup, which I will work on when I have more time. Julie JSFarman (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has significant enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BIO.—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Borderline, but Variety is probably mainstream enough for this to be a good source: [4]. I'll ping User:SwisterTwister to see if he wants to reconsider his vote? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of the sources on the page mention him specifically. There's still some wording to tone down and/or remove though. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & all that shizz (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Girl[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It's charted, which meets point one of WP:NSONG. Also being used in the commercial and Shallow Hal are indications of notability. I was able to add the chart position and source it, and I was able to source the use in the movie to IMDB and What-Song.com, although I'm not happy about the quality of those sources. ~~I was able to confirm the use in the AT&T ad, but only via discussion forums which are even less WP:RS than IMDB, so I haven't found a source for those.~~ (I have found a source for the AT&T ad in Entertainment Weekly.) Overall, I'm not seeing much in the way of in-depth discussion of the song in anything resembling a RS. I did find some reviews of the album which devote a couple sentences to praise for the song. Overall, this seems to be a borderline call, but charting pushes it to keep for me. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also found reference in Time to it being considered for the soundtrack to 500 Days of Summer and have added a sourced sentence to the article about that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per ONU, meets WP:NSONG.—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, per snow, and more importantly, all the great work done by ONUnicorn.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JSort[edit]

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

Non-notable sorting algorithm. Occurs in the DADS, but that's a tertiary source, not a secondary one, and only contains a dictionary definition. The DADS itself refers to some self-published Java code. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strand sort, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J sort. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable and in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Google scholar hits for this name appear to be mostly or entirely about other things. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entry in one online database of dubious notability (Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures) is not sufficient; as written fails WP:NSOFT IMHO. Through if software experts want to argue that Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures is sufficient, do ping me and I'll review your arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft space at Draft:James Dybas. Consensus is that is not notable in Wikipedia's sense (or, at least, notability has not been demonstrated) but may become so. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Dybas[edit]

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

Regional theatre and ~~understudy~~ minor roles. It seems borderline WP:NACTOR or just non notable. Lots of sources, but not multiple major roles per that N. Widefox; talk 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically: WP:BASIC - no: lack of sources about him
WP:NACTOR - 1. "significant roles in multiple notable" no, minor roles 2. not asserted 3. not asserted Widefox; talk 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to agree with others that it is a shame as it's good work, and quick too! Also highlight the AfC/draft/userfy option. (if I'm allowed to as nom) Widefox; talk 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (creator's): The initial listing of his credits included understudy work. This was actually my error when I was listing his credits and is not an accurate reflection of this person's career. If you look at his Playbill listing, he has 18 Performer - Originals credits listed. That means he was in the cast of the show, full stop. Not Understudy. He was listed as Understudy only 7 times. BrillLyle (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, but still fails N as currently written. Simple question - what major roles/thing is he notable for? Widefox; talk 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: I've worked on this entry, adding a lot more information. Could you review the entry and let me know your thoughts? Thanks so much. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have the parts he played now, so just assuming it's still minor parts failing WP:NACTOR. you didn't answer - what part of NACTOR does he satisfy? and for which roles? Else this looks like a run-of-the-mill. Widefox; talk 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but consider WP:USERFY. Fails notability, but it's a lot of good work and maybe he'll be notable one day, so I encourage creator, User:BrillLyle, to ask for userfication. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately but draft & userfy until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 08:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the consensus so far, but as someone who goes to a lot of theater and has worked in theater, Wikipedia's entries on subjects related to the field are truly shameful and underdeveloped. I think if there was better representation of theater this long-time actor would be fine. Also, big concern here is that it doesn't seem like any Wikipedia editors who might specialize in theater have seen and/or chimed in on this. I'm no expert but I think that a theater expert might disagree with the basis for this evaluation, and would support keeping article. Thanks so much for your kind attention to this issue. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space because it obviously needs some work, primarily separating out the major and the minor roles, or at least specifing for the major roles what the role in the production actually was. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strand sort[edit]

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

Non-notable sorting algorithm. Occurs in the DADS, but that's a tertiary source, not a secondary one, and only contains a dictionary definition; the DADS itself refers to a USENET posting. The only other potential source I could find is an arXiv pre-print that refers to this very article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J sort, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSort. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one has more Google scholar hits that are actually relevant than JSort and J sort, but I still didn't find any in-depth coverage in high-quality sources. I don't think it passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG (although I agree with David Eppstein that it is more relevant than the two similar articles up for deletion), and does not appear to pass WP:NSOFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was keep, particularly after addition of Turkish sources. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Express Airlines[edit]

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

Article about a small airline which does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Searches bring up several hits for other companies with similar names, but nothing to support this companies notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been rewritten completely. Please recheck before making any action. CeeGee 05:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems notable and acceptable at its current state and may need any further familiar attention. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see what makes this pass WP:NCOMPANY; User:SwisterTwister - would you mind commenting on that? Which sources seem to provide in-depth, mainstream, reliable coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus Yes I agree but there's the chance there's better Turkish coverage (but I simply wouldn't know as I'm not Turkish) so this needs familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SwisterTwister I totally agree better Turkish sources may exist and I am open to reconsidering my vote if they are presented and analyzed. But we can't assume they may exist, per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of reasoned discussion of the sourcing provided in the article, which appears at first glance to be minimally sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CeeGee (talk · contribs)'s excellent rewrite and addition of Turkish sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ONYC Hair[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." It was deprodded by User:117.251.255.47 with the following rationale "I am working on the issue of references. Please give me some weeks to collect more information". Two weeks have passed, no refs have been added, and I see nothing but press releases, and passing coverage in trade journals. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing for a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, appears to be article spam with little encyclopedic value. Citobun (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stine Seed[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Edwardx with the no rationale; when I restored the notability template to get a third opinion, he removed it again with the edit summary "how is this company not notable?" - so we are here. All coverage for this company comes from agriculture/biotech trade journals/websites (that are not sufficient, per NCOMPANY's audience section); they are not numerous enough to qualify for exemption under CORPDEPTH, and the one mainstream, reliable source, Forbes' article at [5], mentions the company in passing, and is mostly about the millionaire who funded it. I don't think it's sufficient coverage to warrant standa-alone notability; I'd suggest merger to Harry Stine, but given the creator's custom of tag removal with little discussion, I think we should discuss the possible solutions here. For now, as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article reads, "the world's largest private seed company, and the largest independent seed company in the US.".Zigzig20s (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zigzig20s: Largest world Foo-ian country Foo-type business is not a criteria found in NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Agriculture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as those claims with some coverage should be enough to keep. For example, look what Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limoneira where I saved after finding coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Resorting to personal abuse such as "given the creator's [me, that is] custom of tag removal with little discussion" does not help the nominator's case, especially as they are only able to cite one example, and thus the epiphet "custom" is without foundation. And to criticise the Forbes article, "mentions the company in passing", is a gross misrepresentation, when it contains in-depth serious coverage of Stine Seed. Anyway, I have added two more sources just so we can stop wasting time over another AfD, the latest in a series of such, all unsuccessful, and which I have previously noted amount to WP:WIKIHOUNDING by Piotrus. Edwardx (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the first paragraph is way showy and too much, but the "largest" inclusion meets reasoning to keep. Without looking too deep, I found some additional references of the company out there that could be included as well. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the new coverage helps; it's still is either about the millionaire (person), or from agriculture trade journals, failing AUDIENCE requirements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the sources the company was awarded the first-ever U.S. soybean patent. That in itself makes it notable in my view and the trade/industry sources are exactly the sort of sources one would hope to see for this type of article. This deletion nomination is misconceived and based on a confused and overly legalistic idea of what we are here to do. Creating articles like this is exactly what we should be doing and I hope Edwardx produces more of them. I also am becoming concerned by the nominator's behaviour. I hope they will back off. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Somerville, Massachusetts. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somerville Fire Department[edit]

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

Run of the mill fire department. Does not pass ORG John from Idegon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Few fire departments would. At best, merge to the city's page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I debated just boldly merging it, but thought this would be a better choice. Frankly, I think just redirect to the community would be the best choice. Most of the content here would not be appropriate for a settlement article either, and there is already way too much on the FD in the community's article. John from Idegon (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the Somerville article. "The Somerville Fire Department is responsible for providing fire suppression, fire education, fire prevention, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response and mitigation, and technical rescue. The SFD runs at basic life support emergency medical services level. They respond to approximately 9,000 emergency calls per year. The SFD also has an auxiliary unit, used as support during calls" is the sum total of the FD's coverage in the main article (which is rather a large one). That's nowhere near "way too much." Ravenswing 14:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as there's unlikely much for a better separate article and will have always been linked to the community thus best known. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSouthern Energy[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Philafrenzy with the following rationale "Decline prod. Please Google before you prod." (sigh). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam; it fails NCOMPANY because the only in-depth (really, short notes) about this company are about routine financial events like acquisitions, mergers and stock valuation. This runs against WP:CORPDEPTH, NOTNEWS, notability due to one event ("GeoSouthern sold 82,000 acres in the Eagle Ford shale area of Texas to Devon Energy for $6 billion in cash." event is the main source of coverage for this, and audience (sources like http://www.naturalgasintel.com are at a trade-journal level and do not provide inherent, sufficient notability with their coverage). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company has received in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources for more than one event in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Reuters, New York Times, and others. I stopped looking at that point. WP:BEFORE applies here. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps keep for now as the listed coverage seems acceptable and especially if there's more but if this needs to be deleted, delete for now until better can be made. 23:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in leading business sources as Philafrenzy notes. It is difficult to imagine how a company could sell an asset just two years ago for $6 billion and not meet any reasonable view on being a notable company. This is another in a series of AfDs on articles that I have created, all unsuccessful, and which I have previously noted amount to WP:WIKIHOUNDING by Piotrus. Edwardx (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable company; take a look at the references.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Renaissance[edit]

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

German Renaissance has been templated since April 2008 for insufficient references. No more than 10% of the content has any citation. Therefore, the article does not satisfy the policies on WP:V and WP:RS. It has also been templated since April 2008 for unencyclopedic tone: it is written like a D+ high school essay on why the subject matter is important. The subject matter is better treated in other, well referenced articles. The overall subject is fully treated in Renaissance and Northern Renaissance. Sections of the article are better treated in articles about the section topics and about the persons, artworks, and books discussed in the sections. I am not a deletionist, but the overall quality of this article is embarrassingly poor even in comparison to the worst quartile of Wikipedia articles. It needs a lot of copy editing, more than I can manage, but even with that you would still have an article that is worse than other articles about the same subjects and that contributes no new knowledge. Despite the April 2008 templates, there is no evidence of work to improve the article, even on the article's talk page.—Finell 05:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Finell 05:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is an a poor state, but does not require a WP:NUKE. Template it, and wait for someone to take mercy on this; the topic is clearly notable, and while WP:V suggests we remove unreferenced content, it's a pretty dead threat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You say "Template it", but it has already been templated for 7.5 years and is still in the same sorry state. If there is a way to interest a project into overhauling it, that would be preferable to deletion. How can we do that?—Finell 01:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. The article is pretty poor, but the single para in Renaissance is also not very good, though Northern Renaissance is better; neither amount to "The overall subject is fully treated ...." at all. These are also largely unreferenced but have fortunately escaped drive-by templaters, who seem attracted by anything with "German" in the title - see German art. Perhaps these are pointy marauders from German WP. The material is poorly written common knowledge. Judicious attributed copying from other articles would be a start on improving it. The article as it now is is mostly as made over by a student SPA in 2008, presumably for a project. Parts of earlier versions like this are actually better. It gets nearly 30K desktop views pa, btw. I've added a hefty art section from GA anyway. Wikipedia is unfortunately chock-full of poor spotty articles like this on subjects too important to delete. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus. Improvement, not deletion, is the proper remedy for the many flaws of this article. Copyediting is sorely needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is obviously notable and no valid reasons for deletion have been given. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Nom, I have fixed the butchered AFD page. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Endurance Racing Association[edit]

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

Short-lived minor motor racing body with no apparent notability. Fails WP:GNG with no coverage in reliable sources, or indeed any indication of what the organisation did. The original author may have also had a conflict of interest judging by their username (Usenduro). QueenCake (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better signs of better improvement. Pinging FoCuSandLeArN. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single GNews of GBooks hit, not seeing how it meets WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only nothing on News or Books, but not a single hit on Newspapers, Scholar, or Highbeam either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Crum[edit]

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

Very few references to justify notability. Shalir Salim (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May hold several age records for the 5k and appear to meet WP:NTRACK point #7, but neither IAAF nor USATF have youth records for the discipline, thus failing the part where the record is "ratified or noted by the appropriate official body." Not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I wish her well, but this is WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Metzler, Brian (2015-03-12). "10-Year-Old Sets New Half Marathon Age-Group World Record". Competitor Group, Inc. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  Also on March 7, Megan Crum set a new 5K world record for 7-year-old girls with an 18:25 clocking at the Run with a PAAL race in South El Monte, Calif. She finished 14th overall and first among female runners in that race, averaging 5:55 per mile. Crum also holds the world 5K mark for 6-year-olds with her 22:18 effort from last July at a race in San Diego.
  Those stellar times from Butler and Crum are part of a growing trend. They’re the latest American youngsters to set world records in road running events from 5K to the half marathon over the past two years.
2. "Local runners shine during Fontana Days Run". Fontana Herald News. Century Group Newspapers. 2014-06-19. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  In the Children’s Dash, Megan Crum of Lake Elsinore was first, but the next 11 runners — Isaiah Hillenburg, Sean Mejorada, Natalie Sanchez, Emilio Doran, Elijah Babb, Sergio Campos, Arlette Alcantara, Jayleen De La Rosa, Masynn Richardson, Jacob Bell, abd Vincent Chacon — were all from Fontana.
3. Tetley, Rhea-Frances (2015-08-27). "Run through the Pines results". The Alpenhorn News. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  The 5K race was dominated by the 16 students from Arroyo Verde High School in San Bernardino, which bussed their entire cross-country team up the mountain to participate. ... And speeding in 4th place was 7-year-old Megan Crum from Lake Elsinore, who was running with her entire family.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Megan Crum to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I found were mostly passing mentions. I anticipate that Megan Crum will become notable if she continues competing and breaking records. However, she currently has not received enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, so the article should be deleted.
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nom and above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minneapolis–Saint Paul#Populated places. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communities in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul Metro area[edit]

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

Largely duplicates content from the larger and better integrated article Minneapolis–Saint Paul. Nsteffel (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Minneapolis–Saint Paul#Populated places which has the same material in a better form. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minneapolis–Saint Paul#Populated places as per StarryGrandma. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Plague (New Zealand band)[edit]

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

~~Articles has been tagged as having no sources since December 2010. Article makes no claim for notability, and my own searches turned up nothing.~~ FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. A number of sources have been added to the article and I believe it meets the notability guidelines. I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to Nurg (and to other editors) for the hard work improving/providing sources for the article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It did have one source. It has been expanded and has 5 sources now. Nurg (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the article. Is there anything notable about this band? From what I can tell, the references may be fairly trivial (and not all of them are necessarily the most reliable), and the page still doesn't claim any special significance for the band. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this group has notability based on it's membership and their subsequent careers. I'm going to tend with Keep because nobody would delete The Quarrymen, and this has linking to a mid-level project new zealand article Blam Blam Blam. Not that I have any particular knowledge of 80's NZ pop music, I just trust that they know best.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific to Music, this group has members of an ensemble that has had at least 1 (more) national music charts. Several members moved on to groups that charted well enough.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not WP:INHERITED. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever." From WP: Inherited. emphasis added.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging taggers Duffbeerforme and Stuartyeates. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing notability relating to the band. This suggests that the main protagonist meets the GNG, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found enough to suggest that this band was important at least as a precursor to several other notable bands/individual careers. The other option would be to refactor into an article about Richard von Sturmer, who certainly appears to be notable: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Michig (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Michig, which demonstrate that Richard von Sturmer passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
If necessary, the article can be refactored to be about von Sturmer with The Plague, the band he led, as a component of his biography. However, Michig's sources demonstrate the band is likely independently notable. Since the band existed in the 1970s, newspaper articles about them likely are not accessible on the Internet.
Cunard (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It now has two books as sources, plus some lesser sources. I'm thinking this meets criteria #1 at WP:BAND ("subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works"). It also seems to meet criteria #6, in that most of the band members are presumably independently notable, as there are articles about them. I'm favouring keep. If a decision was made to delete the article, I would like the content kept available for incorporation into other associated articles. Nurg (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Gage[edit]

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

PROMO, do not see enough to meet BIO or any of its subsections John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It reeks of WP:PROMO and, quite frankly, IDONTLIKEIT (I hate the use of WP for PROMO), however, those are real bestseller lists and a search news turns up real sourcing [12]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A book on the nYT self-help list list should no longer be regarded as indication of notability. This article is an example of the reason. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Picasso[edit]

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

I believe this is a hoax, as discussed on Talk:Renzo Picasso. Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the book you discuss on the talkpage is a conference proceeding, and the author is/was a doctoral student at the University of Genova. It is unlikely that you would find this in a world catalogue of books as it may not have been published outside of the narrow academic field. But, I think it is fair to be cautious about this as a single source. But I don't think this is a single source: here is a news article in the Repubblica, this appears to be a genuine exhibition guide where the artwork appears, this appears to be a genuine book which references the work, this appears to be a genuine cultural publication referring to the guy.

If this is indeed a hoax, then it involves a lot of different people producing high quality materials which has taken in national media and international museums (I've found various blogs by museums referring to the artwork). It is possible, but I think that's pretty hard to believe - and much easier to believe that the works laid undiscovered for a considerable time and then began to be discussed and scanned onto the internet. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: You may be correct, but I wouldn't rule out an elaborate hoax. Note that one of the supposed references given in the original article was "The Autopoiesis of Architecture, Volume II: A New Agenda for ...", and that the original article came from someone with virtually no other contributions to Wikipedia. Click through on that and tell me whether you think this is worth investigtating. - Jmabel | Talk 19:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also find this on Etsy more suspicious than encouraging, especially the statement "This is a selection of Renzo Picasso’s work. More is coming soon, as it is restored!" - Jmabel | Talk Jmabel | Talk 19:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly use Etsy as proof this is a hoax. That shop is opened in 2014. This article was created in 2012. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if better sourcing can be clarified but if not, delete for now until a better article can be made as Books instantly found some links but nothing convincingly better. Notifying taggers Mediran, Nyttend, Mabalu and Andrewman327. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even remember this one - must have processed it as part of new article checking. I'll leave it up to others to make the right call. Mabalu (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I only found it while processing CAT:CSD contents. Jmabel, I'm confused by your comments (I'm really sleepy, so maybe your comments wouldn't be confusing to an awake person); are you guessing that [13] is a hoax? I'm finding references to the primary author (Sonia Massari) in lots of places, ranging from [14] to [15]; apparently she's a food scholar (not sure whether she's a nutritionist or a folklorist concentrating on foodways) with the University of Illinois. The proceedings itself appears in at least one academic CV, this guy who claims to be a faculty member in the history department at the University of Turin. JMWt's link with "this appears to be a genuine book" is in WorldCAT and widely held, and the authors appear to be a civil engineering professor (she's written a lot of WorldCAT works) and an architecture professor with 113 editions of her work on WorldCAT. Maybe this is relevant to your concerns, or maybe I'm too sleepy to realise that it's not relevant...either way, I'm not going to say anything more tonight. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure Sonia Massari really wrote that; what I doubt is the claim that Gian Luca Porcile is a co-author, and the title "The Essence of Absence" is just the sort of thing a playful hoaxer would claim to have co-written. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are Tilting at windmills, Jmabel. Let's just say that Gian Luca Porcile didn't write the reference. What does that change? As Nyttend says above, there is a book with a WorldCAT reference which is widely held and references Renzo Picasso. I can't see that proving if Gian Luca Porcile really co-wrote "The Essence of Absence" makes the blindest bit of difference to the existence of Renzo Picasso. Porcile could be lying, but Renzo Picasso could still exist outside of his imagination.

I see multiple references which might not be suitable for this page, but which prove the existence of an Italian architect called Renzo Picasso dating to at least the 1960s. Maybe the paintings which are doing the rounds all over the internet where not produced by him (how exactly one would prove this to your satisfaction, I have no idea), but you are going to need a lot more evidence for a wild conspiracy theory than your gut feeling. JMWt (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after saying that I was leaving for the night, I thought of one more thing. Jmabel, it sounds to me like you're saying that there's a problem with this book. What's the problem? It's held by a bunch of major libraries (see [16]), and the author is an academic. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that book makes any reference to a Renzo Picasso. It merely refers sequentially to Renzo Piano and Pablo Picasso in a list. If I'm wrong about that, then this is probably not a hoax. Do you find any reference to Renzo Picasso in that book? - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The piece from http://genova.repubblica.it is actually the most convincing thing I've seen so far. So perhaps this wasn't a hoax, just an article on an obscure subject with at least one totally irrelevant reference placed there by its original author. In any case, it at least needs a thorough going over and a rebuild with solid citations from reliable sources. - Jmabel | Talk 17:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

& actually the Paolo Bertuccio mention looks pretty convincing, too. So, the article simply needs a thorough going over and a rebuild with solid citations from reliable sources. - Jmabel | Talk 20:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on email contact with the Renzo Picasso Archive, and the evidence brought up above. Elzbenz (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to keeping under the circumstances, but is someone willing to take on sourcing it decently? - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest nom withdraw and close under SK1. I have added seven {{cite book}}s, and while he isn't the best described subject it wasn't that difficult and there are more to add, should need be. Among them is a biography in L'Architettura italiana as early as 1914! The whole elaborate idea that this should be a hoax had easily been avoided had the mandatory WP:BEFORE been performed. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Institute of Technology, BHU. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashiyatra[edit]

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

College festival with no general signficance DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, through how reliable is [17] (Times of India) coverage? It seems non-local, at the very least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps and redirect to Indian Institute of Technology, BHU for now as there's nothing to suggest a better notable and improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteness in hip hop[edit]

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

fake article Lfstevens (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imaginable that an article could be written on this subject, but this does not even begin to be that article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be promotional to Iggy Azalea.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads more like an argumentative paper than an encyclopedia entry. This isn't the place. Fuzchia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "idea" is more of a blurb of a thesis and draws a lot of conclusions without backing. I assume that there could be writing out there to make a claim for support, but would need to be revisited at a later point. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrendous topic, article and execution. Editor does not seem to have a vested interest in the encyclopaedia and is perhaps venting some issues via this article. It is completely unsubstantiated and there's a complete lack of contemporary, critical or academic discussion on the subject. Rayman60 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the not-quite-as-weak Representation of black women in hip hop, this was a student writing exercise, and is a good example of why teachers of English composition classes need to stop assigning "write a Wikipedia article" as homework. I outlined at Talk:Whiteness in hip hop#How to salvage something from this article? how to possibly make this a viable article, and drew WT:WikiProject Hip Hop's attention to both articles (here), but a month later nothing has happened. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Never ever close this early but as noted below High/Secondary Schools are always kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES so wrapping it up now, Consensus could change but it's extremely unlikely!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford School[edit]

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

Lack of notablity. No reliable sources FiendYT (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: like most schools, there could be an article if someone would do some serious research, but no great loss if this stubby article is removed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As general consensus that secondary/high schools are inherently notable. "Most ... high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. With Ofsted reports and DfE Stats the school clearly exists, and these are clearly reliable sources, despite the nomination. - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. after further work, it's clearly a keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minhaj al-karamah[edit]

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

No copy Lfstevens (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No copy"? In any case, I restored the article's text. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the user was expressing a concern that the article contains a copyright violation, and blanked the content for that reason. Not at all the proper procedure, but that would be my guess. At any length, the picture used in the article is obviously not the author's work, despite the permissions tag, and has been tagged as a copyright violation on Commons. It would be worth looking at this with the CopyVio Detector tool, but I don't have the tool bookmarked on this computer. If no one is able and/or takes the liberty for a while in the course of the AfD discussion, I'll ask Earwig for the link. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The version I read had had its copy deleted. That's the only reason I proposed it for del. I'll examine what's there now, but don't expect to support deletion at this point. Lfstevens (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would nom give a policy-based deletion rationale, please? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better coverage can be found as there's nothing currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @SwisterTwister: Is there a policy-based argument hidden somewhere in that delete vote? I do say vote because if you had at all read the article or looked for sources, you would have come to another conclusion. Drive-by voting is not beneficial. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would almost say solid independent notability WP:GNG for one example as although there are some sources and conceivably more Arabic, I'm not entirely convinced this is keepable (but I am willing to change if more sources are uncovered). To be honest, this is not my familiar field but DGG may have some familiar insight. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please check google book[18] to find how many scholarly works refer to this work! (@SwisterTwister and Lfstevens:--Seyyed(t-c) 05:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball clause . I have added a couple of {{cite book}}s, there are hundreds in English and G*d knows how many in Arabic. @Lfstevens: WP:BEFORE is mandatory, nominating an article on a ~700 year-old manuscript without looking at the article history or doing a book search is a waste of time. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. I saw Tokyogirl79's tag, but decided G11 was a more appropriate rationale as the article was pretty much an unsourced in-depth description of the game without any obviously salvageable text. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshard Heroes[edit]

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

Fails notability. Googling does not bring up any reliable sources. Soetermans. T / C 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything either. It looks like the game was fairly short lived, as it only lasted about a year before it was closed down. On a side note, this could probably be speedied as WP:A7 since apparently you could play it out of your web browser. I'll tag it accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelius Chen[edit]

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

Does not seem sufficiently notable - effectively, his resume consists of him being the head/deputy head of CCP organs in a corporation, and it is not clear to me that the current position is itself sufficiently notable. Delete unless shown otherwise. --Nlu (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not able to evaluate the importance of the positions one way or another, & I canot read the sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Artists Foundation[edit]

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

Promotional article written by an SPA. Previous AfD (2007) closed because the topic is supposedly notable (though with no secondary sources posted), with the advice to rewrite; no such rewrite has occurred, nor am I convinced of the notability. A search on GBooks turns up only a few how-to-be-an-artist books that list this foundation as a place to get support, not in-depth coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find the arguments in the previous AfD convincing (they seemed to tend to WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:WORTHYCAUSE) and my searches are not turning up anything to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly much and not apparently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still doesn't meet notability criteria after eight years with an article on Wikipedia. Still has very few Google results with no indepth coverage in secondary sources. Run-of-the-mill WP:ARTSPAM. Citobun (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Run for Love[edit]

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

Film does not appear to have attracted sufficient general interest (has not even come out yet) for a standalone article. KDS4444^Talk 17:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Has not come out" doesn't mean a film can't have a page if it has already finished filming, Wikipedia even allows a film like Journey to the West (2016 film) which is just a hoax (hasn't even started filming or named any director) to stay after multiple deletion requests. Timmyshin (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFF, principal photography has begun, I have added sources to verify that, and the production itself is notable. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per truly diligent WP:BEFORE showing that filming has commenced and its production is notable through our basic inclusion criteria. It really was easy enough to to see that the project meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pocket Love Story[edit]

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

Entirely non-notabe "book" TheLongTone (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajitabh Bose.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing better and I also voted delete at the author's article. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A search brings up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indigenous Aryans. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikant Talageri[edit]

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

I can see nothing in these refs suggesting notability - appears to be a non notable academic who has been involved in a very minor academic disagreement. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Indigenous Aryans. Talageri promotes the fringe theory of Indigenous Aryans. He is notable among reliable sources only in attracting criticism, and we can't make a biography page just on criticism. I think it is best to cover his ideas among others in the Indigenous Aryans page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as I see nothing better for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and do not redirect. Redirecting an article on a non notable sscholar to the subject give their views undue emphasis, unconstructive. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete (or possibly redirect). The author has produced one work. I am not competent to judge whether it is mainstream or fringe. Others have criticized him; and he has replied. To my mind that is not enough to qualify as an WP:ACADEMIC. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has made significant impact on the Out of India theory where he is seen as the main theoricist by several independent sources (Harvard prof. Witzel, Prof of the University of Illionois H.Hock, A. Fournet, N. Kazanas. For example, Professor Hock only mentions Talageri's works as representative of the Out of India theory, and Michael Witzel delivered lenghty papers criticizing his work.

The subject meets the criteria "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."--Adekirim (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per consensus, not notable Philg88 ^♦talk 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glamanand Supermodel India[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Created and maintained by a sockfarm The Banner talk 10:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not apparently better and improvable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional and not passing common notability. Capitals00 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lolz! Seeing the AfD in Delsort I first thought its a competition for swamis and sadhus of India! Delete, fails WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Qadiriyya. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qadri-Qadeeri Silsila[edit]

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

Most likely fails WP:N. No references found on Google (except for transclusions of Wikipedia). In my understanding, this is a Sufi teaching promulgated by a locally venerated person Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri from Hyderabad, India, whose followers decided to commemmorate his teachings on Wikipedia. The Indian subcontinent has myriads of such locally venerated philosophers-holy men, it is actually a truly beautiful feature, but I have doubts whether most of them are notable enough, that including the founder of this particilar silsila. I would propose either delete or merge to Qadiriyya (under "Offshots" subheading). kashmiri ^TALK 10:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Qadiriyya. Capitals00 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this seems best and there's nothing for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mergethe article summary to Qadiriyya and delete or merge the (unsourced) chains/listcruft to Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri. I do have to note though, that the article seems does not make a clear distinction between the terms silsila (chain of spiritual predecessors) and tariqah (an order or denomination of Sufism); I assume that we are dealing primarily with tariqah in this article. It seems to me as if the name for this order is WP:OR, since the article first explains how most other Sufi orders get their names, before proceeding to the subject's origins. This and of course the complete lack of sources does make the existence of the Qadri-Qadeeri order somewhat suspicious. Its founder Abdul Qadir Siddiqi on the other hand, seems genuine as pointed out on this AfD, so there might be a second article into which we can merge part of the Qadri-Qadeeri article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 07:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saverio Fabbri[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 08:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not obviously notable. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dream House for Medically Fragile Children[edit]

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

promotional article for small charity, complete with promotioanl quotes form the various press releases about them. DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if conceivable as I found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but also nothing convincingly better. Pinging taggers NeilN and Boleyn and past AfD users Puffin, LibStar, Stifle, postdlf, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Doncram. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping; I have commented below. The salience of the 2008 coverage by People Magazine and in the ABC Person of the Week is enough to make this a clear Keep, IMHO, and there are more supporting news articles along the whole life of the organization. Compare this to a football player who played in one game (one example given in a recent SignPost editorial, i think it was). --do ncr am 00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find nothing to suggest it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Laura Moore and the organization (you can't separate the two, it is one article) was covered in People Magazine and featured as one of ABC News' "Person of the Week" along with the likes of Randy Pausch. I just added more to the article. I could add more based on two more years of 501c3 financial reports (Form 990) available since the last AFD, and I believe there are more sources.

The article is about a compelling story of a nurse profoundly affected by one sick child, who created a home for that child (who she eventually adopted) and others, and who took on a much larger goal of creating a series of homes. The organization rose and fell, going over 1,000,000. It built an private charitable organization that raised and spent more than $3 million (maybe 4 or 5) cumulatively. It is certain that the organization made a huge difference in the lives of the 100 orphans and other "worst of the worst"-situation children directly served in its house; it is possible (my speculation) that it saved hospitals and governments more than it cost. It is likely (my speculation) that the organizations' success with weekend programs that assisted families in coping with the needs of fragile children saved more, and it is probably a dam shame that it did not get any significant government support to match with the private fundraising and allow it to continue and expand. I have not found post-mortem type interviews but offhand I guess that there will be book(s) about it. It does not serve Wikipedia to delete the article, at all.

The article was fine when I voted Keep in the first AFD even before another person added more. It is more fine now. I don't think DGG's AFD nominations of articles like this help; I think they hurt Wikipedia; DGG is not out of line in any policy terms and has indicated willingness to discuss this previously, which I appreciate. I think this one hurts; it is offensive to suggest the article is "promotional" to benefit the insiders of the organization. Besides the fact that it is closed, it was an organization that paid its last Executive Director less than $40,000 per year and where no board member ever received a dime; they were all no doubt significant donors. I really am offended that this kind of organization is being compared to the trash of the truly promotional, self-serving, policy-violating kind.

And it's discouraging to come back to this again after one AFD. Don't people have better things to do (the nominator, the voters for deletion, the voters for keeping, all of us)? In this case I don't know if the nominator performed wp:BEFORE or assumed that there was no more coverage since the first AFD, which would have been incorrect. --do ncr am 00:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In course of this I note the topic of ABC Person of the Week is missing from Wikipedia and it is pretty clearly a valid topic, perhaps largely to serve as a list of the awardees who seem to be incredibly inspiring. I checked about 15 awardees' names and found only one who does not already have a Wikipedia article (and she deserves one); awardees have passed a vetting process with higher BLP standards than Wikipedia's. Most will deserve coverage in separate articles and as list-items; there may be a few which should be covered only as list-items. If the list-article existed we could consider arguments towards redirecting this Dream House article to its list-item, keeping the article history at the redirect and enabling restoration and expansion depending upon future developments. But I would oppose that for this topic, and that is not an option now. Currently in this Dream House article I have put in a section covering the Person of the Week topic more than should stay within this article; what I wrote could benefit from editing now and will need to be edited further when there is a separate article (which I am inclined to start drafting at Draft:ABC Person of the Week. One way that AFDs like this are damaging is that they cause deletion of items that should be covered in list-articles instead. Building list-articles is done more productively by other means than consuming goodwill in AFDs. --do ncr am 00:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Doncram: Do you have a link for the People magazine article and/or the NBC News clip? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say NBC somewhere? It is ABC News, and the clip is here used in the article now as a source and also is included in External links. It is my source to know that the story was covered in People Magazine; I have not obtained the People Magazine article. How to present the PM coverage will need to be revised once that is obtained. --do ncr am 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions both national coverage on both ABC News and NBC News, although the NBC reference is sourced to a Youtube video of the ABC Nightly News story. It may be a typo. After futzing with the kludgey People online archive search, I managed to find the January 8, 2007 feature article about Laura Moore and Dream House: [19]. Please incorporate it into the text with an appropriate footnote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a clear pass with significant coverage in The Atlanta Business Chronicle, which is the very influential specialist newspaper for metro Atlanta's business community (paid twice-weekly circulation of 30,000, with over a half-million online article views per month), the People magazine feature article (January 8, 2007) linked above, and the ABC News national "Person of the Week" feature story, combined with the coverage in other local publications. The coverage is more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. With the national feature coverage, this is not even a particularly close call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References seem fleeting, and I cannot get away from the promotional aspect. Furthermore, any article DGG is minded to delete is most unlikely to be worth keeping. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your reasons are completely irrelevant to AFD. Notability is not temporary; if there was undue promotion (which I don't agree to be the case), it would be addressed by editing not by deletion; everyone, including DGG, has been wrong. --do ncr am 13:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a local topic, but it clearly has gotten national attention on more than one occasion.
SBaker43 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have been covered in various media so meets the notability standards. Needs a good ce though. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the mix of national coverage and local news profiles, I think this meets notability. I agree that there's some quote reliant sentences in the page. The headings could also be revised some it doesn't look so promotional. I would tidy those things. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Mostly local coverage, yes, but sufficient national sources (People and CBS News) to justify keeping per WP:GNG. I think it's likely appropriate to Rename to Laura O. Moore as both of the major national sources are more about her than the organization. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Dil Se[edit]

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

Article has been hanging around for a long time, about this college acappella group. They have won the Southeast Asian competition, Anahat, which coincidently is hosted by their own University! I can't see how that alone is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The article has simply become an extension of their website and in many places a blatant advert for the group. Time for it to go! Sionk (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better currently. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; Nate seems to pretty much nail it. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Name (Animated Cartoon)[edit]

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

I cannot establish notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube hoaxer; if Pivot went into the animation business, it wouldn't be an indecipherable cheap mess with stick figures, and checking Pivot's schedule, "The History of Water" is airing at that time. Unambiguous COPYVIO of Pivot's trademarks and definitely not real. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SK2 (Technically not banned just blocked but whatever, Anyway no objections to renomination at any time.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Coudray[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability criteria. Not notable enough as a dancer or equestrian. Antipromotion (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if riding in the Olympics does not make a person notable, I don't know what does. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources and article aren't great, but a quick search on google turns up plenty of third-party, reliable sources discussing Coudray's career. The article needs to be cleaned up and cited better, not deleted. Fuzchia (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note This can be closed as speedy keep as the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sock and there are no delete votes.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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