Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 November	19 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeforless[edit]

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

Nothing here that shows any notability. Several press releases. Mentions in directory listing and records of undoubtedly well meant philanthropic endeavours but nothing that adds up to notability. Self promotion yes, notability no. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as there's simply nothing for better improvement as there's not enough coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would probably have nominated it for speedy deletion, It shows no indication of notability oreen importance. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something tells me if this is written in a neutral way it could perhaps become notable but as it stands promotional bollocks like "Realizing the importance of our youth's education CoffeeForLess hopes to help our future business leaders meet their educational goals" makes me want to kill it with fire!, Anyway I can't find bugger all notability-wise so fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 25 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UMBEL[edit]

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

Advertorial written by developer's CEO. Has attracted some interest in the academic community, but not a whole lot of secondary sources to speak for it. (Citation counts for these papers are 2 and 0 on GScholar.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no other better sources for better notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of information from third party sources. This fails WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:31, 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 Moved. to User:Liroykwunwai/sandbox by Guettarda, (Technically it's not draft but whatever it's userfied so everyone's happy .... I hope! ). –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stress measurement in aviation[edit]

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

I actually declined this at AfC and the author has without further explanation, moved it themselves and if it wasn't that this currently looks more like a journal report, this may have been salvageable. Notifying author Liroykwunwai. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (but I'll change to keep unless something persuades me otherwise). This doesn't look like a "journal report" to me and even if it did it wouldn't be a reason for deletion. I also can't grasp the concept of an article being salvageable except for the fact that it "looks more like a journal report". A very peculiar nomination and one that I am not attracted to at all. Thincat (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little research via the article's talk page shows this to be a student project created article. That is neither a reason to delete nor retain it. Perhaps someone who knows how to alert one of our education facilitators could do so in order to minimise any misunderstandings. Fiddle Faddle 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, that's helpful. This article has been produced as part of https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_Western_Ontario/Human_Factors_in_Aviation_%28Fall_2015%29 under the Wiki Education Foundation umbrella. I personally don't feel any need to intervene. Thincat (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't my class, but I don't think deletion is the right option. Some aviation folks can hopefully chime in if there's a better page on human factors/stress in aviation. If not, a cursory look at the available sources shows me there's more than enough to make an article on the subject. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the article to remain someone has to confirm that the subject of this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria as defined in WP:GNG. I would change my "delete" recommendation if someone found 2-3 sources per WP:42 which featured the subject of this article as their own subject. The effort is nice but the base of a Wikipedia article is 2-3 good sentences backed by 2-3 good sources - someone please show that base to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief! I never imagined anyone would suggest the topic isn't notable. The nomination didn't suggest it anyway. Surely all seven papers are specifically about the topic of measuring stress for flight crews. Certainly not mentioning it merely in passing. I've found three books on the general topic of stress for flight crews if someone wants to extract further material from these.[1][2][3] Maybe you are wishing to disregard technical papers although there are numerous on NASA-TLX in the aviation context.[4] Here's a nice paper if you are interested.[5] Thincat (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - This is a student assignment that wasn't ready for mainspace (and is clear with from the nominators comments). It's obviously not ready for mainspace. Anyone opposed to moving the article back into the editor's userspace? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy WP:IAR move back to Draft space and Close on the basis that it is likely to be notable and arrived in main namespace by complete accident, and is a student project which may come to fruition with a decent article if they are given grace time to make that happen. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move (I suggest to User:Liroykwunwai/sandbox) as is now being very sensibly suggested. It was not the creator who submitted it to WP:AFC and things have shot off the rails. Thincat (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Occupational stress and redirect. Most of this article is not about aviation at all, only the short section on NASA touches on it. But it can fill a gap at Occupational stress, which at present has nothing on the measurement of stress. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I userfied the article after communicating with the instructor in the class. Hopefully they will be able to turn it into a viable article. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:30, 23 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 22:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¡Latin Food Fest![edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Sources are limited to routine local coverage. Page is essentially promotional. Ibadibam (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was already thinking the article was too promotional before the AfD. Eeekster (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable event. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources have been expanded to not just local coverage so why isn't this considered a notable event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle.alf (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article wording is the same as many other festival pages simply clearly stating what the event is. Sources are not just limited to local coverage, showing that this is as notable event as any festival. d.p.r2k15 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle.alf (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Perception and Cognitive Robotics Laboratory[edit]

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

Does not merit its own article, unreliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as although I found some links at News and browser, there's nothing convincingly better. Notifying DGG who lists to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A laboratory within a research unit of a medium level research university. I don't think even the research unit of which it is a part, Center for Complex Systems and Brain Sciences is notable, and Ive listed it for deletion.. Not even one of its faculty have articles in Wikipedia. Researchers can become notable because of the citations to the papers they publish without anything else being shown, but this does not extend to departments and laboratories. In practice, since only the famous ones get writtten about, the effective standard of notability for such organizations has generally been famous. This is nowhere near. It would be inappropriate oeven redirect. This is too minor. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cultureship[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, especially WP:ORGDEPTH. I am struggling to find anything more than passing mentions in any independent sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that I've fixed the technical code issues now! Edwardx (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as searches found nothing and that's not surprising. Notifying taggers Sionk and Shawn in Montreal. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, now it's come to AfD. To be honest it's a bit harsh to measure a charitable, community organisation against WP:CORPDEPTH. All the same, the events supported by The Cultureship get far more coverage than The Cultureship itself. I also find it somewhat confusing, the Telegraph] says The Cultureship is actaully a ship, rather than an organisation. Maybe an article about its founders, Zatorski and Zatorski, would have more chance of success. Sionk (talk) 18:26, 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 keep. It's snowing here. Jenks24 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up Australia[edit]

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

pure promotionalism. Local sources for local events. This is part of Clean Up the World, which might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From my understanding, Clean Up Australia predates Clean Up the World. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 22:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is notable event independent of Clean Up the World. Tone should be improved from promotional to neutral. Donama (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this deletion proposal is a non australian's reverse reading of the subject - it fails to see that the specific project started in Australia, and in itself it was a struggle, and in fact a notable project that took time and energy to work on a specific mindset in Australia. The notability issue is reverse as well, the clean up australia being more than the world. is part of clean up the world shows a reverse reading of the sequence and the notability and context.JarrahTree 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily notable. Sources could use some work, but it's not as though there's a shortage of non-local coverage. Frickeg (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, block nominator for disruption. This is a massive national event with a colossal amount of sources, and one that would be extraordinarily obvious if they had done the teensiest Google. As another editor said - what, are overseas editors going to nominate the Sydney Harbour Bridge or Vegemite next? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huge national (and later international) event, held annually for over a quarter of a century with plenty of secondary sources. Obviously influential, having led to a worldwide event, so is not "part of" a global program. Suggest better, external sources for the sub-events, but this is an easily-remedied content and tone issue—deletion would be unnecessary, and frankly, lazy. --Canley (talk) 01:37, 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. per SK1 - The nom originally withdrew but they screwed up the close so I reverted and reclosed. Not screwing about with sigs either. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saved (Ty Dolla Sign song)[edit]

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

The song has only charted on component of a component...the hip hop "digital" charts which clearly fails notability. Coverage is also not significant BlaccCrab (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article meets notablity guidline of music. The song receieved significant coverage and there's enought information about it in the article. The fact that it peaked only at number 47 on that chart doesn't make this song non-notable. For example "Ice Princess" by Azealia Banks peaked at number 41 on the Billboard Twitter Top Tracks, but it has an individual article which has GA status. --Eurofan88 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:31, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of branches of the Anthroposophical Society in America[edit]

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

Article was prodded, but prod removed with a comparison to lists of dioceses and the like. I don't believe that these branches have the same notability as those examples though, and aren't notable enough to warrant a stand-alone list. Fram (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication here that this is (a) due weight to include (this is not the organization's website, after all), or (b) an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Helpful, useful and informative, yes, but perhaps not yet an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welby Computer Services Limited[edit]

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

Utter trivia. No significant importance. Having an outdated computer in the 70s is is not notability DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links at Books and Newspapers but nothing convincingly better which this article would need. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, particularly because it is largely based on a chat with an ex-employee, another's resumé and an advertisement in a newspaper. Despite the company's age, not a hint of notability. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a spider web. The company does have coverage if you check Newspapers.com and Google Books. However, the question is if this article is of significance to the Encyclopedia. I for one say "no" and would recommend merging it with Memotec Data Incorporated. That causes another problem as I am unsure if that article is notable. That company was also purchased by a 3rd company which doesn't have a Wikipedia article and unknown notability. For me, this is a tough one to judge based on notability alone as there is coverage. However, based on the unlikelihood this will help the encyclopedia or merging with another article, I would have to say ignore all rules and delete. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Doon Centre[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a shopping mall, making no particular claim of notability for anything more than existing. Wikipedia, however, does not automatically accept all shopping malls as automatically notable — to get a shopping mall in here, the article must be substantive, consisting of more than just a list of five or six stores that happen to be located in it, and must be supported by reliable source coverage of the mall. This article was prodded back in September for lacking any substantive claim of notability, but then the exact same article was recreated two weeks ago with no discernible attempt to actually address the reasons why it got prodded in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard to see why a fairly ordinary shopping mall would get significant secondary coverage, and I can't find any. JMWt (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to pretty clearly fail notability guidelines. Appears it's a recreation of a previously deleted PROD. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:27, 24 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Bulo[edit]

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

Non notable bio, lacks reliable references. Ireneshih (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Browser searches found a few links but simply nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:Userfy if desired. Just a question of WP:TOOSOON, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 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. Too. MUch of the keep argument is assertion. This is a blp that means it must have decent sourcing about the subject. The argument that sources are about the research have not been well refuted so, with the onus on the keep side, this does fall into delete territory. I would note that DGGs analysis is as compelling as always Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosed as No Consensus, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 1

Rhonda Patrick[edit]

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

Except Youtube, I couldn't any news where claims of her work can be verified. No reliable sources expresses an identity. Literally none of the sources used actually say anything about why the good biochemist is notable. Ireneshih (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say an unambiguous Keep - seems to have a significant publishing record, including in the best scientific journals, pointing to point 1 of WP:NACADEMICS, however, I have noticed several of the best references in the list do not seem to list R. Patrick. I thought at first that the explanation was that she changed her name from Perciavalle, RM (although I can't see this in the text), however that does not explain references 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.. and so on.. where neither name is cited as an author. So either a) the editor of the page does not understand how to cite papers (ie not those in which the subject was not a named author) or b) is trying to give the page more weight than it deserves. It seems to me that the name she used in her papers was "Patrick, RP", so any papers cited which do not have that in the authors can be ignored. So we now need a proper list of published work by Patrick, RP. I can only find the two in pubmed. Ignoring all the other crap on the page, I'm struggling to see how that can be considered notable (and tbh, the crap is pretty misleading IMO). JMWt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you figured out the thing with the name. You have also misunderstood the references. Only a few are to her scientific papers, and for a full list you need to go to Google Scholar, Web of Science or her CV. The remaining references are media sources, such as the Boston Globe article, that covers her and her research. Those are exactly the type of sources that show notability. Her research is all over the news!! Martinogk (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another point - the page seems to suggest that she is indeed Rhonda Perciavalle, who did a doctorate at the University of Tennessee (ref 5), but that ref calls her RM Perciavalle. The foreword refers to her husband as Patrick. But why in the world would she be using the name Rhonda M Perciavalle in 2012 (last paper in pubmed under than name in 2013) and Rhonda P Patrick in 2014 and 2015? Two different middle names for the same person (professional vs personal)? Seems highly unlikely. Suspect this is not the same person. JMWt (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A common convention when women take their husband's last name at marriage is to use the former last name as the middle name. So the "P" in "RP Patrick" probably stands for "Perciavalle". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I hadn't thought of that - although I think it is unusual for an academic to change names as they want to keep their publishing record under one name. According to the doctoral thesis, Rhonda Perciavalle was already married and she was already publishing under the name back to 1996. Anyway, even if the name change is explained by that, in total both names have 7 publications listed on pubmed (5 to Perciavalle and 2 to Patrick), which in itself is not particularly notable for an academic over 20 years. And the vast majority of the references on the page do not include either name as author. JMWt (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reference has her as Rhonda Perciavalle Patrick, so that's confirmed (although maybe it is different elsewhere, but in the UK it would be unusual to call yourself Dr x when your doctorate was in another name). It also has her as a Post-Doctoral Scientist, which suggests she does not have a professorial position, adding to evidence of a lack of notability as per WP:NACADEMICS JMWt (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebar also gives the name Rhonda Perciavalle Patrick, I only just noticed. More fool me. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable with ample coverage of academic position, published works and related media.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to hear how the subject is "obviously notable" as per the points in WP:NACADEMICS. To me, it is fairly obvious that there is no basis for any of the points suggested there. 11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)JMWt (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am offended, on so many levels, that this file is nominated not only for deletion but is tagged as a hoax. What part of WP:BEFORE was done here? If one doesn't even understand naming conventions of women, how can one assess a file for anything? First, a simple look at "scholar" shows she is publishing with Bruce Ames (BN Ames). Would he be assessed as a hoax? Would he likely be jointly publishing with someone who was? Clearly the sourcing on the files establishes notability. The Telegraph, "Patrick and Ames, both well-respected scientists in the field of autism"; the Boston Globe, "work by Ames and Patrick is significant". Are you questioning the reliability of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, etc.? Does this sound like the woman is a hoax? [6] - unsigned comment was by User:SusunW

Not my hoax tag, but I think it is understandable given that the vast majority of the references on the page are not in either of her names. I take your point though, and apologise for my confusion above.

That said, please indicate how the criteria in WP:ACADEMICS has been met. I agree she has some good newspaper write-ups, but she has a very small number of academic papers (point 1), which do not have massive numbers of citations (point 1), she does not seem to have been awarded an international prize (point 2), she does not hold membership of a highly-selective scholarly association (point 3), she does not seem to have anything to speak to point 4, she is not a professor (point 5), nothing to speak to point 6, is not the editor of a major academic journal (point 8).

Arguably the only way she could be considered to be notable would be related to point 7, and I'm not seeing that either. JMWt (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: JMWt She completed her PhD in 2012, per documentation in the file and is clearly at the beginning of her academic career. She isn't required to meet academic. She is required to meet GNG, which she easily does. Multiple mentions, over time in reliable sources. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK well in that case we can remove all the text on the page which discusses her academic contribution. So ignoring that, how does she meet the WP:GNG. If the notability claim is related to her academic contribution, I cannot see how WP:NACADEMICS is not the policy to apply. JMWt (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt I've stated that already and am not inclined to argue with you (or anyone else for that matter). She meets GNG because she has been mentioned in reliable, independent sources, over time, with significant coverage. Your suggestion to remove the academic materials from her biography doesn't even make sense. Would you remove Heddy Lamar's scientific discoveries from her bio because she was predominantly an actress? Patrick is covered in the press because of her scientific contributions, which are academic in nature, but she does not have to meet any criteria other than GNG (for that matter, no article has to meet any criteria other than GNG). SusunW (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of this content is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's place as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia summarizes existing published work and is not a place for publishing original research or thought. I fail to identify the evidence that this article passes WP:GNG or that this person passes WP:ACADEMIC. I am looking for 2-3 sources which feature this person as their subject - someone please point only those 2-3 sources to me. I see 0 right now. Even if this article is kept almost all of it except 2-3 sentences is likely to need deletion for being WP:OR. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article references #3,4,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25 are all media sources that feature Dr Patrick and/or her scientific research as the subject, most of them in a very prominent way. Several are high circulation media, such as the Boston Globe and the Canadian Brodcasting Cooperation. Martinogk (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SusunW's edit has greatly improved content, cutting out promotional gibberish. It's still early days in Patrick's career, but it seems to me there is enough independent coverage to pass GNG, especially with the remarks made regarding respect/significance quoted by SusunW. So I lean toward keeping and improving rather than discarding.Alafarge (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Am adding a note here that I was not previously aware of "userfication" but want to say that since many of the objections come down to WP:TOOSOON, I would advocate for userfication rather than deletion if the general trend leans away from keeping.Alafarge (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as I certainly not sure why this was tagged as a "hoax" and the article seems notable and acceptable (certainly not a deletion priority at this time). Notifying DGG for some familiar insight. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 4 Reasons: (1) Fails WP:PROF, as the work is not yet highly cited; Even the first list 2014 paper has only 48 refs in Google Scholar. If it were truly breakthrough work, I would expect hundreds. If there are in the future, then there's evidence for an article. In fact, they are not the first people to publish the connection --the most cited paper is from an European group in 2006 [7] I note the argument: "shows she is publishing with Bruce Ames (BN Ames ". Bruce Ames, a very famous scientist, has published papers with many dozen students and postdocs. A few of them became notable. Most didn't. Since she is a postdoc in his laboratory, he would normally be considered the senior author for the publications from there. The same goes for her her graduate student work,only more so, and especially her undergraduate work. That she's a junior author at that stage is proof of her being a student, in training to be a researcher. There have been cases where one's postdoc or even graduate work does make one notable, but they are quite uncommon, to he extent that it wold count as an unusual BLP claim that requires unusually strong evidence. (2) fails WP:GNG because most of the references are either her publications or YouTube talks or unreliable sources for notability. (3) promotional and cannot be made unpromotional because there's insufficient nonpromotional content. The entire article is puffery, giving her credit for what cannot be shown to primarily belong to her. Perhaps it will be in the future, and then a proper article can be written about her science, not needing to fill it in with references to her non-notable YouTubing. (4) RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There is an unfortunate undercoverage of notable women scientists, and there are thousands of notable ones to include. We should fill this by starting from the most notable. To start from the extreme borderline and use the gender imbalance as a reason for inclusion is almost insulting to any proponent of an increased role for women in science,and I would include some of my colleagues here who argue also for delete as very much in that category. We should be long past the point of arguing for covering the non-notable because they are women. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A 1995 article with 48 citations is a little over average, but an article published in 2014 with 48 citations is absolutely fantastic, and puts it in the top one tenth of a percent of all scientific papers. Scientists will kill for those numbers. I promise you, in a few more years that paper will have over 1000 citations. She publishes in top-notch scientific journals, and her other papers are also well cited, with 42 cites for a 2013 paper, 99 cites for a 2012 paper and 552 cites for a 2006 paper. (2) Of the 25 references, 4 are to her own scientific publications (not a complete list), 1 is to her own "self-promotional" web site, and the remaining 20 are from 17 independent media sources that is covering her and her research. These 17 include some of the top media organizations in the United States and Canada. (3) When a scientist is the first author of a paper, they can claim ownership of and major credit for the paper, even when a senior mentor is listed as the senior author. No academic promotions committee would argue otherwise. (4) I guess she is a young woman, but who cares. The quality and notability of her science is much more higher than the vast majority scientists, whether they are men or women and whether they are young or old. Martinogk (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criticism against YouTube talks fails to note that she was on The Joe Rogan show which was published on YouTube--I'm sorry, but Joe Rogan is influential and his podcast isn't just some crap on YouTube, so I'm not seeing the puffery. Listeners and viewers of Rogan are going to look for her and I'd like for people to find her on Wiki, which should be neutral. Also, one person's "promotional" is another person's "information." I think if we're going to argue about her contributions, we need a scientist to weigh in, because I'm not an expert in medicine. At worst, userfy if anyone thinks this is WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG is a reference librarian who specializes in science, which might actually be better than a scientist. You've got some skills that way, too, I believe. Can you find more sources about her (i.e., that would help write a biography, not sources that would be useful for an article such as Role of nutrition in autism)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a strange fellow to boot, sorry DGG. An extreme inclusionist on certain topics but has strict requirements for scholar articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I'm not saying she doesn't skew towards the woo, because she seems to. I just think she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl yep, that's where I am. I don't have to agree with who they are, what they do or anything else. The criteria is what it is. She doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to have an article on Wikipedia. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment on this chain of thought, respecting that SusunW said he/she does not want to debate with me, so these are a response to the general thrust rather than specific comments. First, the newspaper articles mentioned above as meeting the standards for WP:GNG are about the research not the researcher that is the subject of the page. As a science journalist, I wrote many articles like this about new research - that's what happens when new research is published with fanfare by the journal or academic institution. Some academics who wrote the work I featured in the articles I wrote would be notable, a lot would not. The fact that I wrote about them is not in and of itself a sign that they're a notable scientist, that is why we have WP:NACADEMIC. If editors want to say that the newspaper articles in this page are an indication of notability, they are by definition talking about the academic research, and therefore they need to consider WP:NACADEMIC in my opinion.

Second, this researcher is simply not producing a lot of research in high profile academic journals. 7 academic papers in 20 years is not a lot. 20 papers in a year is a lot. Members of my family have more publications and media coverage, and I would not think they were even close to being notable enough to have a wikipedia page about them.

Third, the best that can be quoted from the Telegraph article is that the journalist said the page's subject was a "well-respected scientists in the field of autism". That is a single phrase and an opinion of the writer. Without further sources to back it up, it is just a phrase in a single article. Clearly none of these newspaper articles represent "significant independent coverage or recognition" as per the WP:GNG. Once again, without prizes, a professorship and other academic recognition, WP:NACADEMIC says they are not notable.

We then come to the youtube videos. The question is whether a video which has had 150,000 views is notable, and whether it can be considered to be part of "significant independent coverage or recognition". I don't think so. If that is the strongest evidence for keep, then that's still pretty weak, particularly given the failure to meet any of the standards of the notability for academics guideline. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reasoning above. The notability of a scientists stems from the notability of the science, including the notability of Nobel prize laureates. If the notability of the science do not count towards the notability of a scientist, almost no scientist would be notable. The exception would be those like Carl Sagan that do public science education. It is the same for writers, who are notable because of the books they write, musicians who are notable for the music they write or play, and athletes who are notable for the sport they play, and in almost all cases, pretty much nothing else. People are notable because of what they do and what they say, and except for royalty and the like, no person is notable just because of the person they are. Martinogk (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt I am not unwilling to have reasoned discussion. The behavior you were engaged in previously was aggressive badgering, IMO. You challenged every statement anyone made. She does not have to be a high profile academic nor a highly cited scientist. She does not have to have done anything at all to meet WP criteria for inclusion. If she is in the media, if people are curious about who she is and what she does, we should have an article that is unbiased and contains NPOV about her theories giving the basic elements contained in those ideas. We have plenty of coverage of people with non-mainstream ideas and even no contributions to society covered in WP, lots of controversial figures as well. Media's opinion of the notability of anyone is an opinion and is caused by buzz, she is no different. You make a mistake when you assume that anyone here is claiming she is a notable scientist. She meets the basic criteria for inclusion in WP. That is all that is ever required. The guidelines state that everyone must meet GNG or other criteria. (my emphasis). SusunW (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way, and this is only one of many, many examples that could be cited. Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, with some skill according to his article, who had successes and failures, but was "launched to stardom" by the Binder surgery which was picked up by the media. On the other hand, Thomson Reuters publishes lists annually of the most influential and highly cited scientists in their fields. Elisabeth Gasteiger, Elizabeth A. Spencer, Ann S. Zweig and many, many others are on that list. They do not have articles because no media outlet writes about them. There are hundreds of articles about their work, none about them. Carson, has an article about him personally, not because of the overall value of his work, but because the media has continued to cover him, over time, in a variety of endeavors. WP is not, by definition of the criteria required, a reference of the most significant contributors, it is a reference of people that others want to know about because they have media coverage. SusunW (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me respond, please. I think the idea of comparing with Ben Carson is quite instructive. In the first paragraph of that page, it is clear that he is a retired neurosurgeon, but it is fairly clear further down the page that being a retired neurosurgeon is not what makes him notable, and as far as I can see he was not a particularly notable one. In contrast the first paragraph and further down the Rhonda Patrick page is the suggestion that her notability is related to her as a scientist. I agree that she might be considered to be notable outwith of her science, and according to the standard of WP:NACADEMIC she is not a notable academic scientist. She can indeed be a notable podcaster and resident at a medical research center, just as Ben Carson can be notable as a presidential candidate who happened to also have been a neurosurgeon. So which sources on the page suggest she is notable in her own right outwith of the publicity generated by her research?

I suggest only reference number 13 is specifically discussing her as a person not the research. And then the youtube videos and a blog.

The question is therefore whether reference 13 and 21-25 give enough to show that she is a notable as a public medic and podcaster. I don't believe these are a) lengthy biographies of her as a person as per WP:ANYBIO or b) independent, significant sources as per WP:RS.

Finally, I don't believe WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC are either/or. If the page, as the final section suggest, is about a person who is notable for her research, then she isn't notable. If the page is about a person who is notable as a podcaster and public academic, there is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Thanks for engaging. JMWt (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt We shall ultimately agree to disagree. GNG is unambiguous. If anyone meets the 3 criteria "it is presumed to be suitable" per ANYBIO "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria..." You call it how you see it, I read the words that are there.

I picked Carson for a reason but could just as easily have picked Paris Hilton, who is notable for ???. However, Carson's original bio was indeed based upon his career as a neurosurgeon. [8] From 2004 until 2009 it contained only information about his surgical career and religious works. 5 years, but "being a retired neurosurgeon is not what makes him notable"? (your emphasis) You see my point, there is a double standard, was he notable besides the publicity he was given? Was his article marked as a "hoax"? As to significant coverage, it has nothing to do with length. One can have a 200 or 20000 page tome on someone's exploits at college which carry no weight at all, but a single sentence which states that they are a Nobel Prize winner, president of a country, etc. has weight. Significance ≠ length. (In point of fact, wikiguides specifically state chaining evidence together to address lack of length is acceptable.) My original analysis that there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG stands. You don't agree. That is why there is debate. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete [9] recently created ([10]editor has 5 edits?), do not see WP NOTABILITY[11] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ozzie10aaaa, how does the amount of edits the creator of the page has made affect this AfD discussion? There is currently an edit-a-thon taking place for Women in Science, so of course we have newbies on Wiki writing articles. Please make your case without resorting to ad hominem. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your correct about the edit-a-thon(....however and whenever one sees few edits to an account direct at a specific article...one wonders).In any event I sincerely don't believe it is WP NOTABILITY [12] ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources such as the Boston Globe, Daily Telegraph, CBC, SF Chronicle, etc. discuss the subject's work in some depth. This is sufficient to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth2, Ipigott and SusunW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per --Ipigott , Megalibrarygirl, SusunW and Dr. Blofeld. As far as DGG is concerned: he may have been an inclusionist at some time, but now I see him nominating for deletion right and left. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)p;ease in me[reply]
Delete. I did not read the wall above, so maybe some of these arguments have been made already. Basically, Patrick is a junior academic with only a few independent publications that are not (yet) highly cited. (I would not count publications like the 2006 Science paper heavily, since that was several years before she earned her grad degree, so it's likely her role was very minor.) It seems the vitamin D story was a news blip for a time and almost all of the references are either a cull of the media community for this story or blogs and other web ephemera. This seems to be an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Even in the absence of WP:NACADEMIC (if that be the case), SusunW's argument for WP:GNG still stands. I believe Agricola44's referring to the Boston Globe story as a blip (it was a cover story in that issue) is a mischaracterization. Finally, per Megalibrarygirl, web shows often do capture a level of viewership that can be comparable to more traditional mediums like television...and looking only to YouTube count does not actually adequately capture audience reach if the show also happens to be popular on other platforms like iTunes, for example^[1]. Snazzywiki (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe is a daily broadsheet – it has no "cover stories". I think you're confusing popularity with notability. The problem here is that there's no claim to notability yet (because the subject is entry-level), though it seems clear that there will be such in the future, and therefore the article is not yet encyclopedic. Agricola44 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The Boston Globe does have cover stories, as evidenced by the prominent labeling of "cover story" on the original print^[2]. Snazzywiki (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. Dr Patrick is a young but already accomplished and notable scientist, publishing highly cited papers in the top science journals. The number of citations has to be interpreted in terms of how old the paper is. 48 Google Scholar citations for a one year old article is extremely high, and 99 citations for a three year old article is also very good. Dr Patrick has already produced more important science than most scientists do over their whole career. This alone ensures her scientific notability. In addition, she has been featured in multiple independent media sources, including prominent newspapers such as the Boston Globe. As per SusunW, that in itself also ensures her notability, even if her research had been mediocre (not all science covered by the media is good science). In addition to the 17 independent media sources listed in the articles, a few simple Google searches generates many more in a variety of languages. Martinogk (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding number of citations has to be interpreted in terms of how old the paper is. 48 Google Scholar citations for a one year old article is extremely high: 48 citations is not notable – you're observation unintentionally supports my contention that this article is WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon per Agricola44. Usually around 1000 GS citations are needed to pass WP:Prof#C1; subject has less than 60. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ Elfman, Doug (31 December 2014). "Joe Rogan's three-hour podcast show tops 11 million monthly downloads". LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL. Retrieved 24 November 2015.
^ Jesse on Twitter: "Look who's in the Globe with more vitamin D knowledge bombs! Congrats Doc Patrick @foundmyfitness

Delete per Agricola44. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 29 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Gschwandtner[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, lacks reliable references. Ireneshih (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The indications [13] are that this is a first article by a new editor on a WP:STUDENT training with a Women in Art focus. In that context, it is unfortunate that it has been brought to AfD less than 24 hours later. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of newspaper references, and will look for more, but am dubious that the subject meets the WP:ARTIST criteria, which are set rather higher than in other fields in my opinion. Which can all be discouraging for a new editor making their first contribution. AllyD (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Agree with AllyD. In fact, I am wondering if nominator looked offline - as they should - to see if there are references that could have been added. One for instance is a review of her work in The New York Times [14]. Not only would I vote to keep, but I think this should be a speedy keep. This type of nomination is what scares people away from Wikipedia. Need more references? Here are a few listed on her website [15]. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links can be added to the museums referenced, but article should stand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annieredshoes (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Wikipedia has minimal requirements which this article is not meeting. Fails WP:GNG. The easiest way for the article to stand would be for someone to add citations to 2-3 sources. Even if this stands almost all of the content in here needs to be deleted for failing WP:V. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With recent changes article passes WP:GNG. I deleted promotional content which was not backed by references. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources confirm notability, over time, in independent sources. New editor could have been coached rather than AfDed. Full length interviews [16], [17], multiple showings across the country [18], [19], [20], [21] in both solo shows and multiple-artist shows, acquisition by the Smithsonian American Art Museum [22]. Easily meets GNG and #2 of artist, though file needs the sources cited. SusunW (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep she passes GNG, has work in the Smithsonian and other museums besides. I've added the references that SusunW found so the article doesn't suffer from WP:V, as Bluerasberry suggested. This should never have been up for AfD, only tagged for improvement. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 23 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) JMHamo (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrainCraft[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, I am not sure why page patroller has not marked for deletion and tagged for uncategorized, stub and others. Ireneshih (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the references do seem like reliable sources. Good, reasonably substantial coverage, by a variety of independent news sites. It seems notable, by our standards. Being a stub or uncategorized is not a reason for deletion. Not really sure what the problem is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with @Shawn in Montreal: - One of numerous articles recommended for deletion by nominator that have me scratching my head. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (maybe Speedy Keep?) Deep coverage from good sources. Not sure why this was nominated.--Sbwoodside (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate coverage by reliable and reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 12:14, 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 and salt. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EKincare[edit]

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

Company fails to expresses an identity, it is too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company. Ireneshih (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A recent start-up whose references in the article and elsewhere are just routine start-up funding announcements. No evidence found that this firm is notable at this time. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources suggest that it is a product, not a company. One source shows that a company has secured some funding, a second shows a beta product has been produced. It fails to pass WP:PRODUCT. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not yet notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely non notable article. Is this a re-creation of a speedied article??? I have no idea why else the article is on my watchlist.TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now you mention it, a check at the log shows 2 previous deletions in the past few months. Maybe a case for WP:SALT. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to what's above, it looks like the primary registered user & the unregistered IP involved in editing it are also the people responsible for the BitChemy Ventures page, that's the VC firm funding this. I'm oretty sure that's a WP:COI issue.JamesG5 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though there are a handful of RS covering the company, it is just a start up that has not yet reached notability guidelines. Meatsgains (talk) 03:45, 24 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gary Richter[edit]

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

Literally none of the sources used actually say anything about why the good doctor is notable. Fails WP:GNG Ireneshih (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are nearly all namechecks, although he did win this one contest of dubious distinction. However, I don't see any indepth information about him anywhere, only this contest (and I can find more info about the contest than about him). It's pretty much a wp:blp1e. LaMona (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability, and essentially a promotional article, even if not so blatant as to justify speedy deletion, sourced largely to promotional pages. Even the claim that he won the title "America's Favorite Veterinarian" does not stand up to examination: because of controversy, the contest was called off, and the title given to all the finalists. (Also, it is doubtful that the title would in any case be an indication of significance: the contest appears to be a promotional event by an organisation without evident importance.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not establish notability. Article seems to be promotional. Delta13C (talk) 20:22, 24 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. Michig (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autoshite[edit]

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

Puffery content to promote James Ruppert. Ireneshih (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on current sources for failing to meet WP:GNG. I can find plenty of casual use of the term online, but no press coverage of "autoshite" as a movement, or even enough for a bare bones dictionary definition or one-line mention in the decrepit car article. The current references are backing up facts related to autoshite (an inspirational book existed, car production is bad for the environment and scrap metal legislation has changed), but aren't telling us anything about autoshite, so don't help to meet WP:GNG.

User:Micrashed mentioned on the article talk page that it's had some coverage in the motoring press - if we can get clearer details of that, maybe there's something worth writing about it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Bangernomics - it looks like this is the term actually used in fair number of press articles about the general practice of maintaining and running old cars, which seems enough to meet WP:GNG. (Many of them seem entirely independent of James Ruppert.) I haven't been able to find any sources that suggest "Autoshite" is anything more than one particular web forum dedicated to a spinoff of the practice, and it's unclear how much "Autoshite practitioners" just means "people from the autoshite.com forums" in the current version of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Re. Rename to Bangernomics~~ - disagree - as mentioned elsewhere there is a fundamental difference between bangernomics (which is primarily an ecological / cost-saving exercise) and adherence to the autoshite ethos, which is more attuned to the preservation of unpopular or forgotten vehicles regardless of cost.--80.47.97.58 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate there's a difference, but we've currently got several reliable, secondary sources about bangernomics, and none about autoshite. The end result may have to be a short article about bangernomics which doesn't mention autoshite, if that's all that the sources can give us. (Are there any other names for the practice which might turn up some better sources?) --McGeddon (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a search is being made for articles that specifically mention Autoshite by name. Please note that these sources are likely to be from the specialist automotive press rather than mainstream media sources though, for the reasons specified earlier (i.e. avoidance of perceived profanity).--Mittweida (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are mainstream press avoiding profanity by calling it something else, writing about it without using any particular name, or by just not writing about it? If we have a pile of sources that describe the phenonemon without giving it a name, we could likely build some kind of article from it (possibly an article titled Bangernomics with a large subsection about preserving forgotten cars). --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are reporting it, but they are not referring to the phenomenon by a specific name - see the 2011 Daily Mail article referenced at the bottom of this discussion. --Mittweida (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At face value, that article about "previously unfashionable classic cars" seems more suited to a new paragraph in the Classic car article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but the "Autoshite" ethos is rather more multi-faceted and diverse than the mainstream classic car world. As further evidence that Autoshite is a separate entity, the equivalent German designation for more modern classic cars ("Youngtimer", see the German Wikipedia article referenced below) is even regulated in the 49th Exemption Regulation of the Federal Road Traffic Licensing Act (StVZO).--80.47.97.58 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)--Mittweida (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I get that, but the Mail article is just "look at these retro cars which are now considered classic". If you want this article to be about "autoshite", you need to provide a source that discusses the term in the same depth as the "bangernomics" articles. I don't think we've even had a reliable press source that uses the term in passing, let alone discusses it. --McGeddon (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not content to promote James Ruppert (or Jalopy magazine) as Ruppert promoted the term Bangernomics. Autoshite differs slightly from Bangernomics in that rather than following the mainstream car preservation ethos particularly those that concentrate on high end models of a particular marque - Autoshite often preserves the bread and butter lower end or less popular cars - one practitioner has rebuilt and restored two FSO Polonez pick up trucks - a vehicle with next to no following in the UK - both cars are employed as workhorses and by repairing the vehicles he has prevented the need for the production and purchase of a new car.

I have asked other members to try to provide references for the use of Autoshite within the motoring and wider press. I believe there is also a reference in "The Barefoot Chef". User:Micrashed Micrashed (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Autoshite" has long since established itself internationally denoting a subculture in the automotive hobby. Certain terms coined in this subculture are nowadays commonly used in the automotive media catering to the classic car hobby. If the Wikipedia Gods would do a little homework, they would quickly realise that Autoshite is a firmly established movement recognized way beyond the Autoshite scene itself. Besides, what is the real argument of Wikipedia to delete the entry?
The term "Autoshite" tends not to be used in publications due to resistance of much mainstream printed media to the use of perceived profanities such as "shit" - or its derivative "shite". However, it should be noted that an alternative meaning for this colloquialism is "something worthless, rubbish, nonsense" - see sense 3 of the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "shit" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/shit=)). However, use of the term in various online communities is relatively widespread. Examples include:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veK3Ys3nBxA
http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/hyundai-i10.1019756/page-2
http://doublebooth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/downtown.html
French-language website, using the localised term "automerde": http://automerde.tumblr.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.97.58 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish-language comment "Gdzie to polskie autogówno w rankingu ?" ("Where is the Polish autoshite in the rankings?") can be found as a response to a 2012 article on the Polish automotive website Autokrata^[1]--Mittweida (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian-language comment "Автодерьмо это то, чему 15-20 и выше лет." ("Autoshite is what, 15-20 years old and above?") is one of several instances of the term Автодерьмо (= Autoshite) being used in a thread (dated July 2012) about cars on the Bryansk city history forum^[2]--Mittweida (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autoshite has been mentioned in the popular 'Practical Classics' magazine several times, members of the Autoshite forum are contributors to the magazine. Also mentioned in the new 'Modern Classics' magazine. It's presence in life is also proven by the existance of Autoshite dealerships window stickers.

More than 1300 videos on youtube using the term "Autoshite" in the title to describe old car preservation related content. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22autoshite%22
Term used to describe subject matter on all relevant social media services: facebook, flickr, twitter, instagram, pinterest with significant number of entries.
> 70000 incoming links to the www.autoshite.com site https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=http://www.autoshite.com&start=10 --93.104.34.44 (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism, it seems. However, there may be an underlying notable concept here we don't already cover. I'm not sure. Perhaps a selective merge/redirect to e.g. decrepit car. Wikipedia is not a place to popularize neologisms (indeed none of the reliable sources I've seen use the term), so we would want to describe the practice in as generic terms as possible, with at best a "sometimes called autoshite")... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term "autoshite" does NOT relate to decrepit cars per se. Indeed, the cars in question might be in 'as new' condition. However, unlike the vast majority of classic cars that tend to be valuable, sporty or luxurious models or marques, "autoshite" tend to be very ordinary, everyday cars that were once everywhere but have now all but disappeared. In many cases, this means that they are far more rare than their 'classic' counterparts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.97.58 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - both the term and the concept of "Autoshite" independently exist in other languages and cultures - e.g. Russian-language blog about an old UAZ vehicle using the French transliteration "automerde"

https://automerde.wordpress.com/ - French motoring blog entitled "automerde" - http://automerde.tumblr.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.97.58 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 18 November 2015‎

Comment - Note that usage of the term "automerde" and sources which use it are not what will lead to the article being kept as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and doesn't include topics based on word use. Also, social media, forums, youtube videos, blogs, sites using the word in the title, sites promoting the topic -- none of these help at all, either. What's necessary to demonstrate notability is in depth coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. So, for example, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc. articles about (or about in part) the phenomenon being described here as "automerde". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the sort of thing you're looking for? Article from the Daily Mail dated 2011 entitled "Reversing the trend: the old cars fashion forgot are now back in demand"^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittweida (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon is described precisely by the German term "Youngtimer", for which a Wikipedia article exists^[4]. This article is currently - but inaccurately - linked to the English-language article "Classic cars".--Mittweida (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Youngtimer links to Classic car#Modern classics, a section which seems to have been deleted yesterday. --McGeddon (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... that must have already been deleted when I checked the link. It certainly makes more sense than just linking to the classic cars page. Why would anyone delete it??--Mittweida (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the definition quoted in the refs is effectively a blog with no oversight or credibility. The fact that it has been used a few times in a very niche publishing sector is not anywhere close to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - it is evident that there is global interest and involvement in the preservation and upkeep of very ordinary cars that are outside the scope of the usual definition of "classic cars". As stated above, "autoshite" is NOT simply another term for "decrepit car (NB the autoshite article is substantially more detailed than the "decrepit car" article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.97.58 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop voting multiple times in this thread (as well as adding bolded words, which are typically considered votes). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry - I didn't realise that, I'm new to these discussions. I assume I am still permitted to respond to comments that challenge the legitimacy of the entry, though?--80.47.97.58 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We're all new to these at first. Yes, you can respond to and challenge other people's !votes (we put a ! before "vote" because while we technically cast votes, the end result is not a vote tally but an evaluation of the arguments). I'd recommend reading this section: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. I'd also recommend, at some point, registering for an account to edit Wikipedia. When these threads attract multiple anonymous users (or, frankly, brand new accounts) there's a tendency to think people are only participating to push an agenda rather than to improve Wikipedia (i.e. because of an affinity for the subject rather than trying to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). There's a policy of assume good faith, but in practice it doesn't always happen. Do with this advice what you will. One more thing: when responding to someone in a thread on Wikipedia, it makes the thread flow better to indent. To do that, just start each new line (after a line break, not within the same paragraph) with one more colon than the person above you. If you edit this page, you can see that I added a second to your comment above and have three myself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - account now created :-)--Mittweida (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best merge. How many Gnews hits do we see for this neologism? Zero. Precisely zero. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Yangmo[edit]

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

Lacks references, references has minor mentions. Ireneshih (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Either it "lacks references" or the references "ha[ve] minor mentions." Which one so I know the deletion rationale and can evaluate accordingly. Once of many AfDs you have done that I am scratching my head about. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He is a leading historian of Korean Art and porcelain. His work is cited frequently but it's hard to find the information someone mention about himself. I've filled up short mention about his works. -- Chaseklee (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG in the normal way; he's been getting newspaper articles written about him for half a century. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this will particularly need familiar attention as it seems sources exist. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point, the article has been improved to where it manifestly meets notability requirements, and I believe WP:SK would apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 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 Craig Smith (basketball, born 1972). (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 05:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Smith (coach)[edit]

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

Fails WP:COACH Ireneshih (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable bio of coach. Ireneshih (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COACH is a collection of links on helping wikipedians become administrators. It has nothing to do with coaching basketball! Jacona (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHOOPS is a good start to judging the notability of this individual. Ireneshih, please note that it does not matter whether this article does a good job of expressing the subject's notability, only whether the subject meets the standard of notability. Jacona (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject should be considered notable if it passes either WP:NHOOPS or WP:gng Jacona (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I've had time to follow up on sources, and the subject did in fact win a national coach of the year award in 2007. There are lots of other references, including USA Today. The article doesn't reflect much of this, but the guy passes gng Jacona (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Craig Smith (basketball, born 1972). Jacona (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with Craig Smith (basketball, born 1972). I created a stub for this guy the day before using the correct naming convention. This one now has more info so the best of both should be combined. He definitely meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks like this original was a cut and paste job of the stub I created (which did have a RS, which was fine for a 2 sentence stub). Not sure what the editor was trying to do. Rikster2 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just ported over the new material to the original article. This can be changed into a redirect as soon as all are satisfied the subject meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rikster2: Can you clarify which specific article you want to be the redirect? I assume Craig Smith (coach) (which would be consistent with your previous !vote at Talk:Craig Smith (basketball, born 1983).—Bagumba (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I think the "original article" is not this one nominated, and "this" really is this one nominated for AfD. Was just thrown off by your bolded "keep" as opposed to "redirect"—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rikster's comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindela Ndlovu[edit]

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

Six year old article that has remained with only one sentence and one source since its inception. Only recent news was of their death. Fails basic notability. Rusted AutoParts 16:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources on Google Books. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with Rusted AutoParts, Lacks references, books has minor mentions. Ireneshih (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidently this AfD has finished him off, because he died this morning and has already been profiled at length in a reliable Zimbabwean media source. He was also awarded the Gold Medal for Research in 2007, which is a strong indication to me he was an important academic that easily meets WP:PROF. Sionk (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-chancellor of the second-largest university in Zimbabwe is a likely pass of WP:PROF#C6 and the radiovop source looks good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every other academic have wiki pages I dont see why this should be any different. if anything the page just needs more work Redsky89 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why did it take six years for any developments to take place? Rusted AutoParts 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question, but when someone of reknown dies, a public assessment of their life often takes place and it becomes a lot easier to source such an article. His death caused someone to begin to update the article, hence the situation where we are now. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but the nomination was quite reasonable at the time. Deb (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with David Eppstein. Zhumadian (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:09, 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. Consensus is that she does not meet notability criteria as an academic or as an entrepreneur. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neri I. Karra[edit]

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

Non-notable bio, lacks reliable references. Ireneshih (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please check any instance of socks, user has created page by name Neri I. Karra and his contributions appears dodgy, this page was deleted three times by name Neri Karra. Ireneshih (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this page should not be deleted because it is new page from scratch not same as previous page. I did not author previous article it is a new one and I am not the same person who wrote last page years ago, i do not know who was the author of previous page. You may compare my article with deleted page. This article should be KEPT because it has many many reliable sources such as NESTA, forbes, telegraph, vogue and others [23] which previous author may not have used. --Scoopie-213 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scoopie-213 as I can understand you are a newbie on Wikipedia, I will suggest to understand what is considered primary and what is secondary sources. The content is WP:FRINGE. Ireneshih (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Question for Scoopie-213, if you are not related Neri Karra or any previous editor, why did you created a page by name Neri I. Karra and not just Neri Karra. It clearly indicated your involvement with her and reflects a WP:COI Ireneshih (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't care why the page was made or if there is any sock-puppetry involved: it's our job to evaluate the page on its merits, not on who made it or why. I think many good articles were written for "social justice," or "promotional" purposes; that doesn't make them bad articles as long as they are neutral in tone and well-written. In addition, a person can be notable even if the references aren't included in the article itself. That said, this article does cite her research, she shows up in the news and in RS. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, Did you really checked the references? The argument then comes down to whether interviews are enough to pass the gng. There is a wide consensus that they do not - indeed they are considered primary not secondary sources as the information comes from the subject not an independent source. Forbes references is a mere mention, Elle is again isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources. Subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers) and magazines, which are not reliable sources and perhaps not fully independent of the subject. For any sock-puppetry involved is concerned, please refer to WP:G5, you will come to know why you MUST have a concern. If we have to have an article it should follow our pseudoscience rules and point out that what she says is nonsense, though I know of no reliable sources that has paid attention to her. Ireneshih (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ireneshih, my point isn't that sock puppetry isn't a problem, it's that it shouldn't influence the discussion here. I've seen a lot of articles started for shaky reasons that turned out to be good articles in the long run. I assume good faith always. Thanks for pointing me to WP:G5, but it isn't relevant here as far as I can tell. Also, my point is that searching for her, she's in the news a lot. Her work is published in peer-reviewed journals. Do I think there needs to be more to the article? Yes. But that's not a reason to delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[24] [25] two more. They are neutral citations from credible sources. I have not written promotional content I am very very sure it is all information only. Ireneshih is mistaken and I is her middle initial. Coverage, interviews and discussion about her full life story and brand from many many good sources and news papers prove her notable. [26] --Scoopie-213 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain basically but if I have to say, I'll say delete for now actually as although I found some links at News, Books, Highbeam and Scholar, there's nothing convincingly better regarding in-depth coverage. Notifying DGG for some insight. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, not a notable academic: Getting a PhD does not make one an academic, but one's subsequent work: as far as I can tell there's her thesis and one published paper; no regular academic positions. Second, not a notable author, the thesis is is no Worldcat libraries , and the other book isn't even in worldcat. When I see such claims, which are not only unverifiable but verifiably false, I tend to be rather dubious about the entire article. Publishing reports is not notability ; getting media coverage for someone working in fashion is a matter of PR, not notability. giving a TEDx talk means giving a talk in TED format, which anyone can do who cares to. It does not even contribute to notability. Claims for notability as a "motivational speaker" are meaningless--its a profession that amounts to self-promotion, not accomplishments--somewherei n the general direct of "life coach" I consider both of the red flags. "entrepreneur" is a person who has founded a notable company, not just a small business. I do not assume good faith with articles that resort to puffery and have no substance: I call them promotional, and the sooner we get them out of WP, the better. them otivean aticle gets here is not necessarily determinative, but it most certainly can confirm the impression of promotionalism. i would consider this essentially a G11. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that she has only one publication:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902612000043
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024630108000484
http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/29/etp-special-issue-on-family-firms/
http://orm.sagepub.com/content/11/3/541.abstract
http://soq.sagepub.com/reports/most-read (Most Read)
http://soq.sagepub.com/content/7/3/339.refs
http://iveybusinessjournal.com/author/nkarra/
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/proceedings/26530223/rethinking-institutional-distance-using-neo-institutional-theory-inform-international-management

Moreover, this is not a small business. The brand is present in 14 different countries, 27 stores, 100s of stockist, with over 1000s of employees. When there are many news papers saying that about a business spread this much it is notable business. The report NESTA sponsored and mentioned on wikipedia page was budgeted 2 million pound worth of research project, which was led and written by Neri.--Scoopie-213 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many references, but I see nothing that indicates notability. Maproom (talk) 13:40, 23 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. If anyone wants to create a redirect, he or she is welcome to do so, though I'm not seeing any evidence that the musician and the hockey player are the same person. Deor (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Roy[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable musician. Note that a major contributor to the article is User:Kevinroymusic whose only edits are to this page. A Google search for ["Kevin Roy" music] (careful: there is a hockey player of the same name) turned up the usual Facebook, Youtube etc hits, but nothing to indicate multiple independent reliable coverage. The best were this (which was actually written by him!) and a Huffington Post report of a cop at a karaoke, which could be the same person. The article comments: "Turns out Roy is quite the singer, appearing at events like a local talent show in 2009." With just one LP released, and no indication of sales etc, I doubt that Roy makes the grade Emeraude (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with reason stated above. Perhaps someday this subject will merit a wikipedia page, but would first need to accomplish more than recording a single digital album. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore original 2011–12 USHL season#Players redirect as he's clearly not yet notable and this shouldn't have stayed this long without better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. I found some reasonable coverage ([27]), but there doesn't seem to be enough at this time to justify keeping the article. --Michig (talk) 13:18, 29 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Grossbart[edit]

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

Promotional article whose subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Third-party sources are generally just passing mentions. Major parts of the content are solely based on Grossbart's own writings. Huon (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:40, 11 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! 15:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete - I can't find much to suggest his books or academic papers are particularly notable. Very little else to note. JMWt (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrote one book for what appears to be a minor "books for patients" press. The sources listed are all name-checks/short quotes but one, and that one isn't about him but is an extended interview (well, 5-6 paragraphs) about the area of dermatology he is in. I don't find anything else, but there's also the issue that his name is pretty common. Doesn't meet wp:academic or wp:author, and I don't think he even meets wp:gng. LaMona (talk) 03:18, 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. Sandstein 12:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carsonism[edit]

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

Coatrack based on what appears to be a neologism. Many sources use the term "Carsonism", but I can't find a pattern of reliable sources using it with this meaning. Also I can't see any evidence that the listed examples have been labelled as "Carsonisms". In short, this article appears to be premature at best. Looie496 (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no reliable source coverage of this term that I could find that has to do with Ben Carson, as opposed to the very notable Bushism, which has been discussed in many such sources. Everymorning (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article creator wants to keep track of stupid things said by Ben Carson they should start a blog. I find no evidence of the label 'Carsonism' is used in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Wiktionary defines "Carsonism" as a historic term for "political support for Edward Carson, Baron Carson (1854–1935), leader of the Irish Unionist Alliance and Ulster Unionist Party between 1910 and 1921." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no place for such pages.Ireneshih (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny stuff, but better to be in the Carson article, if anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK and per the research by Notecardforfree which shows that the term, at this time, is connected to another person. MarnetteD|Talk 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This is a blog post not an encyclopedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soapboxing and non-notable coatracking to further some sort of political agenda. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that the article links to Bushism. However, that article has been around for 11 years and seems a lot better sourced. And as I recall, there were even calendars about Bushisms. I don't expect we'll be seeing any calendars about Carson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Graham (talk) 05:33, 23 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atis Constant[edit]

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

Unclear profile, has entered a competition but its merits are unclear. Also, not one of the first three as outlined in the guidelines. I struggled to find any other information except for that put out by his management company - who also appears to be behind this entry. Karst (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, besides a minor local singing competition. Logicequalslogical (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I clearly found nothing for better notability and improvement. Notifying tagger Larsona. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 23 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aiko Otake[edit]

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

No indication of notability except for some family connexion and participation in a contest. References are all blog posts. Karst (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Her main claim to fame has been as the subject of a documentary broadcast on Fuji TV, one of the major national networks, on her struggles to become an idol [28]. It was one of the episodes on The Nonfiction, Fuji's long-standing documentary program (it's been on for 20 years) [29]. Otherwise she has gotten decent but not spectacular coverage in the entertainment press: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc. These are all major news aggregate sites (on the level of Yahoo News), but I give her a "weak" because I don't see her appearing very much in the major entertainment news sources like Oricon or the sports tabloids. Michitaro (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 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! 12:31, 10 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} 13:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This really needs to be check by someone who speaks the language. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 01:39, 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. The consensus seems clear enough after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Mojo[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations; "Best Website" is not an individual award and in any event reflects the achievement of the website designer, not the site subject. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Tendentiously deprodded without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes notability the porn actor has won 2 awards in his career and has been nominated for may others, in the porn industry Best Website awards always go to the person who stars in the websites content. Redsky89 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the same editor tried proposing deletion when the article was first made and was rejected. the article uses many independent reliable sources such as xbiz.com, Queer Me Now, and Gayporntimes.com. and as pointed out the Best Website award goes to the star of the website (this is the porn industry awards not a technology award). Dman41689 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Struck blocked sock puppet of Redsky89. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent, reliable sourcing here. The XBIZ sources are obvious press releases/presskit pieces, as is the jrlchartsonline source. Queer Me Now, Gayporntimes.com, and GayDemon are self-published sources/blogs that can't be used in BLPs. This is just another porn faux bio, cobbled together from promotional material, and the tinfoil trophies from nonnotable awardgivers don't confer notability to subjects that fail the GNG by so wide a margin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz those sources are independent sources and are used on many other porn articles on Wikipedia and to Davey2010 evidence of notability is that he is an award winner. Redsky89 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note if a website is using press releases/presskit pieces then its a reliable source I don't see how it wouldn't be. it seems that the person who nominated the article has a personal vendetta against this page or porn stars having wiki pages since they nominated a lot of porn related articles for deletion. Dman41689 (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've nominated 250 porn pages for deletion this year alone and only in porn, after 3 years of badging down the rules. you can make your own decisions on that one, ha. Don't even try to resist, it's a lost cause. GuzzyG (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note — Dman41689 blocked as sock of Redsky89. --slakr^\ talk / 03:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two winner - meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Only individual award win is very obscure. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Coverage consists of blog posts and republished press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator & Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inadequately sourced blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:05, 30 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 (NAC) There is strong consensus here that a stand-alone page is unnecessary Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Dranka[edit]

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

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

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

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

The sources here don't warrant a separate article for this biography. Generally, the oldest person in a nation, absent other reasons for notability, isn't sufficient for a separate article per WP:NOPAGE. The relevant content here should be merged to List of Polish supercentenarians which needs cleanup itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Born, emigrated, worked, survived a shooting, children, died. EEng (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was born, I emigrated, I work, I was almost shot, I dont have any children and I am not dead yet. Petervermaelen (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to List of Polish supercentenarians. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of Polish supercentenarians seems the best way to go.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of Polish supercentenarians. Subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. If members of WikiProject Oldest Persons insist on continuing to create stubs for objectively non-notable persons in the absence of significant coverage, on the sole basis of age or status as the "oldest person in geographic area X, then I expect this is headed for a Wikipedia-wide RfC that will clarify and tighten the notability guidelines with respect to such claims. There is absolutely no reason why most of these persons cannot be noted as a one- or two-sentence entry in a "List of oldest persons in X" article, or "List of Xish supercentenarians" article. I also suggest that the redirect be protected to prevent re-creation of this article contrary to consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently 11 sources cited on this article. How does that not amount to significant coverage? Given that such coverage quite often exists for people like this, then there's absolutely no reason NOT to create a standalone article. Not everyone holds the same opinion as you. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ollie231213: There are no English language sources, but there are 11 linked to Polish newspapers, all of which I have read in machine translation via Google Translate (not grammatically perfect, but certainly good enough for AfD purposes). The coverage in most of them is either completely trivial or completely mundane per WP:ROUTINE. There are two articles which provide details of the subject's life beyond the "born, lived, died" basics, including --

the subject's mother lived a long time too (94), and enjoyed good health until she broke her hip;
the subject's brother lived to be 100;
the subject's family emigrated to the United States, but later returned to Poland;
someone purportedly tried to kidnap her as an infant by grabbing her, but the attempt failed on the spot;
she survived two world wars in Poland;
her father took her everywhere with him;
she learned to sew and still enjoys sewing;
she learned to dance, and sang in the church choir;
she loved three men and married one;
she made homemade wine and added it to her tea;
she charmed the border guards with her humor;
she and her family ate a lot of honey;
her cardiologist is surprised she's still alive;
she was seriously ill at 83, from a variety of ailments, but got better;
she received birthday greetings from the president and governor.

Help me, Ollie -- what part of any of this trivia is worthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia? Even the two longer articles are filled with these common details of her life. There is no noteworthy substance -- she led a completely un-noteworthy life. The only thing remotely noteworthy about this perfectly lovely old gal was her longevity, and, yes, sir, what noteworthy substance there is can be covered in one or two sentences in List of Polish supercentenarians. Most of these articles are perfect candidates for an entry on a list instead of a stand-alone article. That's the reality you face. If we were Britannica, World Book or any other serious encyclopedia, the editorial board would mock anyone who proposed a stand-alone article for this subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment In my humble opinion, the use of the word "subject" is inappropriate here. The matter is about a person who lived on the same planet and breathe the same air. Secondly, In the supercentenarian study, which is an independent branch of science, no information given on any supercentenarian is trivial and it can't be considered as such. One must not neglect any piece of information given on person's life. Because any detail of a supercentenarian's life is substantial and intrinsic, as it concerns the person individually and may have contributed to her/his longevity. That is why Aleksandra Dranka, as a notable person even among supercentenarians (longevity record-holder of a country and historically first person ever scientifically proven to have reached the supercentenarian status in her country of last residence.White Eaglet (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) User has been determined to be a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is the only validated supercentenarian whom has died in Poland and therefore the oldest person ever to have lived in Poland with a validated lifespan. 930310 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Weak argument considering this information is already available in List of Polish supercentenarians. So a stand-alone article isn't needed. Restore Redirect. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Then why not just do so for every single article about anything? If all articles can be redirected somewhere else then there isn't really any need for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. And as for Aleksandra Dranka, a redirect doesn't give the biographical details of the person's life. Longevity records are more than just records; the recordholders are also symbols, and their life stories are notable in the same way that the last WWI veterans life stories are notable. No one is saying that we need an article on every supercentenarian, but surely a type article on Poland's recordholder would be appropriate. 930310 (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

*Strong Keep The article was nominated for deletion in the past and the outcome of the discussion was "keep". Now, the article has been expanded with the addition of new sources. Not only, Aleksandra Dranka was the oldest living person in Poland, but also, in the light of the current knowledge, she is the longevity record-holder of the country, as she is the only fully-verified supercentenarian whose last place of residence was Poland. Thus she has been recognized by both the President and the Prime Minister of Poland, as well as by the independent international scientific society which is the Gerontology Research Group, cooperating with the Guinness World Records. Having said that, I conclude that the notability of Aleksandra Dranka has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and any further attempts to undermine it, could be seen as signes of a negative bias towards the supercentenarian study and the study of extreme longevity.White Eaglet (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been determined to be a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe she received "considerate media interest" when four of the five sources next to those words lead to the same website. I don't believe wishes from the president establish notability either since the source states every Polish resident over the age of 100 gets one. Lastly, there is nothing in the WP:GNG guidelines that state "having your age verified by the GRG makes you notable". CommanderLinx (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderLinx, I have no idea what your nationality might be, but here in the United States senior citizens whose relatives request a birthday greeting for a parent or grandparent over the age of 90 from their U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator or the President will receive such a letter. Almost all federal and statewide elected officials have a correspondence staff with word-processor form letters and auto-pen signatures for generating this and other routine correspondence of a similar nature (but don't tell Grandma!). Hitting 90 has become so relatively common, that it's not even considered newsworthy enough to get a sentence in the local newspaper, and we now have literally thousands of seniors who are 100+. My maternal grandmother lived to be 104 (my other three grandparents all lived to be 90+), and my grandmother wasn't even among the five oldest in her assisted living facility. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there was already a nomination for deletion not so long ago on this same article. I see no need for another voting at this time. Petervermaelen (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

This is the first time this article has been nominated. CommanderLinx (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of Polish supercentenarians. Sources in the article indicate she meets WP:GNG. If not kept as a standalone, a small biography could be created on the Polish supercentenarians page. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Polish supercentenarians. I do not see why age would make someone worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, particularly given WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT and such. However, I do think that a list of oldest people is acceptable, and further, it should be expanded to provide short biographical notes. Therefore, my merge vote is not just a simple redirect, but I'd also expect to see the content of that article, including a picture, added there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Like List of Italian supercentenarians#Venere Pizzinato? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, through I'd rather see them in a table format. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Italian page has both the table and the bio sections. If you squeeze the bio into the table, it will be unreadable, especially keeping in mind that not every table entry must have a bio sketch. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Dear Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I wish to inform that the fact of being the oldest verified person in the modern history of Poland not only makes Mrs. Aleksandra Dranka notable in respect of longevity study, but also it does make her a notable person for the history of Poland. One has to have the sensitivity to notice that. Therefore, I believe she deserves having a stand alone article. Moreover, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT are not applicable in this matter, since the age of Mrs. Aleksandra Dranka has been a matter of the international study performed by Gerontology Research Group which ended with a success unprecedented in Polish history. Finally, reaching an extreme age can hardly be considered as "one event" which is emphasized by the fact that Aleksandra Dranka has been present in the Polish press for more than 7 years, independently from the scientific study that was conducted in order to prove the authenticity of her extreme age. Sincerely. White Eaglet (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC) User has been determined to be a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do that for the oldest person in any other country. Her biography could be shortened and placed at the bottom of the page, e.g. List of Italian supercentarians and others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: Of course you do: [Emma Morano]White Eaglet (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)~~ User has been determined to be a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) ""Strong Keep"". Mrs. Dranka is the only validated supercentenarian who died in Poland. She has been the oldest living person in Poland: the oldest person in a great nation a Poland is! Strong Keep! by Belandi76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belandi76 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Comment Note, that the life and age of Mrs. Aleksandra Dranka has been a subject of a study conducted by Mr. Waclaw Jan Kroczek, the GRG correspondent for Poland, who published a paper entitled: "SUPERCENTENARIANS OF POLAND AND LITHUANIA. LONGEVITY ASPECTS AND FACTORS IN EUROPE" [Link to the abstract] That paper was published in Polish-Lithuanian scientific journal "Studium Vilnense" its presentation on the XVIIIth International Conference on the SCIENCE AND QUALITY OF LIFE and Symposium VILNIUS REGION: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE, which was held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on June 28-July 1, 2014. I added the corresponding source. That said, I am convinced that Aleksandra Dranka, being a part of an independent study on the scientific level, deserves a stand alone article.White Eaglet (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC) User has been determined to be a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge As per Ollie231213. Bodgey5 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Based on current article, I can see no particular grounds for WP:NOTABLE here. Inclusion in existing list should suffice. Support arguments made by Dirtlawyer1 upthread. Irondome (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge. Satisfies WP:GNG. It does not matter that the overall life was mundane; as long as we have multiple coverage of her "sense of humor" or whatever in national news, it means she is nationally notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Everyone's life is interesting, and so is Dranka's. Also, we care, and wonder, and worry, about our own mortality. So the death of a local Methuselah is quite likely to spur a relatively *short burst of news*. That does not amount to (wp-)notability. If the list exists than a redirect won't hurt, but is not really needed either as the search engine will get there anyway. - Nabla (talk) 14:05, 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 and salt. The article has been deleted three times previously. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ragsdale[edit]

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

This article has been put up again - I propose that it is deleted once more, as per the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggdisk (talk • contribs) 12:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like self-promotional fluff, with aspects of it cut and pasted from the subjects personal website. Summiting Mount Kilamanjaro and running a few marathons does not make you noteworthy. As above, it has already been previously deleted. Eggdisk (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the user, copying the rationale from the bottom of the previous AfD page ([40]). ansh 666 10:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references seem to lack a third party voice. Much of what I'm reading is what this guy has to say about himself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good deal of the article is about his amateur sports life, but that doens't add up to notability. (About 2/3 of the references are on his sports achievements.) His business activities also do not arise to notability. I find name-checks, one extended first-person interview, and at least one article listed seems to be totally irrelevant and doesn't even mention him. LaMona (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better to convince keeping compared to the current article. Notifying tagger Callanecc and past AfDer Nyttend. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no solid secondary coverage, as most everything is just news reports. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSite[edit]

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

A company that appears to have won a couple of awards. The refs give nothing else and there is no evidence presented that it has achieved any notability outside of a very niche market. Fails WP:CORP. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Another web hosting company in a very crowded market with no indication of notability per WP:CORP. The article was apparently written by a marketing assistant at the company, so I've removed the blatant product marketing, but the notability problem remains. Norvoid (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nonnotable awards; nothing of note about the company, "business as usual". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no partitcular notability DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 24 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Server[edit]

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

There's a slew of Minecraft articles that have been nominated in the past. This just does not seem encyclopedic AT ALL. ~ Preceding post created by larsona ^//Talk// 05:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No objection to deletion at all. Doesn't even pass GNG. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Minecraft clearly suffices on its own. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This is Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not the place to give information about just everything. This just fits better on the main Minecraft article. Consider the Minecraft Wiki for this instead (which in fact is the first wiki I ever contributed to). --TL22 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the article should've been WP:PRODded since anybody would say it's not encyclopedic or notable. --TL22 (talk) 00:21, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Ashura[edit]

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

A POV and OR essay. No Reliable sources support this. The "ashura" is a mourning, it is like a festival. The only timeline it has is of three days, every year, and different people do different things on these three days, therefore it is impossible to create an all inclusive article. the creator most likely confused Ashura with Battle of Karbala and then went on to create a POV essay with his own cherry picked OR. I am proposing deletion with the cavet that a merge with Second Fitna may also be an option (Ty HyperGaruda) . Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge to Timeline of the Second Fitna or Second Fitna respectively. According to the Ashura article, Ashura is a ten-day festival and definitely not this multiple month-spanning series of events in 60/61 AH. Since the Battle of Karbala is only 1 day, the Second Fitna seems like a better merge target. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, I have edited my nomination to reflect merge into Second Fitna. Regrads FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashura and Battle of Karbala was chain of events that started from 15 Rajab 60 AH. Yes, Ashura is one day that Husayn ibn Ali killed but this event has background in a few months ago. The article narrated chain of event as title "Timeline of Ashura". I think that Timeline of Muharram is better tittle of the article. There are several sources that wrote about events that happen before and after of Ashura, for example: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, Husayn ibn Ali and Ashura and events that happen before and after are WP:N. This article collect all this topics in one article. Saff V. (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these four sources are the ones you have, I should nominate this for a speedy deletion. 1, 2, 3, are ALL non reliable websites which cannot be used in wikipedia articles. And the fourth source (coincidentally sitting in my personal library) does not discuss any timeline for ashura, I have read that book cover to cover and have not seen any "Timeline for Ashura" mentioned in it. Perhaps you will be kind enough to enlighten me by linking/quoting the exact lines/page from the book where the timeline has been mentioned. I may have overlooked it. Otherwise I may think that you are misrepresenting sources. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The al-Islam website is an electronic library that consist of many books. Books have writer and publisher. You can not say this site is non reliable website. When and where Wikipedia say the al-Islam website is non reliable website? Your problem is that search Timeline word in the source while The events of Ashura was a chain of events and you must read the source completely. Please read the text of the book instead of book cover. Search about the events that happened in Muharram 61 AH nit search about Timeline word.Saff V. (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then please link which books found in the al-islam library mention this. Name the books, their writers and publishers. Also "cover to cover" means that I read the entire book, not just the covers lol. English not your first language eh? don't worry, same here. Anyway, you admit now that the term "timeline of Ashura" is not mentioned in the book? good. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can find many of these books in other website such as this one. Another sources as well as have writer and publication name such as 2 and 3. The last book, also there is in Google book. Please search and evaluate the references carefully. If you have problem with title you can change it and redirect another title. Delete is not good way for solving the problem.Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, but unknown nobodys like Ramzan Ali and Ali Hussain Jalali who write self published books are not reliable sources. Therefore they should not be used in wikipedia articles. The third book is also self published by Lulu.com, and is therefore unreliable. So you see, you still have been unable to find any Reliable source to back your claim. To be frank the article is destined to be deleted, not a SINGLE source has been found yet that mentions "Timeline of Ashura". So my honest advice is that you stop using strawman tactics and use your energy somewhere else on wikipedia. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V. is correct in saying that the al-islam.org website is an online library. It is always best to cite the book (including page numbers). That a book is in the al-islam.org website does not make the book a reliable source. If the book is only available on the al-islam.org website, that is fairly good evidence that it is an unreliable source. How reliable the transcription of books is on the al-islam.org website is hard to know - i.e. do they cherry pick, or censor out bits they do not like.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book show chain of events that happened in the Karbala.Saff V. (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V. the book does nothing of that sort. It mentions the conflict just as all other sources, no timeline appears to have been given. Can you give the exact page number where the timeline/chain is given? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: I said: show chain of events that happened and did not say has chain word. Why you search chain or timeline in the source? If you have issues with title you can make redirect. Read Stand-alone list articles policy.Saff V. (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep; no point merging into another article because the citations are unreliable. This article is on a notable topic - the Karbala campaign, which has received significant coverage in many reliable sources (as well as many works of fiction, which not everybody realises are works of fiction). The article could be improved by using Western dates, and by having more and better sources. I would have given it a non-religious title - but that could be fixed by having a redirect to the current name, and amending the first line of the article to reflect two article names.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious problem with sourcing and POV. Not only are some sources unreliable, but some do not substantiate the facts claimed for them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Second Fitna Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 24 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! 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Stand-alone list articles policy, a timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. The timeline of Ashura article listed sequence of events that happened before and after Ashura. @Sa.vakilian:, what is your idea? Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the title, but the topic seems to be one which is useful to someone, providing there are good quality secondary sources to refer to. If those don't really exist, I can't help thinking that this is then a form of WP:OR and the page should wait until someone writes a researched book including the topic to refer to. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is basically an awkward table of information found at Battle of Karbala and Day of Ashura.--Zoupan 07:48, 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arian Romal[edit]

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

The references are mostly unreliable websites. Not enough reliable sources. Galaxy Kid (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now i see that this was previously deleted. Warn the user who recreated it if he is the one who created it before.Galaxy Kid (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notabilty is based in every area, is not a point of view but it basically meets WP:MUSICBIO. OnoMak (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)— OnoMak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No new sources have appeared since the previous AFD. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment inviting previous participants to comment: @Wgolf: @PureRED: SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person doesn't appear to meet any of the requirements of notability for musicians. Ladygagahouse (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found no convincing notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 23 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. Although there was serious debate about the subject's notability, DGG's argument was well researched and policy-based and appeared to be convincing to others, whereas the "keep" !votes were challenged. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Krejcir[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was literally only this and the current article would need better work. I actually tagged this in March 2012 and it's not surprising this hasn't changed and improving since then. Pinging past user Derek R Bullamore and also users interested with this subject StAnselm (who also made changes), Johnpacklambert, The Cross Bearer and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Scholar cites suggest he is a significant authority in the area of statistics on pastors, and hence passes WP:PROF #1. St Anselm (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a published author, who has written stories for CBN, been interviewed by rej Christianity Today], State of Ministry Online interview, has been cited in this doctoral dissertation from Tennessee Temple University, quoted in a Liberty University dissertation, part of a Ministry Magazine story, written another story for Faith Writer Magazine, used in another dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary, mentioned in this scholarly article, yet another dissertation, covered in Faith Writers, interviewed in a story for International Journal of Pastors. This is evidence he meets the No. 1 of SCHOLAR, and satisfies GNG, where I could find more.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even verifiable. None of his books are even in Worldcat, nor can any of them be found cited in Google scholar. The quotes on statistics arecitations to his website, not his formal publications. 28 uses of his website is not by itself enough to show authority as anything, certainly not as a scholar. All bio information seems to to be derived from his own publications or those of his organizations. I cannot find the cbn page, nor find it on their site. The article in Christianity Today's "The christian Women" website is not about him: it contains a link to his website. The "scholarly article" is from a unverifiable book on JerryJohnston.com, and he is very far from being a scholar. I can't find the interview in the 7th Day Adventist "Ministry: An International Journal for Pastors". All the miscellaneous citation show, is that a few people have found his website. The overwhelming bulk of the article is a recitation of his religious views. I am seriously considering G11 for this. Nor can we keep a blp without any third party verification at all. StAnselm, please look again. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G11 on this

Comment: Per AUTHOR, he meets the first criteria, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", for notability by the sources I dredged up above. 100-percent no G11 candidate on this one.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, we have some wildly divergent claims and views here. To be sure, I'm not sure how (a) citing websites should be taken into account, and (b) how to gauge the notability of statistical researchers. The first Google scholar result is this book, which cites Krejcir's work as "one study of 1050 pastors..." I assume most of the citations are along those lines. Certainly, The Cross Bearer's evidence doesn't stack up: we can't say someone is "interviewed" if all they have is a quote in an article. St Anselm (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interpreting the material here as showing "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" would essentially mean any author whose work --even his unpublished work -- is cited anywhere 40 time or more is notable. That is certain different from all previous discussions of WP:PROF. Certainly, the number is lower in the humanities. Were he a theologian, and these citations to a published book or series of articles, I might consider this, depending on where and how he is cited ; an unpublished survey of pastors? No. That's quantitative social science, and 40 is not nearly enough there by itself. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 04:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ziyarat of Ashura[edit]

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

An almost complete (95% according to my word count comparison) Coatrack and OR. A google search brought up almost 9000 results so I was perplexed as to why there was so much mention of this on the websites but only 5 results in the "books" section. It appears that this is just a simple prayer (of which there are almost one million in Islam) which appears on various Shi'ite websites. However, not a single reliable source discusses this in depth. Keeping this article is comparable to having a stand alone article on "God bless". Therefore this should be removed with a brief mention made in the Ashura article. To be frank once OR and coat rack is removed it only leaves like 5 lines of text, quite enough to be placed in the Ashura article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully sourced and notable topic. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, WP:NEXIST. According to WP:GOOGLECHECK, Google search can not prove anything about notability. There are other things determined the notability, WP:GNG, please discuss about them. By this idea, "therefore this should be removed with a brief mention made in the Ashura article" why do you offer to delete, while you can suggest the merge. Saff V. (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that currently the article does not cite any RS. glad to have that out of the way. As for your claim that google cannot prove that a topic is non-notable, so please be kind enough to use some reliable sources to prove that the article is notable. Just because you create/add significant OR to an article does not mean that it will be considered notable. It may be notable in your opinion (and we as wikipedia editors respect your opinion) but at the end of the day opinion (yours, mine and other) do not matter. We need RELIABLE SOURCES that prove that this article is based on a notable subject. Be kind enough to provide those said reliable sources here, or you can add them to the article directly and then link us to them. Till you provide RS (Here, or in the article) it remains non notable. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat These are RELIABLE SOURCES that prove that this article is based on a notable subject:

The Torch of Perpetual Guidance, Ziyarat ‘Ashura of Imam Husayn
The Sacred Effusion: Reflections on Ziyarat 'Ashura' of Sayyid Al-Shuhadaa Al-Husayn B. 'Ali
Commentary on Ziyarat Ashura
Commentary on Ziyarat Ashura
Ziyarat and Prayers

Saff V. (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- While some part had been WP:OR, subject itself is important and article can be expanded. Keep. Capitals00 (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please check google book[41] to find it is a notable topic. (@FreeatlastChitchat:)--Seyyed(t-c) 06:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after having found a reliable source and implemented it to rewrite the lead. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is obviously notable. I wonder whether the nominator tried to search it or not! Mhhossein (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 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. Sandstein 22:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Europe[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 (organizations) requirement. " It was deprodded by anon User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 with the following rationale "WP:CONTESTED"; that anon deprodded a number of articles with such meaningless rationale before disappearing, likely a WP:POINT disruption or a spammer trying to waste our time. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. PS. Also ping User:DGG who tried to speedy this (speedy was declined). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain I'm not sure what to do with this . We seem to have articles on Independent Order of Odd Fellows in Sweden, we merged Independent Order of Odd Fellows Philippines to Independent order of Odd Fellows; there would be two consistent things to do--merge the Swedish chapter into this, or merge both of them to the main article. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support merge; I don't see how those national branches have stand-alone notability - unless there are sources, they don't, it's as simple as that. (And I don't see sources) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is little more than a dicdef, the sources used aren't independent of the organization itself, and existence is not notability. Therefore, there is nothing asserting notability. There's also nothing here worth merging. MSJapan (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MSJapan. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:08, 23 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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GP Rider[edit]

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

Article doesn't cite any references. Delete it per WP:V and WP:GNG. Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being unreferenced is not a criteria for deletion, unless its a BLP. Seems notable enough for a video game. [42] [43]WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. As for the given deletion rationale, unsourced does not imply unsourcable. From sources I can find HCG101 looks good. Above linked Sega Nerds is unreliable as per WP:VG/RS. There's a short blurb in Retro Gamer #77. ~~I can't find any other sources with significant content to satisfy WP:GNG with multiple reliable sources.~~ — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added sources that add up to multiple in-depth secondary reliable sources for WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Magazine reference seems adequate for notability, though more would be preferable. Deltasim (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New magazine source added; CVG classified as a notable one. Deltasim (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to what has already been provided, Allgame have a synopsis and review, German magazine Video Games has a review. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:16, 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 no consensus. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ancient Macedonians in epigraphy[edit]

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

Prod removed by serial deprodder without providing a reason. reason for proposed deletion was "What exactly is the point (or the subject notability) of a list of names that appear in texts, where only four of the 100 or thereabouts have their own article, and the remainder seems to be utterly non notable? That we have e.g. a text about the sale of a house is notable for the study of the Macedonians, but that doesn't make the people named in that text notable, not even notable enough to be included in a list." Fram (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - per nom. I feel like there should be notability being these are ancient texts, but I couldn't find any other such list besides people listed in the Bible/Quran etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information seems mainly distilled from Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum and so passes WP:LISTN. The creator of this page also created List of ancient Macedonians and seemed to know what he was doing in structuring the information this way. As the material is quite scholarly in nature and deletion would be disruptive, it seems best to leave well alone, per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange reasoning. The List of ancient Macedonians lists (mostly) people with an article here, i.e. notable ancient Macedonians. The list up for discussion lists the remainder, i.e. non-notable ancient Macedonians. The fact that the original creator divided them like this indicates that he knows the difference, but can hardly be used as an argument to keep this list. That one can distill a list of names from a library of old texts is normal, and does not meet WP:LISTN which indicates that they must have been the subject of attention as a group, not that each individual item has been mentioned in one or another issue of a scholarly source. "Preserve" says nothing about the arguments you present here, and you give no reason to "leave it well alone". You make claims like "deletion would be disruptive", but don't indicate how or why this would be true. Please refrain from throwing around shortcuts to policies which have no relation with your actual arguments as they give the false impression to the casual reader that you have policy behind you, while in reality you have your opinion on one side and unrelated policy on another. Fram (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such information has been studied as a group in works such as A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Volume IV. Macedonia.... The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN, as I said. One might debate the extent to which we should cover this but there's an obvious alternative to deletion, as recommended by our policy WP:PRESERVE, i.e. merger into the List of ancient Macedonians as an epigraphic supplement. All our deletion policies indicate that such alternatives are preferred to outright deletion which is disruptive because it makes the content inaccessible to ordinary editors (it's not actually deleted). There is no good reason to make this information only viewable by admins. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of terms discussed in lexicographical studies, whether they are names or something else, really isn't what Wikipedia and its lists are for. You have given us a link to a 387 page book which neither you nor I have seen, and claim that this is evidence that it meets LISTN. This is highly dubious (but typical). You don't know if and in what way these names are included, whether they are discussed as a group, whether they basically meet the requirements of LISTN. You are simply guessing. Please don't. And while your semantic discussion of deleted vs. viewable by admin only is noted, I really doubt that any admin feels mighty powerful because they have access to things like this and lowly editors don't. You still don't give a policy- or guideline-based reason to preserve this non-notable content apart from your rather extreme wp:preserve position, which you are well-known to use in nearly all afd debates you participate in no matter how applicable it is.

I'm just getting warmed up. Here's more about that book:
"The Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, established as a major research project of the British Academy and now funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Board and by Greek Foundations, offers scholars a comprehensive listing of all named individuals from the ancient Greek-speaking world. The information needed has been compiled from all written sources, literary, epigraphical, papyrological and numismatic, within a chronological range from the eighth century BC to approximately 600 AD; the geographical limits match the use of Greek language in antiquity, from Asia Minor to the Western Mediterranean, the Black Sea to North Africa. Many scholars have contributed to the achievement of this ambitious research programme. With the present volume, the project moves into Northern Greece and on to the west and north shores of the Black Sea, extending from the Greek colonial zone into the Balkan hinterland as far as the Danube. The Greek world was highly differentiated in many ways, from the broadest divisions into Aeolic, Ionic and Doric speaking communities, to individual cities with their different social, religious and political patterns. Names follow, and play a part in measuring, these differences, which transcended physical boundaries. The LGPN volumes enable scholars to use fully all the potential of personal names to illuminate all aspects of ancient society. The LGPN volumes provide the basis for further research into all aspects of ancient Greek society, and are used by the classical community worldwide. Readership: Scholars of ancient Greek history and epigraphy"
— blurb for Lexicon of Greek Personal Names at the Oxford University Press

This is exactly the sort of material we have in this list and so I continue to maintain that it passes WP:LISTN. Fram says that Wikipedia doesn't do this sort of thing but this assertion is belied by the extensive category:Names by culture, which demonstrates that we do have lots of material of this sort. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the articles in that category? They explain the naming conventions of different nations, cultures, ... they don't list names of non-notable persons which by accident survived. The "list of " under discussion does nothing similar to what the articles in that category do. As for your quote from the book and your reasoning to keep the list perLISTN: Wikipedia is not the place to store study material, the "basis for further research", but is the place to store summaries of such research. We are not the starting point of research but the end point of research, and that is where this list and your cote are totally misguided. Fram (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when you provide such a very long quote, please make it more clear that it is a quote and what the source is, to avoid WP:COPYVIO problems. Fram (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The category is the usual tangle of categories, lists and articles which approach the topic at various levels, from general discussion to specific names. For example, we have List of Dacian names, which seems similar to the page in question. And we have many pages about specific names such as my own which mix up general discourse with numerous specific examples. It seems clear from pages such as Ancient Greek personal names that this is an area of significant scholarship. The author of the page in question seemed quite familiar with this field and so it seems sensible to defer to his judgement rather than restricting access to it. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is useful for anyone interested in Macedonian culture, and names in particular. Individuals don't need to be sufficiently notable to justify individual articles in order to be of value in a list such as this. Indeed, the list is more valuable than a simple list of personal names, simply because it provides context for each of the names, without going into unnecessary detail about each one. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- One of the purposes of lists is to identify missing articles, but for most of these people we know nothing but their name. It is a valid list; however my concern is whether it is an encyclopaedic list. Undecided. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for a list to be notable, the relevant policy states that "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"; I see no evidence that that is the case. Wikipedia is not simply a list of people unless that set of people is notable. Even if we accept that the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names demonstrates that the set of Greek personal names is notable, I don't see why it should also necessarily demonstrate that the subset of Macedonian names attested in inscriptions is also notable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lexicon of Greek Personal Names is divided into volumes because of the scale of that project and we divide large topics in a similar way per WP:SPLIT. The volume cited as evidence is number IV Macedonia, Thrace, northern regions of the Black Sea. This seems close enough for our purposes as we're not trying to copy their structure exactly. The general point is that names which occur in classical epigraphy are collected and studied in this way and so it is reasonable for us to have a summary of this work. And when we produce lists, we do not require that each entry is a link to an article. For example, see some featured lists such as List of Alamo defenders, List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords). For other lists of names of people from antiquity, see category:Bible-related lists of people. This contains some nice examples such as List of people in the Hebrew Bible called Shemaiah and the wonderful List of names for the biblical nameless. Andrew D. (talk) 12:58, 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! 12:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Rename - So this is a forked, yet notable, list of common Macedonian people who had not achieved notability? Someone should really write a lead that explains what this confusing list is all about. How about renaming, reforking and remaking this into a "List of Ancient Macedonian names" or something like that? Ceosad (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latino and Hispanic Nobel laureates[edit]

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

This article, as it stands, appears to be a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. A search on GBooks turns up some mentions of Hispanic Nobel laureates, such as this one, but they are usually restricted to either Latin Americans, Nobel Prize in Literature laureates or both, and in any case trivial. I've found nothing that suggests being a "Latino or Hispanic Nobel laureate", broadly construed, is a culturally significant phenomenon. (I don't speak Spanish and am not able to look for sources in that language.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Qwertyus is correct that the non-encyclopedic cross-categorization prohibits articles like this. At the same time there are other articles in Category:Lists of Nobel laureates and these are well-liked articles in that countries and various demographics like finding Wikipedia lists for their members who have this widely celebrated prize. I am not sure what to think. Do Nobel prize lists deserve an exception? Is there a guideline which advises that making these lists is a good thing? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for same reason I don't think we need the list of Slavic winners. Breakdown by ethnicity is really superfluous to List of Nobel laureates by country - this list is just the non-immigrant winners from Hispanic countries (and from some reason excludes everyone from Portugal, as I guess article creator feels they are not Hispanic). I don't have a problem with breakdown by race (black/Asian) or religion but ethnicity is really unnecessary. What's next, Germanic winners? Nordic? Celtic? —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a list of Jewish Nobel laureates. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:39, 18 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! 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The selection criteria satisfy WP:LSC, and there are reliable sources upon which this list can be substantiated. See, for example, this, this, and this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: the first and third are again restricted to Nobel Prize in Literature winners; all three are restricted to Latin Americans. Should we restrict the scope of the list? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus: I cited those articles to show reliable sources exist that can substantiate the inclusion of individuals on this list (see also this source for a more complete list of Latino/a Nobel laureates). I don't think there is any need to restrict the the scope of the list, because the current selection criteria are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources (per WP:LSC). I certainly appreciate your concerns with regard to non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, but I think think the significant coverage of Latino/a Nobel laureates in reliable sources shows that this topic is, indeed, worthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic International Cruises[edit]

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

Declined speedy on the grounds that the article is well-sourced, but unless ships are inherently notable I neither see anyting remarkable about this one nor do I think that the references establish notability, just routine commercial coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The cruise liner is notable. The ships have nothing to do with the notability of the cruise line that owns them, it matters if the cruise line is notable. Sources have been established by a pass of the WP:A7 as the speedy was deleted by @Ritchie333: since the article has a good amount of sources, which help it be notable. Besides the nomination for deletion was marked up too quickly as I have not been able to proceed with further advancements like I've stated on my talk page. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the current article seems to have potential and may be better improved later. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for User:Adog104 -- the problem is with the sources you are using on the article. Some are mere mentions of the company, none are in depth, and none are truly independent. You lean heavily on the web site of the company itself, which is definitely not ok in an article about a company. You need to find other sources like newspaper or magazine articles, at least. Also, the fleet is not what will make the company notable. That's like listing the addresses of all of a company's offices -- it's a fact, but not a wp:corp notable fact. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources are from the companies website, and I have found other sources that have not been inserted into the article yet. I have not gotten around to it because of other projects such as November Asian Month and Debated topics on Wikipedia (i.e Talk:Liberland), but since nomination I'm hoping to update before consensus. Besides I can name other cruise line articles with less content/sources than Majestic Cruises does, rightly so this is an unjust delete nominee. And yes I know about the fleet problem, its a place holder too add further information later. However, cruise liners on Wikipedia also use fleet in their history if that's what you're both inferring, so fleet can be notable, but should not be all of what makes the company. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comments above and that I did not find suitable sources in my searches. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Adog104, the article looks much better now. I still think that the sources are a bit weak since they're mostly "insider" publications from the cruise industry, but I trust you'll continue to work on the article as other info comes in. Great job. Keep LaMona (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thank you @LaMona:. Also as I've been through other AFD's, its come to attention that since its a Greek company based in Greece I'm more likely not going to find most or all sources relating to the article since its from a complete different region.
More information has been added at this time. Please re-consider since the nomination was early in the articles creation. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Notable" and "remarkable" are simply not synonymous, and there are many "unremarkable" subjects which receive sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. The premise advanced by the nominator is simply wrong. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 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 SNOW KEEP and CLOSE - with nearly 40,000 page views in 4 days and global news coverage like [44] focused directly on the subject not a chance this page should be deleted or redirected. Early votes were made under different circumstances, so less weight given to them. (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Abdeslam[edit]

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

This is quite possibly just a regular guy, caught up in something. WP:BLP1E. Suspected of a lot, though we know very little. This is a magnet for all sorts of tabloid crap. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, during the last few days his name is on the first pages of many well known international newspapers and online publications, with many of them calling him 'Europe's most wanted'. --Eurofan88 (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them also acknowledge they have no idea what he's suspected of. Newspapers have pressure to run with breaking news, regardless of known facts. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and not so pressured to fill space with whatever tidbits it can. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there is confirmation - there are simply too many unknowns around news events to be sure of anything. This is almost the definition of being WP:TOOSOON. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and integrate all murders from Paris in one article.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we go by sources for notability; no indication whatsoever he was "caught up" in this —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I dropped my brother off somewhere, then shit like this went down and I found myself at the centre of a global manhunt, I'd definitely feel "caught up" in something heavy. And yes, I'd bolt even if I were innocent. Europe hasn't a great track record with suspected Islamic terrorists. Is there any indication yet he had anything to do with this beyond simply dropping his brother off somewhere?

Remember when Ryan Lanza killed all those kids? This might be another of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped off your brother? Salah Abdeslam rented the car used in the attack. Both he and his brother were arrested by Belgian authorities after trying to go to Syria. Again we go by the reliable sources, not your gut feeling he's innocent. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's guilty or innocent. I just know he's relatively unknown. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - This is a valid search term, so the article should be either kept or redirected to November_2015_Paris_attacks#Perpetrators. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a redirect seems right. Those who search for it shouldn't be left in the dark, just sent to an article with better oversight and wider context. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for separate article. Wide press coverage. 178.94.166.186 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem independently notable or significant news coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the page for the Paris attacks. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's currently the most famous fugitive in Europe, and is now the lone target of one of the largest manhunts in European history. He's notable as a famous fugitive, regardless of actual guilt. According to The Independent, "Flyers displaying his face are posted in every town in France" [45]. Not many people can claim to have succeeded in achieving this mark of notability. Fraenir (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to November 2015 Paris attacks#Perpetrators. Quis separabit? 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everyone else, this doesn't have to be made with him as an actual perp in mind. Even if he's found innocent, there can still be material gleaned from the manhunt since it's massive. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - receieved significant coverage. --JamieTheGenius (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indissociable from November 2015 Paris attacks and thus without independently notability or significant news coverage that is not trivial. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:SPINOUTs are impossible, basically? LjL (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible, but not always proper. The main article isn't a "very large" one (minus the massive reference list) and this topic isn't a standalone list, but a living person and biography subject notable in the context of only one event. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in antithesis to JMWt, because additional information may surface within the future, WP:USUAL. Aikiangelos (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Named most wanted person in recent times suggests he will stand the test of time in terms of notability and clearly is not run of the mill. But the main reason is he is currently WANTED for one the most heinous crimes in European history, it is a necessity that information about him is easily accessible. In fact, there needs to be multiple photos if possible. Article should be expanded massively until he is caught, further evaluation should yield the same result. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? Keep, of course. Number one terrorism suspect in Europe, let's spend our AFD times on articles with any chance of being deleted please? LjL (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - received coverage beyond one time. per WP:GNG---BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per LjL and Valoem --DarTar (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Broad coverage in reliable sources.Blethering Scot 13:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage from reliable sources available Spiderone 14:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep And close this absurd discussion now. Nom ought to have withdrawn it. This kind of template (on an article getting thousands of hits a day) merely makes Wikipedia look silly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whatever the reason, but he has become famous and notable so page should be kept. The article says he is suspect and is wanted, and that is true. It appears that those who want this page deleted have got sympathy for this man. There is no reason even to nominate this page for deletion.--UBEDJUNEJO 23:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talk • contribs)
Keep. Now, more details have come out about this man, so he's more notable. epic genius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 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 merge to Mourning of Muharram. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 17:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Types of mourning of Muharram[edit]

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

A Complete OR essay which has been made up into a Coatrack from scavenging genuine articles. I have failed to find any Reliable sources which discuss "Types of mourning of Muharram", I mean that literally. The google search brings up ZERO results. I was trying to delete OR and Coat Rack features but it leaves me with almost no data left, so I am nominating it for deletion. As this may be a loaded debate I would urge the editors who vote in favor to provide links to reliable sources which mention types of mourning of Muharram in depth. Simply saying that "Oh there are a lot of sources" carrys no merit. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat: At your request. You should have simply searched with different keywords.? Mhhossein (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein you have linked me to encyclopedia iranica article on Azadari, which is present in wikipedia under the heading Mourning of Muharram. What did you want to say exactly? That this should be deleted because the topic is already covered? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I exactly wanted to let you know about an article dealing with "the types of Azadari". Mhhossein (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which are all covered in the mourning article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? there are plenty of plenty sources covered in more than one article! Mhhossein (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge into Mourning of Muharram#Types of Muharram per WP:CFORK. There's already a summarising Mourning of Muharram#Types of mourning, including main article links to some of the specific types. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable enough. I did not find it a "summarising" of Mourning of Muharram#Types of mourning. Sources such as this and this deal with the different types of Azadari (mourning). Mhhossein (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: what I meant by summarising, is that the section Mourning of Muharram#Types of mourning is already a summary/list of the different types of mourning. There is no need for another article that lists these types of mourning. What IS possible, are separate daughter articles for each individual type of mourning, IF it passes WP:GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move and merge to mourning of Muharram--Seyyed(t-c) 06:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK. This is a new (16 Nov 15) rival version of the article on Mourning of Muharram, which has existed since October 2007.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Mourning of Muharram article, section of Type of mourning can expand and split to one article (WP:SPLIT). If we add more information on this section, it becomes too large. The purpose of article creation was expanding the type of mourning section in one article.Saff V. (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: Mourning of Muharram is just 20 kb. You could use this argument, if it were more than 50 kb.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mourning of Muharram. Spinout article not warranted. LjL (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a terribly written, pointless spinoff of main article that impedes rather than aids navigation for our readers. Anything of value in this page can added to that prexisting main article, where it belongs, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NOPAGE. There's nothing to be gained by maintaining this spinoff as is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:00, 29 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. Poor sourcing is a reason to delete if there is clear evidence of diligent searching and sufficient time has passed Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point FM[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Am finding everything for a Baltimore radio station but nothing on this, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 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! 12:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the page, I see its a youth run and not may names that looks familiar to me so. To the general user that will be the same so delete it. Matt294069 is coming 05:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Once again, the NOM seems unable to use google. There is local media coverage showing that it exists here and here, it is mentioned in this book, it has an OFCOM license. Tagging @Bearcat: for comment. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..... I did use Google as I clearly stated "Am finding everything for a Baltimore radio station but nothing on this"- I did find those results but clearly you're unable to understand the fact that mentions aren't good enough and to be totally honest they're worse than the last AFD!, Find better sources or this AFD stays up. –Davey2010^Talk 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe this passes WP:BROADCAST based on the claim that the radio station produces much of its own content (see also WP:BCASTOUTCOMES). The state of sourcing in the article needs improvement, but poor sourcing alone isn't a reason to delete. clpo13_(talk) 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a reason to delete?... If there's no evidence of notability then it doesn't really deserve an article, Anyway I know I said this elsewhere but I've nominated tons of these radio stations this November and half have already been deleted so atleast IMHO BROADCAST doesn't mean anything here (If it did then these would've all been kept?), –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 29 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redroad FM[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Can't find anything at all on the station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 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! 12:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the page, I see its a youth run and not may names that looks familiar to me so. To the general user that will be the same so delete it. Matt294069 is coming 05:22, 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 no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Reverb[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Can't find anything at all on the station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 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! 12:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harlekijn[edit]

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

No source references (>5 years) and notability not established (>½ year). – Editør (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his article or actually simply delete for now instead as there are unlikely signs of better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support redirecting the article to Herman van Veen. – Editør (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Belgium/Holland this is a notable record label (Herman Van Veen) warpozio (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question Herman van Veen is notable but the relationship with this company is unclear. Is Van Veen the founder or owner or did he publish one or more or all records there? From the Dutch WP article it seems the record label Harlekijn no longer exists, there is only a production company with this name, but this information is unsourced. – Editør (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the relationship was clear, its notability is not automatically inherited from Herman van Veen per WP:INHERITORG. – Editør (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is fairly (ok, completely) worthless, but this is an important classical music label, and a search of Google Books etc. turns up reliable information. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can notability be established following the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? – Editør (talk) 23:24, 4 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! 12:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Ranns[edit]

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

WP:BLP, resting on a single primary source with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person notable primarily as the mayor of a municipality with a population of just 5K. This is not large enough for a mayor to get an automatic WP:NPOL pass — a smalltown mayor can still get into Wikipedia if there's enough sourcing and substance to satisfy WP:GNG, but does not get to claim a "keep because mayor" inclusion freebie just because he exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nomination says it all. Mayor of a small community, and partly based on his re-election site, too. PK T(alk) 20:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Small town mayor. Doesn't seem to be enough coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Graham (talk) 05:51, 23 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double-A Zone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just because it's the NCAA's official blog does not make it notable. This article has been around since 2007 and seems to have fallen through the cracks; it should not exist. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 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 anon User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 with the following rationale "WP:CONTESTED"; that anon deprodded a number of articles with such meaningless rationale before disappearing, likely a WP:POINT disruption or a spammer trying to waste our time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. clpo13_(talk) 22:21, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Man[edit]

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

The subject of this unsourced BLP does not appear to meet GNG or NACTOR. No significant coverage or roles. J04n(talk page) 15:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - By far simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no visible notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. KDS4444^Talk 15:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Who the hell are you to decide which film is remarkable or not? do you even know which indian actor is important and which is not? The film has IMDB page, so the page shouldn't be deleted. Magipur (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Magipur, there is absolutely no need to be hostile. On Wikipedia, a film has to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:NF. An IMDb page is not enough; there are many non-notable films (by Wikipedia's standards) that have IMDb pages. See these links and see what can be done to show notability for this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable sources discussing it. (Nothing on Highbeam or Jstor as far as I can see.) Film does not appear to meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. /wia /tlk 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - even hindigeetmala.com, muvyz.com and myswar.com has mention about this film. Check it out. So, Its not unimportant film. If a film becomes flop that shouldn't be treated unimportant. ok? Magipur (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Magipur, I struck out your repeated stance since you already stated "Strongly Keep" above. Thank you for identifying what websites mention the film, now they need to be assessed to see if they are reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Give these guys a chance to add the relevant links and we should come back and vote again.BillWyman (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS:

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

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

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD: "Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho" "P. L. Santoshi" "Vinod" "Raja Gosavi" "Ranjana" "Sajjan" "Shyama"

Comment: A poor deletion rationale has brought a 60-year-old pre-internet Indian film to AFD. But as sources such as Tribune India refer to it as a "front row film", is it difficult to imagine that when released 60-years-ago it received news coverage and commentary? Sources that are not archived online? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe article writer was not fond of punctuation and cavalier about where to place modifying clauses, but there were odd offbeat titles as far back as the 1950s but of not the front row films like Shin Shinaki Boobla Boo and Ha Ha, Hee Hee, Ho Ho implies that this film was not a front row film (whatever than might mean!). --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- what precisely does "front row film" mean? that the audience only ever filled the front row? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neutral The notability and validity of this article is highly in question, it appears it was either fabricated or added for monetary gain? Just an assumtion but if more can be provided, perhaps we can use it to compare against established guidelines Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see anything wrong with this article,it has sources46.208.73.116 (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merely "having sources" is not sufficient. Significant coverage by independent sources is the basis for a presumption of notability, but even that is not a guarantee. And the current sources are not anything like "significant coverage". There are all of two and one is merely a cryptic passing reference about the name weird. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bar is being raised too high by these rules which need reviewing.In my opinion any film that receives a theatrical release is notable especially when you consider how many planned films never reach that stage.46.208.73.116 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you can make that suggestion for an exception for films at Wikipedia talk:Notability, but i feel you will be just as successful if you start banging your head against a wall. and until, by whatever method, you are successful and the requirements change, we will be using the current requirements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient RS coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 29 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 Negativland. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points (album)[edit]

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

Tagged as no references since March 2009. No assertion of notability or any references on page. My own searches turned up nothing to improve article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it instead of making a big deal about it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's an Allmusic review and a brief mention in Trouser Press (same content as the Trouser Press Record Guide). For an album released in 1981 I would expect most of the coverage to be in print sources, and Negativland were important enough that print coverage is likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't vote, but just going to point out WP:MUSTBESOURCES doesn't support keeping. Also, WP:INHERITED - maybe the band is notable, but doesn't mean all their albums are. I searched myself and didn't see anything, but of course if I missed something would reconsider. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:' to Negativland. Fails WP:NALBUMS Azealia911 _talk 21:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Negativland. Minimal coverage. Doesn't warrant own article but a redirect would point someone with any interest in this in the right direction. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:06, 26 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Lang[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of The Notorious B.I.G.: A Biography (2007), and Dr. Dre: A Biography (2007). Additional coverage, at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The "additional coverage" links above return two hits, one for each book. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maybe as this may be better improved material even if it has existed basically the same since November 2007. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 4 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! 12:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:03, 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 redirect to Happy Ending (film). Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaise Mera Tu[edit]

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

The song fails WP:NSONG. All the content from background and release section is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 3 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! 12:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable from the film. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Happy Ending (film). --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems like a likely search term, so a redirect to the film would be appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:57, 29 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. Editors can consider merging through normal channels of editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues[edit]

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

A list of non-notable issues of a modestly notable magazine. Not much point in merging or redirecting this, not every aspect of a magazine needs to be included. Fram (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Eh, a reasonable breakout article IMO. Not exactly clear the right way to treat WP:N here, nor is it clear how deletion benefits the encyclopedia or it's readers (unless it is thought the information here isn't accurate).Hobit (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doctor Who – Battles in Time. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:52, 3 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! 11:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:02, 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, and salt all variations on the name. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwills group[edit]

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

No clear notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy later if needed as I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 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! 11:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides this article, there is the twice-rejected draft at AfC (Draft:Rockwills, which has more references but was not deemed adequate by AfC reviewers in September) and a "Rockwills Group" article deleted at AfD on 24 October, and now this present version with the second title word in lower case, created on 3 November. The arguments at last month's AfD stand, complete failure of WP:CORPDEPTH, so this could probably go by CSD G4, but since it is here for second AfD, might WP:SALT on the name variations be appropriate too? AllyD (talk) 07:53, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Souk Grande Kochi[edit]

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

apparently promotional article on non-notable mall. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These subjects won't get much of the coverage needed here at WP so delete until a better article is made. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but somebody should consider writing an article about the chain Gold Souk, to which this and the other articles about individual shopping centers could be redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a chain article or a list of the members of the chain would be a better outcome than deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of sufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 29 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination since there are no actual !votes aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 17:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garric Simonsen[edit]

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

No work in a major museum; no references showing significant review coverage, only reviewed as part of group exhibitions. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spokane isn't New York so how do we evaluate the artist in the context of his impact on the art community that he's part of? Does this change the evaluation criteria at all, i.e. how do we look at being part of an exhibit [46][47] at the largest regional museum on Seattle's Eastside (population roughly equal to the city of Atlanta)? Or for that matter being featured on the cover of a regional arts magazine [48]? Or being one of two artists reviewed in this weekly [49] from his hometown, and again here (according to which he's also a small college faculty member)? Seems like issues of systemic bias preferring artists from NYC, LA or other large arts centers arise here. In other words, is it sound to insist on "work in a major museum" for an artist whose work is specifically about the unique nature of his own region—in this case the Northwest's cultural/environmental heritage reflected in Simonsen's use of wood materials and images of logging? To point to a specific risk of setting a precedent I'm not comfortable with: does endorsing this reasoning doom any future hope of profiling one of the Quinault Indian master craftspeople because they haven't had a solo show in a major museum? – Brianhe (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brianhe - great questions! any ideas for getting them answered? I find fine artists (and other creative people) to be one of the more difficult categories on which to determine notability. If you get a chat going on this, let me know. LaMona (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the article was created by a contributor with the same user name as artist's web site. Thuresson (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but the creator has stated that he has "no connection" to the subject of the article [50]. - Brianhe (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of the page Garric Simonsen I will take it upon myself and give supportive details for whom may consider deletion of the page Garric Simonsen. Foremost, an historic 115 year old collection of Swedish American history has been uncovered, of which ancestral members of Simonsen's family (Perrson) were the bearers of^[5]. I am an international scholar researching Swedish American families originating from a particular county in N. Sweden named Jämtland. A scholarship has granted exclusive permission and accessibility to research and publish documentation included in the collection, of which contains more than 2500 turn-of-the-century photographs and documentation of Pacific Northwest logging, conservation and mountaineering. This collection also includes 1500 correspondence postcards/letters via/ Östersund, Sweden, and Cowlitz county, WA. The Swedish to English translations of these letters are currently being transcribed. This aforementioned collection is in preparation for a donation to University_of_Washington_Libraries as a meaningful resource for Swedish American genealogical research and Pacific Northwest history. Garric Simonsen is the last living member of the Perrson name, his artwork is informed by the Perrson legacy and contributes existentially to Pacific Northwest history. As the estates nominated research scholar it is essentially my duty to trace into the past and ultimately provide future scholars (working from this collection) an opportunity to add and edit information as it is found. Wikipedia has been chosen as a supplemental bank of important historical facts/links directly related to the research. The page Garric Simonsen has been created to fulfill a contemporary point of reference for scholars citing historical information relating, as it would, to the collection.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 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 merge to Henry Selick. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow King[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The film never entered production. Fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Either Keep or perhaps redirect with partial merge to Henry Selick... the man sourable for keeping the project alive after Disney bailed on him.[51][52][53][54][55] Yes, we have no evidence (yet) that Selick has begun filming, but Koala15, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) explains that even a failed film project CAN BE notable even if not made, because in Wikipedia notability is found through coverage, not results. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Henry Selick - it might barely meet notability standards, but the subject doesn't look to merit a stand-alone article at this point. Seems like a summary at Selick's page would suffice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:39, 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 redirect to Kisses for Kings, almost always redirect is preferred to delete if there is an obvious target.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget to Remember (EP)[edit]

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

Article has no references, and makes no assertion for notability. Band itself might not be notable but this seems more clear cut. My own searches turned up nothing that can be added. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kisses for Kings, where it is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 12:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Futbol Club[edit]

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

Club has not played in the national cup and is not in a WP:FPL, thus fails WP:FOOTYN. Club has not garnered significant coverage to meet requirements of WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I still believe that playing in the 4th tier of US soccer is notable, but the community disagrees, and so I have to go with that. No evidence this club meets GNG either. Giant Snowman 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This team (unlike the Canadian team that User:GiantSnowman notes above) is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup. And it has played in US Open Cup qualification rounds in 2014 and 2015 thus meeting WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nfitz and 4th tier of US soccer clubs are notable and a single AFD is not a barometer further this club is eligible to play in the U.S. Open Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per eligibility. MB298 (talk) 04:17, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GFW Amped[edit]

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

a TV show that doesn't have a network in its' own country of origin, no sources indicating any notability RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we even call it a TV show if it isn't on TV yet? Note that a good chunk of the "shows" on list of television series canceled before airing an episode don't have articles, and Amped does not share the same notoriety of those that do. The few useful bits of information here can be merged to the Global Force Wrestling article until something more substantive happens.LM2000 (talk) 01:45, 15 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! 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is only partially correct, it is a TV show that does not have a network in any country. Boulder Creek International is not a television channel, they are simply a distributor and producer of shows. At present I can find no evidence GFW Amped has not aired a single episode on any channel in any country, not even an online episode. Should a television should actually materialise at some point in the future the article could be recreated, but it should be deleted at present.2.123.206.48 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Cult of Green (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - They already have a TV Deal in the UK and are looking for a TV Deal in the US. 2.120.158.249 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. How has this stayed open for so long? Nobody has produced any coverage necessary to demonstrate notability here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:55, 29 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 WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Republic of Lostisland[edit]

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

Prodded and deprodded with a claim the problem had been dealt with but my rationale for prodding still stands, namely: Not notable. Dubious claim to notability (created by a schoolgirl one day) and a search turns up no evidence establishing notability, while the refs do nothing for it either. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - enough secondary sources to qualify article's subject as a notable. --Ochilov (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested what those secondary sources are mentioned above, because I'm not seeing them on the page and can't find anything elsewhere. JMWt (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No indication of notability. No reliable secondary sources. The listed sources are self-published, blog posts, and Google Books results that are inaccessible, but with descriptions reading "This book consists of articles from Wikia or other free sources online". Citobun (talk) 08:57, 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 Keep. This is an obvious case of nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE. Experienced editors need not be reminded of WP:BEFORE. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPOLD[edit]

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

Not notable and no claim of significance. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Startup covrerage as usual, nothing to make it pass WP:NCOMPANY. It worms my heart, however, to see other people trying to prune this spam. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a start-up company but an association which was active in seeking a common data format. See pages 158-160 of this book, or this discussion. Should the content here be merged into Life-cycle assessment? AllyD (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:SNOW. This looks like the total WP:BEFORE failure. From among 600+ Scholar hits and 100s of book hits here are a few.^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26] Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.autokrata.pl/news/najbrzydsze-samochody-swiata_s14946/slide_9
^ http://www.poisk32.ru/index.php?showtopic=2220&st=180&p=71615&#entry71615
^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057294/Reversing-trend-The-old-cars-fashion-forgot-demand.html
^ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngtimer
^ "E.H. Pearson Collection". E.H. Pearson Collection. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
^ Arno Cahn (30 January 1994). Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Detergents: Global Perspectives. The American Oil Chemists Society. pp. 62–. ISBN 978-0-935315-52-3. Indeed, the broad view provided by an LCA reveals strengths and weaknesses in comparison to competing or potential substitutes. ... This is the exact purpose of a new Brussels-based coalition, created a year ago, under the name of Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD). The science base of the LCA methodology cannot be compromised because it needs ...
^ Bhaskar Nath (1998). Environmental Management in Practice: Instruments for Environmental Management. Psychology Press. pp. 213–. ISBN 978-0-415-14906-8. Notably, the Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD), whose membership includes large industrial companies, has been funding research projects on LCA. One of the specific aims of SPOLD is to design a common format for ...
^ Zacharias Agioutantis (2003). Book of proceedings. Heliotopos Conferences. pp. 135–. ISBN 978-960-87054-2-5. The development of LCA methodology in Europe has been further promoted by the Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD) and a number of EU initiatives such as the European network for strategic life-cycle assessment ...
^ David H.F. Liu; Bela G. Liptak (26 February 1999). Environmental Engineers' Handbook on CD-ROM. CRC Press. pp. 126–. ISBN 978-0-8493-2157-3. The Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD), founded in 1992 and based in Brussels. Its members are companies who support LCA as a decision making tool. SPOLD is conducting a feasibility study on creating a database of ...
^ Claude Fussler (1996). Driving Eco-innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation and Sustainability. Pitman Publishing. ISBN 978-0-273-62207-9. David Russell spends much of his time grappling with such issues and helping resolve them through involvement with SPOLD (the Society for the Promotion of LCA Development). He sees a need for new techniques to communicate LCA data ...
^ Weidema, B. "SPOLD'99 format-an electronic data format for exchange of LCI data." (1999).
^ Bretz, Rolf (1998). "Spold". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 3 (3): 119–120. doi:10.1007/BF02978817. ISSN 0948-3349.
^ Hindle, Peter; Oude, Nick Tieme de (1996). "SPOLD-society for the promotion of life cycle development". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 1 (1): 55–56. doi:10.1007/BF02978638. ISSN 0948-3349.
^ Weidema, B. P. "SPOLD’99 Format–An Electronic Format for Exchange of LCI Data." Available at htto: llwww. sDold. oreYDubl/index. html (September 2000) (1999).
^ HaES, H. U. D. O. D. E. "Guidelines for the application of Life Cycle Assessment in the European Union ecolabeling programme." (1994).
^ Chiang, Tzu-An, Hsing Hsu, and Chia-Wei Hung. "Using the web service technology and the eco-spold XML data exchange standard to develop a LCA service platform for supporting DfE in the Taiwan electronics industry." International Journal of Electronic BusinessManagement 10.1 (2012): 8.
^ Erixon, Maria, and Sara Ågren. "An Assessment of the SPOLD format." Göteborg: Centre for Environmental Assessment of Product and Material Systems, Chalmers University of Technology.(CPM-report 1998: 5) (1998).
^ Bretz, Rolf. "SETAC LCA workgroup: Data availability and data quality." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 3.3 (1998): 121-123.
^ Hemming, C. "SPOLD Directory of life cycle inventory data sources." Society for the (1995).
^ Beentjes, C., N. Wrisberg, and P. E. Ywema. "The Social Value of Life Cycle Assessment. financed by SPOLD Brussels." Draft May (1995).
^ Klöpffer, Walter. "Do we truly require an international society for LCA practitioners?." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2.1 (1997): 1-1.
^ Dašić, P. R. E. D. R. A. G., V. A. L. E. N. T. I. N. Nedeff, and S. R. E. Ć. K. O. Ćurčić. "Analysis and evaluation of software tools for life cycle assissment." Annals of the University of Petrosani, Electrical Engineering 9: 6-15.
^ Spengler, T., et al. "Development of a multiple criteria based decision support system for environmental assessment of recycling measures in the iron and steel making industry." Journal of Cleaner Production 6.1 (1998): 37-52.
^ Harris, Alan L., Mark I. Phillips, and Mark L. Howell. "Protecting ABS skid detection against data corruption." U.S. Patent No. 5,556,177. 17 Sep. 1996.
^ Weidema, B. P. "2. The SPOLD data exchange format." Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessments (2000): 34.
^ Weidema, Bo P. "Response to the CPM assessment of the SPOLD format." (1999).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As per above comment. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and speeedy close per such a lack of WP:BEFORE that the nominator's bringing this here makes me question his mindset or ability (sorry). I politely remind that notability guideline tells us that no article ever has to say "this topic is notable because..." as a topic's notability is found through its sourcability and not through sources actually being used... THAT would be a matter for editorial oversight and not deletion. And come on SwisterTwister... "nothing to suggest better"... Really?? Sure what was nominated was not well sourced, but that is no reason to delete a notable topic, if actual due diligence shows it as notable. Sorry, and not intended to offend, but what BEFORE did you undertake before making your unfounded statement? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are sufficient. Mirror360 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

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

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

The result was Delete both. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WaveMachine Labs[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable computer software as the best I found was only this and this and I'm also bundling the company's software Drumagog as both almost seem symmetrical regarding information and notability and both of basically stayed the same since starting. Pinging past user Zundark and Blanchardb and also software user Czar.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 2 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} 13:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Drumagog as software article of unclear notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Thinking 'Weak Keep' for WaveMachine Labs, however, as I did find musicradar and recordingmag, which are significant coverage of WaveMachine Labs' Auria product. Dialectric (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM by editor with undeclared conflict of interest. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both beither the company nor the product are notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 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 delete. The one "keep" is incomprehensible. Sandstein 22:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monique DeMoan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. Little independent reliable sourcing. Only well-sourced information is limited to the fact that her porn performer husband committed suicide. Deleted in 2007, then restored in 2009 based on now-deprecated multiple nominations standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets of WP:COMMON. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical-man - You do realize WP:COMMON redirects to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means? .... and you do realize IAR/that essay doesn't apply to BLPs up for deletion? ...so as it stands your !vote doesn't make the blindest bit of sense .... –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with just scene-related award nominations. Fails GNG with only incidental mentions by reliable sources. No significant coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 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 speedy delete under G3 by User:RHaworth. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qua bono[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this term is real. Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per tag I added. The article is quite clearly an incoherent hoax. LjL (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I did consider tagging this CSD A11, but I thought the claim of popularity in schools might be a credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Adam9007: maybe it is, but as I see it, the problem is that the article text is a complete hoax. As I said in the edit summary where I placed the speedy tag: it gives false information about a term that sounds Latin, but then proceeds to call it Greek, then a made-up derivation of an English loanword from Latin. And something about murder. If there is a legitimate "qua bono" term, this article is simply not about it. LjL (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is practically incomprehensible. I think the term they are referring to in law may be "cui bono". "Bona fide" means "in good faith", and has nothing to do with Bono as a personal name. I can't tell if this article is a hoax or just a total misunderstanding of Latin terms.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:48, 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.

[1] Elfman, Doug (31 December 2014). "Joe Rogan's three-hour podcast show tops 11 million monthly downloads". LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL. Retrieved 24 November 2015.

[2] Jesse on Twitter: "Look who's in the Globe with more vitamin D knowledge bombs! Congrats Doc Patrick @foundmyfitness

[3] ttp://www.autokrata.pl/news/najbrzydsze-samochody-swiata_s14946/slide_9

[4] ttp://www.poisk32.ru/index.php?showtopic=2220&st=180&p=71615&#entry71615

[5] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057294/Reversing-trend-The-old-cars-fashion-forgot-demand.html

[6] ttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngtimer

[7] "E.H. Pearson Collection". E.H. Pearson Collection. Retrieved 19 November 2015.

[Cahn1994-8] Arno Cahn (30 January 1994). Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Detergents: Global Perspectives. The American Oil Chemists Society. pp. 62–. ISBN 978-0-935315-52-3. Indeed, the broad view provided by an LCA reveals strengths and weaknesses in comparison to competing or potential substitutes. ... This is the exact purpose of a new Brussels-based coalition, created a year ago, under the name of Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD). The science base of the LCA methodology cannot be compromised because it needs ...

[Nath1998-9] Bhaskar Nath (1998). Environmental Management in Practice: Instruments for Environmental Management. Psychology Press. pp. 213–. ISBN 978-0-415-14906-8. Notably, the Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD), whose membership includes large industrial companies, has been funding research projects on LCA. One of the specific aims of SPOLD is to design a common format for ...

[Agioutantis2003-10] Zacharias Agioutantis (2003). Book of proceedings. Heliotopos Conferences. pp. 135–. ISBN 978-960-87054-2-5. The development of LCA methodology in Europe has been further promoted by the Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD) and a number of EU initiatives such as the European network for strategic life-cycle assessment ...

[LiuLiptak1999-11] David H.F. Liu; Bela G. Liptak (26 February 1999). Environmental Engineers' Handbook on CD-ROM. CRC Press. pp. 126–. ISBN 978-0-8493-2157-3. The Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD), founded in 1992 and based in Brussels. Its members are companies who support LCA as a decision making tool. SPOLD is conducting a feasibility study on creating a database of ...

[Fussler1996-12] Claude Fussler (1996). Driving Eco-innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation and Sustainability. Pitman Publishing. ISBN 978-0-273-62207-9. David Russell spends much of his time grappling with such issues and helping resolve them through involvement with SPOLD (the Society for the Promotion of LCA Development). He sees a need for new techniques to communicate LCA data ...

[13] Weidema, B. "SPOLD'99 format-an electronic data format for exchange of LCI data." (1999).

[Bretz1998-14] Bretz, Rolf (1998). "Spold". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 3 (3): 119–120. doi:10.1007/BF02978817. ISSN 0948-3349.

[HindleOude1996-15] Hindle, Peter; Oude, Nick Tieme de (1996). "SPOLD-society for the promotion of life cycle development". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 1 (1): 55–56. doi:10.1007/BF02978638. ISSN 0948-3349.

[16] Weidema, B. P. "SPOLD’99 Format–An Electronic Format for Exchange of LCI Data." Available at htto: llwww. sDold. oreYDubl/index. html (September 2000) (1999).

[17] HaES, H. U. D. O. D. E. "Guidelines for the application of Life Cycle Assessment in the European Union ecolabeling programme." (1994).

[18] Chiang, Tzu-An, Hsing Hsu, and Chia-Wei Hung. "Using the web service technology and the eco-spold XML data exchange standard to develop a LCA service platform for supporting DfE in the Taiwan electronics industry." International Journal of Electronic BusinessManagement 10.1 (2012): 8.

[19] Erixon, Maria, and Sara Ågren. "An Assessment of the SPOLD format." Göteborg: Centre for Environmental Assessment of Product and Material Systems, Chalmers University of Technology.(CPM-report 1998: 5) (1998).

[20] Bretz, Rolf. "SETAC LCA workgroup: Data availability and data quality." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 3.3 (1998): 121-123.

[21] Hemming, C. "SPOLD Directory of life cycle inventory data sources." Society for the (1995).

[22] Beentjes, C., N. Wrisberg, and P. E. Ywema. "The Social Value of Life Cycle Assessment. financed by SPOLD Brussels." Draft May (1995).

[23] Klöpffer, Walter. "Do we truly require an international society for LCA practitioners?." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2.1 (1997): 1-1.

[24] Dašić, P. R. E. D. R. A. G., V. A. L. E. N. T. I. N. Nedeff, and S. R. E. Ć. K. O. Ćurčić. "Analysis and evaluation of software tools for life cycle assissment." Annals of the University of Petrosani, Electrical Engineering 9: 6-15.

[25] Spengler, T., et al. "Development of a multiple criteria based decision support system for environmental assessment of recycling measures in the iron and steel making industry." Journal of Cleaner Production 6.1 (1998): 37-52.

[26] Harris, Alan L., Mark I. Phillips, and Mark L. Howell. "Protecting ABS skid detection against data corruption." U.S. Patent No. 5,556,177. 17 Sep. 1996.

[27] Weidema, B. P. "2. The SPOLD data exchange format." Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessments (2000): 34.

[28] Weidema, Bo P. "Response to the CPM assessment of the SPOLD format." (1999).

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]