Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 October	10 October >

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. Sam Walton (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Logan Bratayley[edit]

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

Not notable: clear case of BLP1E, in this case notable only because he died young. It is possible that the YouTube channel is notable by our standards (as low as they are for anything in the news), but this young boy is not. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Kyre, whose article was likewise created only after he died. Like Drmies says, his YouTube channel might be notable if it passes WP:WEBCRIT. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pretty obvious BLP1E. I'm not convinced there's anything particularly remarkable about this death which merits an article. Robofish (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BLP1E. The only sources showing notability are obit articles mentioning that his death, but nothing outside of that. - Aoidh (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed.--Koppadasao (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The channel has over 1.5 million subscribers, which is pretty big by YouTube standards. Maybe a merge or some sort of article, because the channel seems notable. Upjav (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Musa Talk 00:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A page should be written for the the Brataleys and his page should be merged into that one -- Masterknighted (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really see what he has done to make him notable DrKilleMoff (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exceedingly clear delete Nor do I find "YouTube channels" to be specifically "notable" under extant Wikipedia standards. Collect (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails depth of coverage to meet GNG. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, as well as per WP:MEMORIAL. --Booyahhayoob (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is not totally insignificant and his videos have at least several hundred thousand views. It's not insignificant. Foia req (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pageviews are not a reliable metric for notability on Wikipedia, especially since the YouTube views can be bought. I'm not suggesting the views for this particular individual were bought, but data that can be manipulated so easily is not data that can be relied upon to show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, especially WP:NOTMEMORIAL: we are not a memorial website for young people who die suddenly. Also, "not totally insignificant" does not mean notable, and even if his family is notable he is not so. My sympathies to his family. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Millions upon millions of people die every day ... Not sure what makes this one so special (Sorry I don't mean this in a dickish way but can't really word it any nicer than that!). –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst ✈ 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqul Islam Masud[edit]

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

Notable for only one event which fails the guideline. Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:MILL also. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject has received in-depth coverage from a variety of sources. To be frank, Ibrahim Husain Meraj it appears to me that you sort of have it out for any article regarding people associated with this Jamaat-e-Islami party. --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Non-Dropframe, one but all the references are from his arrest incident. As a politician, he is not notable and as a political party, Jamaat-e-Islami party is minor (may be 5-10% supporter). Shafiqul Islam Masud was the president of their student wings and now he is assistant secretary of the party, which is not enough to prove his notability. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Husain Meraj, at AfD, we not only consider the sources listed in the article but any other sources to be found also. Further, you've cited WP:BIO1E which states in part: "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So the question becomes if the event is significant. Even looking only at the sources in the article, the event received in-depth attention from many news sources. Finally, you didn't really address my concern that you may be targeting this group specifically. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not target this group. As far as my knowledge as a resident of Bangladesh, Mr Shafiqul Islam Masud, is not a notable politician. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, per WP:1E; do not pass any WP:BIO. --nafSadh did say 14:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article emphasizes an event that began as arson and led to the charging, arrest, and alleged torture of Masud in custody. It has been suggested that he is notable only for this event and (as one of 154 Jamaat-Shibir men indicted for it)[1] that his role was minor enough that any article should be about the event, not him, per WP:ONEEVENT.

However, Masud was covered before the 24 December 2013 arson:

February 2013, Syed Zain Al-Mahmood wrote long articles, largely critical of Jamaat, in The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian. They quote Masud as the only pro-Jamaat voice.[2][3]
May 2013, the Dhaka Tribune reported that the government blamed senior leaders of Jamat, and specifically Masud, for violence.[4]
November 2013, the Dhaka Tribune quoted Masud saying "the entire 56,000 square miles of the country will be set on fire", if Jamaat doesn't get the verdict they want. [5]
HighBeam shows 32 mentions going back to 2010.

He clearly fails nearly all points of WP:POLITICIAN because he has never run for or held office. One point, however, is: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success."

The student wing of Jamaat is a major part of the party (the world's third most violent terrorist group, according to Wikipedia). Being the former president of it meets the spirit of this criterion for notability as a politician. Furthermore, Dhaka, as the capital and home of 7-10 percent of the country's population, meets the spirit of "major sub-national level" (politics in Bangladesh doesn't really take place at the divisional level, the step immediately below national). "Assistant secretary" of Jamaat's Dhaka organization doesn't sound very grand, but judging from the press coverage he is considered a significant leader of Jamaat. Worldbruce (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. He is notable for more than just his arrest. Also, judging from the press coverage, he is regarded as an important leader of Jamaat, which even if on the fringe (and now banned), is an established political party, which during most of Masud's career has held seats in the Parliament of Bangladesh and has been in an opposition alliance with the BNP.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and does not need to give a blow-by-blow (so to speak) account of Masud's detention. How many days remand was granted at each appearance is less important than mentioning what the charges are, and of course the eventual outcome. Secondary sources that reflect, analyze, and put in context would be good. Also, non-English sources should only be used where no English source is available to support the material. Worldbruce (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having been national president of Chhatra Shibir, which is a major organization in Bangladesh, is definately enough to pass notability criteria many times around. Here is a video from Cahhatra Shibir from 2006, around the time he served as president, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiUfQfyfMUg --Soman (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southway Square[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. shopping malls are not inherently notable. coverage is all routine. eg some shop opened there, etc LibStar (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the bigger, more modern shopping malls in the Philippines' 6th largest city. 1.--RioHondo (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being bigger and modern does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for a mall crazy country whose citizens' lives revolve around them, the bigger shopping malls are of great social, economic and cultural importance to them. These structures are our modern day plazas, and in a country known for having some of the biggest malls in the world, these are also major tourist attractions.--RioHondo (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well provide some citations then. LibStar (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no evidence southway square is a major tourist attraction. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is according to Lonely Planet guides and Cebu Pacific inflight magazine.--RioHondo (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. It does not have enough "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's the general notability guideline you cited. But from the sources I added, it is notable in being the first modern mall in the city and I'd say it does have significant regional coverage from Zamboanga Today, Zamboanga Times, etc.--RioHondo (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is just a mall. No notability is shown.--Rpclod (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Already added ref for "the first mall with an underground parking area" in the Philippines' 6th largest city. It is notable in local standards.--RioHondo (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in local standards is not a criterion for notability. "First mall with an underground parking area" in the 6th largest city is clutching at straws for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another ref pertaining to the history of Galeria de Zamboanga. Im starting to see how this mall and its location matters to the people, both economically and historically (and I havent even been there). :) --RioHondo (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to show how it meets notability criteria. Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how in any way this is notable. Like all malls, it matters to people, but that's not what Wikipedia stands for. I'm quite proud of my work to save Philippines articles, but to be blunt, I'm embarrassed by this article. This is little more than an advert for Jollibee and is so badly written that it needs to be deleted. For comparison of what an article about a market in that country should look like, see Carbon Market in Cebu City. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of course, this mall does not match that Cebu market's popularity which being the Philippines 2nd biggest city and one of the more visited cities by foreigners will certainly have more coverage. But I am arguing for its notability, its regional notability to the people of Zamboanga at least, as the sources cited (all Zamboanga media, including the City Government) indicate that it indeed has regional/local notability at least. As for Jollibee, I am taking down that whole sentence now. No biggie. :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - RioHondo, are you even aware that the United States government warns its citizens not to travel there? Bearian (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I am aware of the US travel warning to Mindanao. Im just not sure what that has to do with the subject of notability. China/HK also issued a warning/ban recently on travelling to Manila and throughout the country following the South China Sea standoff and bus hostage crisis. Doesn't affect our articles a bit.--RioHondo (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Mr X 17:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Plus (company)[edit]

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

Questionably notable company as the best I found was this and this and there's simply not much here. Pinging still active taggers Eleassar and Miyagawa. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this back in 2009 as I had concerns, and it doesn't appear to be any better now some six years later. Miyagawa (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company operates the most popular web site in Slovenia, a number of popular TV channels and the first Slovenian pay-per-view video content service. It has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles; [6], [7], etc. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it remains one of the most notable and relevant media companies in Slovenia. Rather, improve the article about it, to avert any doubt of self-promotion--Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have confirmed company is notable, though article needs improvement. I added two refs to article. It is regularly written about in the Slovenian press, e.g., this 2014 article [8] appears to be about a regulatory complaint against the company for abusing its dominant market power in Slovenia. This by itself is a strong indicator of notability!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santana Gohain[edit]

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

Questionably notable as although I found links here, here, here, here and here. So with hardly any change since starting in July 2008, no recent or better sourcing and thus improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found some coverage on several of the search engines, but of the mention variety. A couple were slightly beefed up mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: concur with !vote above. The bio is not a pure resume entry, she has some minor coverage, but I am not finding any profiles of her. On the other hand, to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF wrongfully, this one is better than many other shameless artist bios out there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Passing mentions but not enough coverage in reliable sources to write a proper article. Jujutacular (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janie Quinn[edit]

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

This article would simply need better improvement and the best links my searches were this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like self-promotion. The only sites that are active are not authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HLS Systems International, Ltd.[edit]

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

Considerably speedy and PROD material but as this is Chinese and claims to be the largest of its field, I nominated for comments but the best my searches found were republished press releases and listings. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently HLS Systems International Ltd. changed its name to Hollysys Automation Technologies Ltd. in 2009. If so, the article is, at the very least, incorrectly labelled. However, I do not find much authoritative coverage although that might be due to the name change.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found more coverage under the Hollysys name but mostly just PR and stock info. No substantive coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–United States football rivalry[edit]

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

No more matches than two random countries drawn out of a hat. —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious delete, there is clearly no rivalry here. Aspirex (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::Stay this article is a good article show relation between IRAN and USA . I think must be stay this article , do not remove , I hope you understand what I mean Kurdistantolive (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurdistantolive: if there is any way that sources can be found that even mention the two teams are rivals (e.g. see Iran–South Korea football rivalry) then maybe it can be kept Spiderone 08:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable rivalry, see also WP:NRIVALRY. Giant Snowman 07:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no evidence to suggest this is a rivalry by any means Spiderone 07:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Nothing supports notability. ABF99 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a rivalry. One FIFA WC group match and one friendly do not create a rivalry. This "rivalry" is contrived because of the political climate between the two nations. Politics does not belong in football. We must invoke WP:NRIVALRY and examine whether this passes WP:GNG, which it does not. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Except for the geopolitical overtones, two matches does not a "rivalry" make. Not does it make it "Notable. if there is more there, then the article and the sources ought to say. Unless that is corrected, Delete for all the foregoing reasons makes sense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable rivalry. Per the other comments. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NRIVALRY. Wider issues between the Us and Iran do not inherently mean there is a rivalry there, particularly when the teams have only ever played twice. Fenix down (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a rivalry. Qed237 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no evidence of a rivalry between these two national teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Hajjaj[edit]

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

Fail to pass notability guideline. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN because he hasn't been elected to or held office. The closest he has come is an abortive run for mayor of Dhaka. He is a figure within the Jatiya party; does he meet WP:GNG? His political career can be summed up as:

February 2013: appointed special adviser to party leader
February 2014: appointed party spokesman
March 2015: in break with party, declared his independent candidacy for mayor of Dhaka
April 2015: pulled out of mayor's race
August 2015: reinstated as special adviser to party leader

Each event was covered by plenty of media, but generally in the form: "According to a press release ..." He's been on at least three political talk shows. They're in rapid-fire Bengali, so I can't evaluate whether they're significant coverage of him, or whether he's just acting as a mouthpiece for the party. Worldbruce (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has received ~~significant~~ some coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He might be in the borderline of GNG. There is, however, a possibility that the article is created by editors with CoI. --nafSadh did say 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst the page has a promotional (probably COI) tone, I think minimum standards for notability are clearly met. Googling the name in Bangla gives plenty of hits, for example Prothom Alo (major daily national newspaper) has 954 article with him, including articles where his own campaign is covered as the main topic (for example http://www.prothom-alo.com/bangladesh/article/482671 ). --Soman (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work but they appear to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 03:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Human Chain for Madhesh Movement[edit]

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

Speedy declined by Yunshui. Does not appear to be a notable protest action; while there is one source given in the article, Wikipedia is not a news site, and this movement doesn't seem to be one which has the lasting influence needed for an independent article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename and expand. This looks as though it has had sufficient coverage to be notable (source, source, source, source, source, source) and would appear to be part of a larger protest movement which we don't seem to have an article about yet. Whilst the human chain may fall under WP:NOTNEWS, the protest movement as a whole would appear to have the longevity needed for an article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yunshui. --Rubbish computer 16:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This particular incident seems to have been just a news event, and not independently notable, news blurbs or not, but the protest movement as a whole is likely to be notable. This article, though, is just a news story with a big photo gallery, and there isn't enough referencing for anything but a permastub. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand to 2015 Nepal protests. The human chain itself is not notable, but the protests are. utcursch | talk 23:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the event is real. the event has been covered in so many national dailies. references: [9][10][11][12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.242.251 (talk) moved from talkpage by Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge possibly into 2015 Nepal fuel crisis (I'm not intimately familiar with the subject matter, but they seem to be related) – that page could be renamed more generically to 2015 Nepal constitutional changes or something to that effect. Seems to me that the central topic here is the controversy with the constitution, and not the human chain itself, and they'd be better off merged. Aspirex (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst ✈ 04:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Rauner[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited; subject is not "incumbent" (never elected) and sole claim to notability is as the spouse of a notable individual. No content in article. Fails WP:GNG Scr★pIron^IV 15:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding plenty of third party sources ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]). Granted, "First Lady" isn't an elected office, but it's nearly certain to attract some attention. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bruce Rauner in any case as she's going to be best known through him. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no issue with a redirect if there is actual content; however, the article does not say anything. If content is actually added from the sources provided by the Keep !votes, then there may be some value. As it stands, it is an empty article with inadequate sourcing, and a redirect and merge is useless, as there is nothing to merge. Scr★pIron^IV 14:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not inherited means that being related to someone notable does not automatically confer notability. Inclusion always depends on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources cited in the expanded article, combined with those identified by Non-Dropframe (except the WBEZ one, which is just a passing mention) are compelling evidence that she meets WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Mafia Records[edit]

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

A label whose main artist is the label's owner. No WP:RS cited, just directories. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no authoritative sources, no indication of WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything better. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches not turning up anything to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jewelpets and Sweetspets. The keep arguments did not appear to based on guidelines. Consensus was to re-direct to the list page. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet (Jewelpet)[edit]

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

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

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

No indication of notability at all. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dunno if you're immature or not, character based articles don't tend to follow similar rules unless they're SOURCED. Saying that an anime character doesn't need an article means you flat out said it shouldn't be included.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - official mascots. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are not reasons to keep. The problem is that the articles do not contain any indication of why they are notable enough to have their own article. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Hahaha, I think we can simply move to the main article for now until a separate article can be made....whenever that may be. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jewelpets and Sweetspets. I am only seeing primary sources here, the first few references are those towards the two tv studios that made the anime adaptation. The genre specific references include the website of Jewelpet's company Sanrio, as well as another website [19] that when you scroll to the bottom you also see Sanrio. If that website isn't connected some way to the primary company then having the name www.jewelpet.jp sounds like a fan-site. Finally the further reading section include books made by the publisher of the books for the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unclear how independently notable these characters are. They should each get their own subsection at the top of the List of Jewelpets and Sweetspets as Main characters if they are the representative ones for the brand, instead of being buried in the list of 30+ characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Even an anime character must have authoritative proof of notability. --Rpclod (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Character articles don't need any notability at all unless you can find a much more decent source from what: a reference book? Haha no. Because there's none and there are no other official references for them in any anime magazines. Redirecting them back to the main article will make the page bloated with data.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that voting twice is a no-no. --DAJF (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes they do. Character lists are generally accepted for various reasons (although they don't have a free pass) but articles for individual characters should always show some notability. I would also suggest that if something isn't covered in an anime magazine, that suggests that something isn't notable, I'm not sure why you think that somehow makes it safe. At any rate, your reasoning is just plain wrong. Rpclod's point is as simple and accurate as you can get.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per request you could have this article userfied if you plan to work on it now or in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's gonna take time to import everything back. The article is feared to be bloated with data, so how do I suppose to keep those info intact when redirecting then? None. It's getting me nowhere!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jewelpets and Sweetspets. None of the articles have in-depth third-party sourcing to indicate adequate independent notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The editors were split between keeping and redirecting, with the arguments for keep more compelling. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sur les femmes[edit]

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

Non-notable essay. Two of the three biographies of this author mention it in passing and the third not at all. Nothing obvious in google. See also https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_les_femmes and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sur_les_femmes PROD removed on the basis that this is interesting. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denis Diderot. This essay is just not covered in recent scholarly literature, see Google scholar. It is occasionally mentioned as a source (cited) for the view of women during the Enlightenment. However Anne Larsen does say in her book Writings by Pre-revolutionary French Women (2000) when discussing d'Epinay on page 510 (volume 2): Among the most spirited responses to Thomas's [ Antoine Léonard Thomas ] polemic were Diderot's well-known essay Sur les Femmes and d'Epinay's lesser known but equally pointed critique ... My question would be: "Well-known to whom?" The only discussions of the essay appear to be those two that are currently cited. Maybe some paper-based research will turn up more sourcing with substantive analysis. If not, redirect. as failing WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- re: well-known to whom? - to at least two professors, experts in the topic (and Diderot biographers). And that is enough for wikipedia purposes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - it is just plain false that the essay in "not covered in scholarly literature". This book calls in "well-known" and discusses it very extensively. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be a historically significant French essay; a precursor to many 20th century works on the 'female question', like Freud's work on hysteria. And, as noted above, it has been covered by recent scholarship in English. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would look at Google Scholar and see how empty it is. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I suppose if not keep because either way it will be saved from exact deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, any work by Denis Diderot is notable and keepable - he was the Jimbo Wales of his day and was responsible for the first major collaborative encyclopedia. As a stand alone work, keep per the 'Keep' comments above, which show that the work is notable. This is a fairly well written and full Wikipedia article. A thought, Diderot and Wales could be shown on a postage stamp together. Randy Kryn 11:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While some people believe that some topics have inherent notability by existing, the guideline says elsewise: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. WP:N --Bejnar (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk

Keep. I searched my old college's database and found plenty of academic sourcing that heavily reference this work. It's been the focus of at least one journal article, which I've added in the "further reading" section. It also enjoys an extended mention in this book published through the Oxford University Press. The sources are out there, although they're predominantly in academic sources. However the coverage is varied enough and he's covered by multiple different writers enough to where this is independently notable outside of its author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book (page 233 from the University of Chicago Press asserts that one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's essays was a partial response to this essay as well. The essay itself is covered in more depth on pages 53 and 60-61, according to the index. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also covered here and here in French. It also looks to be covered in pages 297-300 of this Indiana University Press book by Samia I. Spencer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, here's the source count if we eliminate the sourcing that's from an autobiography: 7 sources. This includes the three essays in the "further reading" section and four that were added to the article. If we include the two sources from Wilson and Fellows, which appear to cover the work in depth, this brings it to 9 sources. This does not include the things that I mentioned here but did not add to the article, which would add at least three more sources. Twelve sources is more than enough to assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask for some help with the sourcing (fleshing out the article, reducing the reliance on the same two sources) from some of the applicable WikiProjects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a minor work in a class that Sainte-Beuve called Diderot's "petits chef-d'oeuvres". It has had some lasting impact as shown by the sources in the article (although they aren't brilliant, and there is a bit of stretching to borrow Diderot's name to support a thesis). All in all this is an article of encyclopedic interest. On-line sources in French for this kind of thing are thin. I suspect a good French library would turn up more. Vrac (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Deadman[edit]

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

Not noteable Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on WP:OUTCOMES - "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." The book has received numerous reviews and is used widely read. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. seeems promotional. If anyone manages to source it, feel free to ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the "numerous reviews" revealed with a google search are not reliable and cannot be used for notability.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not show that they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killa Tay[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, can't find anything more than track lists and name drops. Doesn't appear to meet MUSICBIO or GNG. Note: I originally overlooked the discography, so I've added it to this AfD. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all cited sources are directories and fail to establish that the subject passes our inclusion criteria. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO at this time, and discography articles are intended for notable artists. Miniapolis 00:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the Allmusic and Billboard cites on Killa Tay are more than directory entries, they are barely above the passing mention level. Moreover they are signed by the same person and look to be nearly identical, so they aren't truly "multiple sources". DES ^(talk) 01:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems to be another case of no obvious signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems cruel to pile-on, but there's really no significant coverage in reliable source that I can find. There are scattered hits throughout Google Books, but they're always one-line mentions. Maybe there's more offline coverage that we can't access. If so, then the article can be recreated (with better sourcing). I wasn't going to comment on this AfD, as it seems to have come about from a request for help against vandalism on ANI, but, really, there's no other outcome that I can see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dogie Butte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND on grounds fails: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded the article beyond mere statistics. Note that WP:GEOLAND includes "mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc."– Gilliam (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where there is information beyond statistics. There isn't here. An explanation of the name isn't sufficient. CFCF 💌 📧 07:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Harding County, South Dakota. GEOLAND is not satisfied by a definition of "dogie". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Anome (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate sources, adequate content. Montanabw ^(talk) 15:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep of course, and start an article on the nearby mountain named "Horse's arse".♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability for geographic features. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Antigng (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Park Junghwa[edit]

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

This member has no significant solo work outside of work he has done with his group so this page is not necessary at this time and simply restates information found on the group's pages. Furthermore it has information that is un-sourced or not notable enough to be included on a normal artist page.her Television series have been accompanied alongside other members and just has cameo appear but the music video isn't noteworthy enough to include anyways and her activity is less than دeed to have a separate page. in music videos. I believe the page should be removed.(Pikhmikh (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - She is acting in the Korean TV drama as a Leading role, not cameo. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but only one tv drama(just Webtoon Hero Toondra Show because Wives on Strike is cameo) is not reason for her notability Nam Taehyun of Winner (band) also has lead role in tv series also naeun of A Pink but their page has been removed. her solo work is not enough for notability. (Pikhmikh (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Looking at Park Junghwa's work as the work of an Entertainer per Wikipedia:BLPNOTE "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities", she may qualify under #2. "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following," if failing the test of not having a "significant" body of work, or contributions, as either a musician or entertainer.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the group she belongs to, EXID, has WP page view stats averaging over 1000 daily.

And, including this English WP page being discussed, Park Junghwa has WP pages in seven more languages, with the Korean page having been created in April 2014, and a total of four different page creators for all eight pages. If the English page was perceived strictly as a "translation" of the Korean page, or any of the other six remaining pages, the value of their status as valid WP pages needs to be included.

It appears there is some significant "cult" following for Park Junghwa, being in a popular girl group, performing in fellow musicians' videos, and acting on television. I'm for keeping this developing page, which is a well-written (and as well-sourced as can be expected) representative page for any popular K-pop group's idol. If her career fizzles out, and the page with it, another group of editors can mull over keeping the page at a later date.

In general, it likens to the WP issue of the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton [20] and a lingering question about what pages women (and girls) find interesting on WP.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 15:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Donottroll (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 15:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donottroll (talk • contribs)

Delete or redirect Besides the fact that none of her filmography is referenced, some of it isn't independent work at all but stuff she did with her group. Most of the rest also just is not notable. Example being the cameos, some are referenced earlier in the page by their YouTube videos with notes about the time where you can briefly glimpse her in them, the tell me video doesn't say what time you can see her and I couldn't find her. That's not a cameo...that's an extra. I only see a few items that are actually notable and those can be included on the groups main page.Peachywink (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See [21]. This link is the TV drama official website, she is definitely main role, not cameo and extra. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong redirect or weak delete not notable outside her own band, no reliable sources that indicate she is, bit parts on TV are most in the EXID context (Toomass (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Strong delete I looked for naver but we couldn't find many information about her. so think this article should be deleted. Park Jung Hwa isn't worthy being remained in wikipedia. Although she has been acting since she was a child , there are no materials about her career. she just take a role as a supporting actor. and she isn't notable person yet as a singer in Korea. Consequently, there is lack of information.

Choi Hyun Hee (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) jeje1991, Choi Hyun Hee[reply]

Keep per Kanghuitari, Bonnielou2013. Donottroll (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think one drama role can easily fit on the group's page and doesn't require she have a separate article.Peachywink (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EXID: No independent notability outside of the group. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actually, listing for the first time--This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log page for the perusal of those who follow AfDs generally. Fixed now--this discussion should run for at least another week before a larger audience.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 13:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EXID. Notability outside of the group is minimal, which can easily be covered in that article. This group could likely benefit from a List of EXID members article, as it does for List of Exo members. — ξ ^xplicit 06:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page really need some improvement, I don't see the reason to delete.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 02:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity Health[edit]

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

Promotional. No evidence of notability. Devoid of content Rathfelder (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional piece Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gotta be more specific with the search parameters. Look for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- and you'll find enough stuff. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single local newspaper cited is clearly insufficient on its own. Searches located five more independent, reliable, secondary sources: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

The problem is that they are all sources in a limited area (the company seems to do business in a handful of counties of New Jersey). To satisfy WP:CORP, there needs to be at least one international, national, or regional (which in this context I would interpret to mean North or Mid-Atlantic States) source. For me a New York or Philadelphia media outlet, for example, would demonstrate notability region-wide rather than just in northern New Jersey. Note, however, that the wording of WP:AUD has changed in the last few days after a discussion of whether The Star-Ledger (one of the sources above) is or is not, by itself, a regional source. Opinions on how the new wording affects this AfD are welcome. Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bomanite[edit]

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

Non-notable company; possibly non-notable product and inventor. Most hits in various searches for Bomanite results in a bunch of gardening/architecture/design journals where Bomanite seems to be listed as one of many options for decorations.

Also nominating the article on Kiva Koffeehouse; this restaurant is related to the inventor of Bomanite, and has similar issues with sourcing.

Bjelleklang - talk 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as although News, Books, browser and Highbeam found links, there's nothing to suggest obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage on either subject to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing for "keep" did not show that the subject has significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NodeBB[edit]

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

This article is not written from a neutral PoV ("modern platform that will hopefully help shape forums of the future"), contains original research (" Unlike competing forum software offerings", this is ~~almost~~ impossible to track down), contains links that are not relevant for the article itself, violates WP:CRYSTAL ("will soon allow integration with services such as WrapBootstrap") and the NodeBB community has intentionally been holding an edit war over at Comparison of Internet forum software to add their project to the list, of which this page is another attempt to add it, and appears to be solely made to win that argument. YannickFran (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And additionally, according to the discussion referred to above, this very same article has already been removed for not being notable.--YannickFran (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems rather hasty to dismiss an entire article for several sentences that could very easily be rewritten, and in fact, this would probably be the ideal solution here. The article was originally nominated for speedy deletion (back in 2013, I might add!) for non-notability. Fair enough, although I think that during the following two years, enough media attention has been gained insomuch that NodeBB can be considered notable. Keep in mind citations have been provided as requested. Kareeser|^Talk! 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, looking at articles for some of the other forums named in Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software, there are a number which don't have any sources at all besides a link back to the project homepage. They seem to have dodged the axe... Kareeser|^Talk! 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because there is a difference between being nominated for not having enough reliable sources - which is barely a reason for deletion, however this is just an additional issue with this article - and being nominated because there are not enough reliable sources, the article is part of an edit war (that is being done by the NodeBB community itself), written as an advertisement and talking about unsettled future events. you guys can claim all you want that I'm a "phpBB fanboy" (actually, I hate that piece of software) and say that power is rising to my head, but I'm keeping that article clean and up-to-date, including many of the pages about these forum softwares listed there. If you add something that isn't conform the rules to be listed on that page, I - or anyone else watching that page - will remove it again for as long as the rules aren't followed. --YannickFran (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - And added to that, name calling isn't helping you guys either. --YannickFran (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good stuff. Keeping the article clean and all is great, but simply deleting stuff based on "rules" - without pointing them out, I might add, is not constructive. Fine. Lesson learned. Now can we move on instead of this deletion war? I'm not part of this community. I just reacted after finding nodeBB long after looking at the comparison and having missed it there. I've run a lot of the forums on that page, and still run a few on that list, and I vote nodeBB gets included. Which I incidentally do not run; I just want it on the list TiaZzz (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Then if you're keeping the article up to date, why do you remove newer forum softwares like Luna & NodeBB. They have there own place in there, even without a article. I say that it just encourages more expirienced wiki users to write articles for them if they find said software interesting. But thats just my opinion on the matter. 94.208.70.100 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with @TiaZzz. Also. If there is an "edit war", there need to be at least 2 persons involved. @YannickFran was one of them himself and actually started the "war" with this sentence to his deletion: "(Bye again!)". @YannickFran is wrong if he thinks that this is going to make us think that his contribution is legit. I myself thought that he just didn't like nodeBB and deleted it therefor. In general I understand that it wasn't okay to start this edit war, but the sentence to the first deletion was a bit misleading in my opinion. Also. The issues @YannickFran mentioned in his first post in this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion page aren't present anymore. So I am for Keeping Lenovo.mac.user (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        To follow the recommendations I'll clarify: I'm for keeping the article. TiaZzz (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm also for keeping this article. 94.208.70.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article looks a bit deficient it could easily be improved. NodeBB appears to be sufficiently notable and I think the article is useful to anyone comparing forum software (which was how I came to this discussion).--Japonicus (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see verifiable, reliable sources, and an article that describes notable software. As for the issues with the listing, I put that down to a seeming contradiction in Wikipedia policy. On one hand, we want reasonably complete lists in an encyclopedia. On the other, policy (Wikipedia:PROSE mostly) seems to say that inclusion in most lists requires a page. It's a contradictory and vague policy, and I wouldn't hold that against the page creators/promoters. The objections made in the deletion request are not deletion-worthy. There are flags for POV and other writing issues which should be used instead. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO advert of a struggling start-up, the refs in teh article are their own website, blogs and sales outlets, web searches turn up more of the same stuff, no independent RS talking about the subject Kraxler (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a strange way, the seeming meatpuppetry in the debate above belies an accusation of promotion -- or at the very least shows a dedicated community willing to wade into byzantine Wikipedia politics. The article doesn't cite great sources, but I was able to find several third-party sources that discuss the software in an objective way (whether the article uses them presently doesn't impact a deletion discussion overly much). It certainly doesn't meet what the WP:NSOFT essay suggests (subject of books, curricula, research,etc), but neither does any software I've used on computers in the last decade.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? Plenty of software does. What does not, should be deleted. Also, newspapers and such are totally fine, and often help show notability of the software. Here, we have nothing. We are not an encyclopedia of all software in existence, only of the important ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPA vote stacking notwithstanding, this simply fails Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (software), and that's all there's to it. We are not Yellow Pages, nor startup/software promotion website. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The current nodeBB article was a result of nodeBBs deletion in the comparison of forum software. No independent article - no access to the list. If you are so dead set on finding external sources, google for two seconds. Personally, I found nodeBB from here: https://www.cmscritic.com/resource-lists/forum-list/ I am arguing nodeBBs inclusion because I read the comparison list and missed nodeBB. TiaZzz (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per this the abovementioned source is blog which "offers services for vendors" and hosts reviews by self-declared experts. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". This blog fails the guideline. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Please read what I wrote. I didn't claim CMS critic as the definitive source of all things forums, I stated where I found it. I don't understand why nodeBB gets so much flak when compared to other articles on competing forum software. Compare it with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snitz_Forums_2000 and tell me which is more notable. Somehow "Snitz Forum 2000" passed through the needle hole that is notable on Wikipedia and can be on the comparison list. If only a handful of the biggest forums were allowed to be on that list, and the list was renamed to "most widespread and notable forum software", then that would be fine. As it stands, this drive to remove up and coming software, while old and stagnant articles remain to rot, is baffling. This zeal to retain the status quo undermines the information Wikipedia aim to spread. We are discussing software here, which incidentally shifts as all things software does, and I am annoyed that the comparison article made me bark up the wrong tree for weeks and months. If nothing new can get added to it, remove it. As it sits now it spreads misinformation. TiaZzz (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. We do not judge the notability of one article in comparison to another. If you think any article is less notabvle than this one, nominate it for deletion. Kraxler (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions by editors who are not obviously canvassed. Sandstein 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the discussion has gotten a bit contentions, the users coming to defend NodeBB aren't wrong. Unlike people, birds, or castles, the "notability" of software seems (at least to me) to operate differently. I don't learn about notable software in books, newspapers, or peer-reviewed literature (and neither does anyone else). We learn about software through discussions, blogs, reviews, use on popular websites, and many newer venues not even in existence when the guidelines were written. How that implicates upon a useful guideline to editors, I don't know. But as TiaZzz aptly points out, allowing the vast majority of software which has come into common use and discussion in the world (I'm not going to use the n-word) to be deleted (at least they waited more than the usual 2 minutes for this one) leaves Wikipedia with an inconsistent list of software which was popular during the "Wiki land rush" of 2004-2007 or so. But in the sense of WP:IGNORE, what passes for "notability guidelines" for software has failed us in the sense that it stands in the way of improving Wikipedia. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a place for fundamental discussions of the universe and humanity. Just show us sources which may be used under our notability guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: First let me point out that WP:Notability_(software) is not a "guideline," merely an essay -- and a poor one at that. So if you're referring to the general notability guidelines, I and others have already said that the sources cited in the article are sufficient, and I see a few more out there which could be used. AfD may not be a discussion forum, but neither is it a Star Chamber, where hapless new users are forced to defend themselves in the face of questionably-applied guidelines. Remember, it is not the present content or state of citation in the article which is up for discussion on notability grounds, it is the topic itself (WP:NPOSSIBLE).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a discussion. The !voters check the topic and the sources in the article. They also check the web for additional sources. In this case, the sources in the article do not support notability, as pointed out in my !vote. I checked the web and found nothing better. So, it's now your turn to show something. It's that easy. AfD is neither a Star Chamber nor a Kangaroo Court. If any "hapless" editor gets a notable article nominated for deletion here, count on me to save it. In all other cases, we'll have to bow to the guidelines independent of personal preferences. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: Noting that I cannot accept your premise that the burden of proof for sourcing lies on non-deletionists in a field where notability is not the objective doctrine it is with people or places, I've done some brief searching myself (in order of relative importance). Interview: StrongLoop (an IBM Company) , CMS Critic Review,NodeBB – Open Source Forum Platform for Modern Web, and The Beginner's Guide to NodeBB. Obviously, the last entry on a blog is least relevant here, but these all represent verifiable, editorially independent discussion (and interviews) of the software in question. This was a simple Google search. I'm sure interested parties could proffer more and better sources. But given the state of the "essay" Wikipedia:NSOFT and my long rants about software notability, it's not reasonable to start by assuming things aren't notable and requiring article research to foreclose deletion (WP:DEADLINE applies).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Interview on StrongLoop" is a WP:PRIMARY source, it can be used to ref facts, but doesn't add to notability. I pointed out already why "CMS Critic" is not usable. The "WebAppers" post looks like a press release by the company, it does not discuss the subject but only announces specifications and has a demo video, not usable for notability. The "Beginners Guide" is a tutorial about how to use this software, not good for notablity. Here we go again: the WP:General notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Your "sources" are either connected to the subject (primary pieces, interviews, sales outlets, press releases) or published in sources which are not "reliable" under WP:RS (blogs that host anything without checking facts or veracity, as long as the client pays). Kraxler (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. What I can cobble together to be your criteria amount to software topics covered in academic literature. Reading independently operated blog and content sites on the Web may not be your cup of tea, but that's a long way from making wild and unfounded accusations of sources being bought or rendering large swathes of the web "unreliable." Perhaps I'm biased being a software developer myself, but I think you've backed the criteria here into a corner which no article in this area could conceivably meet. Which is why WP:NSOFT has been such a failure.

For those who are inclined to take WP:NSOFT as guideline and to assert, as @Piotrus: does that "this simply fails Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (software), and that's all there's to it," have simply not read that essay, which for the "Reliability and significance of sources" says "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." Users on the talk page have objected (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(software)#Open_source_software:_too_inclusive) to that special treatment of open source software, but it remains. Please exercise tolerance for topics you may not be knowledgeable about the sourcing of. We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not put web pages authors' motives on trial.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we have to consider WP:PROMO # 5 (this is a "policy", i.e. it's stronger than any guideline). And there are thousands of articles on softwares which indeed have sources that pass the criteria of GNG, there are well-accepted independent blogs, software magazines, books about softwares, mainstream media which also talk about software etc. None of those are here. That's the difference. Kraxler (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, because of growing amount of spam, we have no choice but to put such pages to trial. Otherwise we will become not an encyclopedia, but a directory of all software and everything else, including Yellow Pages, all in promotional language. Simply put, NodeBB is not important enough to be in an encyclopedia, because it has not been noticed by anyone significant outside it's - apparently quite loyal - community. Rather than fighting here, I'd recommend that said community tries to get the software reviewed in some reliable sources, such as PC World or other described in Category:Computer magazines. Then you can ask for undeletion, showing new sources which justify the inclusion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, I should be very careful about computer magazines, despite their mention in the software guidelines. Almost all of the industry publications I'm familiar with in 2015 are far less credible than the blogs we've discussed here. Much of their product reviews are "advertorials" and the rest are chosen from the ranks of the organizations in favor at the magazine's ad department. Per WP:NSOFT's suggestions for the use of informal sources for software of this kind, developing a better sense of which are of quality would be more useful. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting argument. One that, however, should be made at the discussion page of NSOFT rather then here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I actually went to do just that at WP:NSOFT, but realized it doesn't get particular about magazines or other sources, and actually (as many have said) leaves the door quite wide open for F/OSS software. The nitpicking with which books, magazines, and such that we like is primarily an AfD cultural artifact it would seem, not a policy thing.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to excuse my formatting if this fails the norm. It isn't a direct reply to previous comments so I start fresh. As an attempt to follow WP:NSOFT I'll list the sources and arguments I've found so far. http://t3n.de/news/nodebb-nodejs-forum-557263/ seems to be a German magazine. Articles published in t3n seems to be crowd sourced but it is referenced by Google News which is given as an example on how to source. I also question the dismissal of CMS critic by Kraxler. If CMS critic is to be dismissed due to "offers services for vendors", anyone making money on reviews and advice should be dismissed. Given the notability of companies such as Gartner I say that's unrealistic. If Kraxler thinks CMS critic is writing about nodeBB for money, the burden of proof lies with Kraxler. WP:NSOFT states "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." The same guideline states "An app that is just another entry in a crowded field needs more persuasively significant sources, of a kind that indicate that it stands out from the crowd." If you know forum software, you will know that it's heavily dominated by typical LAMP-type solutions. If you know about software development you will know: A forum based on NodeJS, Redis/MongoDB and nginx stands out. The source for this claim can be found on Github. The t3n article explains how nodeBB stands out if you don't want to look at source code yourself. TiaZzz (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The T3N source seems to be acceptable, they purport to be an independent software magazine. Concerning CMS, I don't make the guidelines, I just follow them. Anyone making money out of posting/hosting press releases should be discarded, yes. CMS critics post a huge offer ("open to services for vendors") on their main page, so, I expect, they would post anything if they can get money for it. Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that press releases are aimed at media, right? And media use these, even in articles? You have discarded most if not all media in that case. In any way, where does it say that CMS critic posted the actual press release, and better yet - received money for it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof remember. Your claim is moot until you back it up. Referencing that CMS critic offers services for money means nothing. So does Gartner. TiaZzz (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, if I opine on one particular thing, other things are irrelevant. You can't say that what somebody did is right because that what somebody did wrong was done wrong by somebody else too. It's actually one of the oldest defense mechanisms, in use since the stone age, but unworthy of encyclopedic debate.

Second, WP:GNG requires (I quote again, some day you'll read it) "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Press releases are not independent of the subject, per definition, they are released by the subject. Sources which advertise that their space is for sale for all comers are "unreliable" under our guideline, because they don't check facts, and don't make editorial judgments, they print anything that pays. We're running around in circles, it would be easier for you to check out the guidelines instead of pushing your view, no matter what. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Kraxler (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph. If you are referring to CMS critic vs. Gartner then yes, I get to make the claim. You are lumping all business that make money off of something into a bag of "no good". I've argued that this is false and given you an example where a company offers services for money and is held in good regard - Gartner. I'm not claiming CMS critic is as notable as Gartner, the argument is a respons to your accusation. The burden of proof still lies with you. "Source is no good because they make money selling services" is a generalisation and you'll need to back that up. I think you'll find that generalisations were invented around the stone age as well.

WP:GNG is general, WP:NSOFT is specific. I don't know the hierarchy of guidelines and rules of WP but it's becoming clear that cherrypicking among the rules is common once you know them. I'll write this one again so perhaps you'll read it this time - WP:NSOFT states "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." nodeBB is open source software. Thus it exists in the domain of WP:NSOFT. Can we at least agree on this? I haven't seen that space is for sale on CMS critic. If you are assuming that the "vendors" CMS critic mention are only companies trying to sell their CMS or forum software, I think you are basing your conclusion on assumptions and not facts. They state they run unbiased reviews. I don't know the validity of that, but I know that your claim is just an assumption without facts. Perhaps it's enough on WP in general, but like I said - WP:NSOFT gives leeway for FOSS. As for checking the guidelines, I agree with you. I am painfully ignorant of a lot of them. Problem is that the sheer volum of various guidelines is massive and some even contradict. But the ones I have found seem to fit and no WP guideline can denounce logical validity. TiaZzz (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The few sources available are mostly closely connected or blogs that simply don't meet WP:RS. In any case, the coverage in the sources is not substantial enough to justify an article. One way to tell if a source is closely connected is to see if the source articles ends with something like this "For more information on NodeBB v0.1.0, you can visit the official release notes. To learn more about NodeBB as a forum and community solution, check out their official website." (source: cmscritic.com) The subject fails WP:GNG. (Note that WP:NSOFT is an essay and should not be used to bolster arguments in an AfD.)- Mr X 17:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sarah Townsend. The discussion proved that the two individuals were one and the same. Based on that, and the dialogue amongst the editors, consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah McGuinness[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage of the artist or the track "Mama Can You See Me Now" from the soundtrack. Fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me it appears it should be a redirect to Sarah Townsend - they are the same person according to this article. Bonnie (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bonnie to redirect or merge to Sarah Townsend, which is also listed as Sarah McGuinesses' birth name in this Wiki article. ABF99 (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the page. Apologies as WIKI is still very new to me. If we connect the mcguinness page to the townsend page will it then meet the requirements to avoid deletion as they are both the same page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAHartline (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as far as I can tell all relevant information is already in the Townsend article, so a redirect seems most appropriate to me. The references in the McGuiness article may be useful though. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT REDIRECT -- UNCLEAR if Sarah McGuinness and Sarah Townsend are the same person -- I am not prepared to take the word of @SAHartline at this moment. Lack of viable redirect means DELETION is only option. SAHartline can update the other article if he/she chooses. Quis separabit? 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -That Sarah McGuiness and Sarah Townsend are the same person has been confirmed by either McGuiness or a spokesperson in several different reliable sources. From The UK Express "A spokesman for Sarah clarified: “Yes, it is the same person and like many other artists (including Agatha Christie and Stephen King), Sarah chooses to write and record music under a different name and this is purely to separate her musical activities from her other work.” From The Scotsman: "Not only are McGuinness and Townsend the same person, she is also Izzard's ex-girlfriend, she confirms. They met in 1989 when she was running a Fringe venue at the Edinburgh Festival." A Google search produces other examples like this. ABF99 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there seems to be no obviously good move target and there's simply not much else especially to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the page. Apologies for all the confusion, I am very new to this. I have added more references, how do I remove the nomination for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAHartline (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAHartline At this point, you can't remove the nomination for deletion; it has to go through a process whereby Wikipedia editors weigh in on what they think ought to be done with the article. Within a few days, an admin or other editor will read the responses and decide based on the consensus that was (or in some cases, was not) reached, what to do with the article. You can ask for a deletion review if the article is deleted. This explanation is worth reading. ABF99 (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah Townsend as they are the same person per evidence provided by ABF99. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Walk (2015 film). As noted below the bloke's not notable yet but could well be in a few years or so, Makes sense just to redirect & thus preserving the history. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Browne (screenwriter)[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant notability. The refs are from IMDB (unreliable), a Facebook page and two mentions on promotional sites - not really the stuff of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an intern from Echo Lake Entertainment, and I created a page for Christopher Browne because he's one of the clients here. His film, The Walk is premiering soon, so it's important for him to have a Wikipedia page. The Hollywood Reporter article mentioned his name, so what kind of sources do you need more to solidify the screenwriter? We're in the process of getting permission to use a picture of him, would that be enough?

Looking forward to your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mookdan (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 September 2015 (PT)

Well that's quite a few issues to deal with. Please read the guidance about conflict of interest and FAQs on paid editing for starters. As a brief summary the terms of use say (amongst other things) :

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,

a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or

a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

I strongly suggest that you spend the next few days familiarising yourselves with the principles of Wikipedia to understand what it is all about. The one key thing is that Wikipedia is NOT here to give free publicity to your clients. ...and no, a photo wouldn't help. Sorry Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it might be too soon for an article yet, but his work has been critiqued in reviews of The Walk; for example: [27], [28], [29]. Also Variety listed the film's screenplay as an Academy Award potential: [30]. So, an article on him looks like it's debatable right now but has great potential to become solidly notable soon. The problem with topics that are likely to become notable is that they violate WP:CRYSTAL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I will familiarize myself with the comments you two gave. In the mean time, I want to stress that my contribution to Christopher Browne's page is not paid, as I'm an unpaid intern. So my contribution is simply for my own knowledge while helping the company I'm interning for. The Walk's wikipedia page links the writer's name to a different Christopher Browne, so it's important that readers should not be mislead if they chosen to learn more about Christopher Browne. — Preceding (Mookdan) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (PT)

Redirect to The Walk (film) for now as I found nothing more than the current coverage for that film, to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Walk (2015 film). I guess I could go along with a redirect. It's entirely likely that we're going to be recreating this article very soon, but it's probably too soon. It's just too debatable currently. I would not be opposed to keeping the article if someone could find a really solid source, like an interview in Entertainment Weekly or The Hollywood Reporter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space. SpinningSpark 15:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ferdinand[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)

Struggling to find any given sources that support the content of the article. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently non-notable; according to IMDb (which obviously is not a reliable source) he seems to have had uncredited rôles in Skyfall ("London commuter") and Captain America: The First Avenger ("US Marine"). While it's possible for quite important behind-the-scenes contributors to a film to be absent from the credits, no theatrical agent is going to let it happen to a known actor. Ferdinand has done a lot at the Bathway Theatre; that's not entirely surprising, because he studied at the University of Greenwich (Thames Poly to those of us with a long memory), where Pippa Guard teaches; the Bathway Theatre is, according to its website, "a facility of the Drama Department of the University of Greenwich". He's an acting student who has had a couple of tiny bit-parts. WP:TOOSOON. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The actor is listed in Spotlight actors Publisher: Clearway Logistics Phase 2-3, ISBN-10: 1848413289, ISBN-13: 978-1848413283 (Available on Amazon). Father was of noteworthy character as ABA super heavyweight champion. It appears his early career was no more tiny-bit parts in major productions. I guess the challenge is when looking at avant garde and arthouse actors it is difficult to find information if the actor works with a publicist to avoid such media attention. Justlettersandnumbers I believe he has graduated and been working in film since, writing and producing. The only way to verify the IMDb movie credits is to watch the productions, I did initially post links to the creative works that were in the public domain however I don't know if they've been removed. This was my first article about a niche character I met once on doing some research he has had mentions in international languages and the UK. It's just so darn hard to find. Is it possible to stub this article for improvement because I can't keep searching? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippathecat (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pippathecat, most actors pay to be in Spotlight, as it's a sort of suicide not to; it costs about £150 a year, and even a starving actor can usually find that. It does not confer any kind of notability for our purposes. I'm sorry that you have gone to trouble to create an article on someone who probably doesn't fulfil the basic requirements for having one (please don't let that discourage you from trying again). If there are sources about him in other languages you should add them to the article. White Arabian mare, what usually happens when there's a page about someone who shows promise but hasn't really done anything yet is that it gets deleted, with the understanding that it can be re-created once there are enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. We don't stub it and wait for him to get famous. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep. This is a new user who's not really up on WP policies (I sent her a talk page message about it) but this guy does appear to be moving up in the show business. The article could be stubbed and marked for improvement later.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]

Delete I'm afraid it doesn't matter if the user who created the article is new or not - what matters is notability, plain and simple. If it's impossible to verify those IMDB sources because no reliable sources exists, it means this person has not been covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject, - in other words, the subject lacks notability. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment since this article has been marked for deletion I have searched google alone in this time and been able to present a total of 26 references, while most are secondary sources and some of not high quality I've been doing it alone for an hour, I've seen other bios of living people with far less sources. This doesn't indicate that the character lacks notability. He's just tough to find on the internet, articles in multiple languages, over 10 thousand twitter followers, he's not, not notable. (A little bias as I'm a fan but still). Please consider helping improve the quality of this article and adding the right info bars as it meets the criteria for WP:BLP=Pass Pippathecat (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with Justlettersandnumbers. It looks like most of his work is after the bit-parts, he's, got God knows how many thanks credits & stage. I don't know why his PR an't pushing him but he certainly seems notable, this article needs improving however. Seems to meet the biography criteria to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.215.213 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Incubate or Delete I'm generally in favor of keeping articles that meet the minimum standard for notability... but this actor does not seem to meet the standard. Pippathecat, I'm sure someone has already pointed you here, but read Wikipedia's Golden Rule again. Any subject needs to have received significant coverage (not mere mentions) from third parties which are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standard (no blogs or sites like IMDb), or else that subject can't have a Wikipedia article. While I didn't check every source listed, every one I did check either merely mentioned Ferdinand or didn't mention him at all. Some of them looked unreliable too. If one of these sources constitutes significant coverage, by all means direct our attention to it. But lots of mentions don't add up to substantial coverage, not even if you had 200 sources instead of 20. Since it's being asserted that Ferdinand is getting more noteworthy roles and is expected to receive the substantial coverage needed to establish notability soon, incubating the article could be an option. You should understand, Pippathecat, that incubation is not indefinite; if no progress is made on the article after some months, it will be deleted. So think hard about whether you're sure the sources you need will come into existence within the next few months. (Also, you shouldn't make a boldfaced Keep/Delete/Incubate/etc. vote more than once without striking your previous vote. To add to the conversation, use *'''Comment''' instead.) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you for your guidance User:GrammarFascist, I'm not 100% sure how to strike out, would it be okay to delete it. I would like the article to be incubated now, it was previously in the draft space but I took it on myself to publish it early. Incubation would be a good idea while I continue looking for further sources of this guy & let other people decide when it's credible. Of course, I cannot deny I'm personally invested given the hours of research it took. Incubation will give me time to email the universities to see if they have any information/data visit their libraries and find more I guess ref.26&27 mention him the most but I think they're not RS. At least if it's in the draft space we can discuss it before it goes live again, I can probably find something in reference-able print related to him. I did think I was following the rules according to the WP:BLP one RS is enough and we can build on it from here, with the infobox on top [[BLP ref improve. I do remember seeing an interview like Q&A in a magazine and another mentioning his performances, I just need a little more time to find it & get the references. Please bear in mind I'm not the fastest Wikipedian but I have read through some of the rules, although apparently not understood some fully but I'm learning. Thanks all so much.Pippathecat (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're welcome, Pippathecat. To strike text, use <s>; <s>wrong statement</s> yields ~~wrong statement~~. Also, bear in mind that interviews do not count towards establishing notability because they are what the subject says about themselves, not what third parties say about them. If an article containing an interview also included a 4–6 paragraph profile of the subject, I myself might consider that to count towards notability... but note that many other editors would disagree with me. Best to focus on non-interview articles for establishing notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment UPDATE: I've updated the page as best I can for now, he's more of an artist/actor than specifically an actor who seems to have been travelling Europe and the US. Citations are hard to come by however if you more experienced Wikipedian's and admins can help that's great. I've read the BLP criteria and he is clearly sourced in at least one material; William John, ed. (2012-12-23). "SUUG Latitude". p. 5. The other notable sources are reference numbers: 1, 38, 39 and 40, the last 3 (these will change however as people update the article). I'll tinker with it for now and hopefully, it will pass and be kept with an improvement notice for more RS. I'll look for profiles on him that cover and analyse his work more.
Delete or move to draft space and put under WP:AFC. I don't see anything here there clearly establishes notability. Lets look at the sources listed in the comment above a s particularly useful. No 1 is to "Spotlight Actors". I don't have access, but a comment above says that anyone can have a listing for an annual fee. If true, this is not a useful so8urce at all. No 38 is "Impressionist France", program notes for an museum exhibition. It lists several photos as being by Joshua Ferdinand, but says nothing whatever about him beyond that he took these photos, which are reproductions of impressionist art, not original works. Not a helpful source. No 39 is "Ferdinand Knapp (2014)" which is used to support a quote. Unfortunately that quote is not about Joshua Ferdinand but about Ferdinand Knapp who is the title character in a short film. I can't find any mention that Joshua Ferdinand was in any way connected with this film. No 40 is "Boom 2012, Tag 3: Depression 'Scratchbook'". This seems to be a personal account (or perhaps a work of fiction) in which the narrator is distressed and separated from his or her friend (or perhaps lover) after what seems to have been a bad drug experience. During this the narrator hears a presentation by Joshua Ferdinand, and records internal responses to some of the phrases apparently quoted from the lecture. Even if this was to be considered a reliable source, and even if it were clear that this is the same Joshua Ferdinand (which it isn't to me) all that it establishes is that Joshua Ferdinand once gave a public lecture or presentation at a festival. Not exactly what Wikipedia notability is made of. If these are the best four sources out of 40, I dread to think what the others may be like. This just isn't good enough. DES ^(talk) 13:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hi DES, sorry I didn't know 39 wasn't about him, I'll delete it. Yeah, I've made a few mistakes while building this article kindly give me some more time to find the RS to meet the criteria for BLP, there's an awful lot to wade through and he's quite obscure but notable and active. I did check the social media to verify if it's the same artist, however I can't read German and the translation isn't too clear. Based on what you've said though it is a poor quality secondary source. I'm still trying to improve it so please bear with me. Pippathecat (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pippathecat, you should not include a source unless you have read it and are confident that it applies to the subject (in this case to the right person) and that it is a reliable source and supports the statement(s) for which it is cited. If you can't read German, and the translation isn't clear enough to be sure, ask an editor who can read German before citing the source. In draft space there is more leeway, but in the main article space th4ese policies should be complied with from the start. I understand that you are trying in good faith to write abnout a person you think is notable, without an improper purpose. *If the artuicle is delted, a new version can always be started in draft space -- it isn't the end of the world. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
move to draft space He is listed in a biographical article here: https://edchat.net/threads/joshua-ferdinand-biography.40919. There are articles about him scattered about online but if he's a travelling artist you're going to need more than one person to build this as a good BLP. It should be moved until more RS are found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5D30:8800:B8FF:3F79:468:521E (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to DESiegel and anyone else searching for sources: please don't confuse this person with the apparently better-known Joshua Ferdinand who is a photographer in Kansas City, Missouri – where some of the photographs in source #38 were taken. That makes it pretty unlikely that they were taken by a British actor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Simon Fellowes's My Name is Ferdinand is about a character called Ferdinand Rios; according to Google, the word "Joshua" does not occur in it. So what does it have to do with this actor? In the same vein, an adaptation for children of Munro Leaf's famous book was presented at the Edinburgh Fringe this year by the "Tasty Monster Productions team of Luke Tudball and Heather Bagnall … performed by Tudball and directed by Bagnall". What does that have to do with this young man? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Make a draft: I believe this character sometimes performs under pseudonyms, however there are little if any RS for him. Pippathecat nice effort but there's too much confusion for most of these to be verified, you should have started this as a draft in WP:AFC. As mentioned above the photography doesn't appear to be attributed to the same person you are writing about. There's potential for a BLP but this needs editing and the incorrect citations to be removed and to be developed further. 2A02:C7D:5D30:8800:91CD:86E5:26B2:E63D (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:C7D:5D30:8800:91CD:86E5:26B2:E63D (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I've removed the incorrect attributions, I was unaware that there's a separate photographer. As with the work referring to Ferdinand I understand that he is occasionally attributed as "Ferdinand". Unsure so I removed that too. Pippathecat (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails proving notability. --Aliciadewi (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Aliciadewi (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Comment I have updated the article with more references, should pass WP:GNG as it has more than 2 sources and an award. Aliciadewi, why edit the article then ask for it to be deleted? There's notability about I don't know what you mean. Pippathecat (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep And Comment I found the subject quite notable. The subject meets notability as it has multiple reviews at Articles for deletion. I am removing the template on the page. It should not be considered as patrolling the admins. If any admins have a better way to sort this then they are most welcome. I have no connection with the subject.Giving my opinion as I work on Celebrity pages. Natalia.chase (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply for now and draft and userfy if needed as I would say weak keep if at all because of the current state but his IMDb seems to summarize it well suggesting there's not much else. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Should add {{BLP unsourced|date=October 2015}} or IMDb to the page, if it's not improved then delete. Pippathecat (talk)
Keep: Notable can stub and improve with stage credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelaamber (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering that this actor has become active relatively recently, and that the IMDB is seemingly the best source on him, I do not see any reasonable way of proving his notability. Someone mentioned his father's notability, however, it cannot be inherited. If majority of his roles are uncredited, and none of them can be detailed in more than two sentences, I highly doubt his notability is strong enough. Even if multiple reliable references would appear overnight, he would still fail notability due to depth of coverage's apparent lack. No reason to move this to the draft space, this would just get stale out there, and we would have a MfD discussion... Ceosad (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I moved in favor of either incubating or deleting the article above and have not changed my opinion): I have reviewed the sources added over the past week, and while they have edged Joshua Ferdinand slightly closer to meeting the notability standard, I'm afraid he still falls short. To give you more specific guidance, Pippathecat, the content of the EdChat reference is the kind of coverage you're looking for — substantially more than a mere mention — but it is not a reliable source. Similarly, the PRLog reference has substantial content about Joshua Ferdinand, but it is a press release and thus not independent of the subject of this article; a press release tells us only what its issuer says about themselves, not what others say about them. The scratchbook.ch source, written in Swiss German (which may be part of why automatic translation of that text remains confusing), might constitute substantial content depending on what it actually says, but that's ultimately irrelevant to establishing Ferdinand's notability because it is a blog and thus not a reliable source. The kind of source needed to meet the notability standard may not yet have been published. If this article is deleted, as seems likely, and reliable, independent sources are later published that include substantial coverage of Ferdinand, you will be able to ask for the article to be undeleted so you can simply add the new sources to the work you have already done. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Actor has appeared in small roles, most un-credited. Article also appears to be a borderline case of WP:CITEKILL where the article creator / editor seems to be desperate to get the article passed. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was revert to redirect. Jujutacular (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Booyson[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. No reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Any useful information is already available (and sourced) in both Oldest people and List of African supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person was for a time the oldest living person, which makes her notable. If she had never held that title, that'd be one thing, but the fact that she held that title makes her notable. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and she clearly fails WP:BLP1E as she is only notable for her age. She is, however, notable for inclusion in a list, of which she is in several. The only source used for the article (I removed "Oldest Human Beings" as it is not reliable) is a mention in a list which does not establish notability. If you remove the unsourced information and trivia from the article you are left with a single sentence: "Johanna Booyson (January 17, 1857 – June 16, 1968) of Belfast, Mpumalanga is a South African supercentenarian who was briefly the oldest person in the world<GRG source here>." Nothing more than what is easily available in Oldest people and other "list of" tables mentioned above. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article contains trivial information. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly not a hoax, I've moved the AFD over too. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Robichaux[edit]

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

This article has been deleted before for being a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britannic124 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep It's not a hoax. Did you take a look at the sources before nominating for deletion? Chubbles (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -A Google search reveals plenty of reliable sources available on this notable musician. The article that was a hoax was not this one, it was Jack Robichaux, listed here. ABF99 (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Added: Though Britannic124 has tagged this as a second Afd nomination, I can find no first nomination at all, only the Jack Robichaux Afd. ABF99 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be best here unless other users (such as 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR can comment) but until this article is better, I'm not seeing much else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unobtanium[edit]

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

Not notable at all Hannasnow (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this subject is not notable, but I propose a merge with Bitcoin.Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unobtainium as alternate spelling.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unobtainium GNews and GBooks searches reveals overwhelming use as the fictional element than anything else. This is the topmost hit for the currency I find (2nd page on GNews) [31] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unobtainium as alternate spelling. — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Foundation[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. This organization has received very little press coverage and most refs are bare mentions or to primary sources. Note this is not the same as Chef Ann FOundation Jbh ^Talk 16:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not verifiable.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of this page. If the 2013 award from the United Nations's Online Volunteering Award (citations 2 and 5) does not constitute verifiability, then I agree that the article should be deleted. However, I would suggest that the UN is a verifiable and reliable source. Also, please note that the organization has done much more than donate a few computers - see article in citation 3 for a full list. Scrycer (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scrycer: The issue is that there is no verification, by independent reliable sources, that the organization is notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia notability is not based on what an organization does it is based on how much is written about it. Some awards may be enough to confer notability on their own but The 'UN Online Volunteering Award' is not one of those. As I explained on the article talk page there needs to be significant coverage int independent reliable sources. I have looked and I have asked you if you know of more than there is in the article. I have found none and you have provided none. Please, if you have further coverage in reliable sources post them or cite them in the article. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 22:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fraser[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician which makes no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; as written, it completely fails to list even one specific achievement that anyone can even measure against NMUSIC, but rather just asserts that he exists and then turns straight into an EPK-style listing of various things music critics have said about his talent — and the majority of those review quotes, further, are sourced to his own website. There's only one reliable source here (Ottawa Citizen) that can contribute anything toward whether or not he has the notability necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article — and it's a deadlink. Essentially, this is a public relations advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article — a musician does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because he exists, if proper reliable source coverage supporting a claim of notability that would pass NMUSIC isn't present. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now in any case because although News, Books and browser found results with "Nick Fraser Toronto drummer", there's likely not enough yet. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with what's said above, and my own searches have turned up nothing extra. There's really nothing out there to write an article. mikeman67 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, especially the observation that there's not even an assertion of notability here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circleback Lending[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. Most of the sources in the article fail WP:ORGING in particular Lend Academy which looks to be a P2P lending service site and Magnify Money which has an 'advertising disclosure' on the articles which says they get money from companies they feature. The RS like Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance only report funding and fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Jbh ^Talk 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as there hasn't been any more activity from the author suggesting it was a SPA and I'm not seeing much for better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches did not show up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Government. Sandstein 10:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Government[edit]

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

Article doesn't make any claims for notability. Just appears to be an extremely obscure band that was active for a couple years in the late 1970s. I could not find any references online. Two of the past members have WP pages and perhaps the page can be turned into a redirect. But I think it fails WP:BAND. mikeman67 (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Billy Bryans is sourced but the band is only briefly mentioned. The other article is mostly unsourced and I'm surprised it has not been proposed for deletion itself. Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked, but I couldn't find any reliable sources that talk about this band in any depth or specificity. Therefore, this article fails WP:GNG. I would recommend redirecting The Government to Government per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think most people who type "The Government" into Wikipedia expect to learn about the executive authority in a state rather than an obscure, defunct Canadian band. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely as chances are they wouldn't have gotten much coverage with its few years. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Beijing[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. there is no bilateral article to redirect to. All the article confirms is its location plus a recycled paragraph that appears in every Colombian embassy article that the embassy represents Colombian interests etc. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, sources confirm existence but do not establish notability. Vrac (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. There is some passing coverage but nothing that rises to the level of having an article. Jbh ^Talk 22:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing much better here. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Basham (radio personality)[edit]

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

Not notable; cursoryseach yields nothing. Refs are not in themselves enough. TheLongTone (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there has not been much improvement since 2007. sst ✈ 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not very notable right now. Epic Genius (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doraemon: Nobita and the Kingdom of Clouds. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokimeki Solar Kurumaniyon[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources cited, and nothing suggesting notability found on searching. (PROD removed without explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doraemon: Nobita and the Kingdom of Clouds. This appears to be a short that was shown in front of the feature film. It has no independent notability. Would change my mind if the short itself won some awards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Angus and that would also apply any of the other similar Doraemon articles as well. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doraemon: Nobita and the Tin Labyrinth. Consensus, albeit slim, was to redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun Is Our Friend: Hold Out, the Soraemon![edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources cited, and nothing suggesting notability found on searching. (PROD removed without explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doraemon: Nobita and the Tin Labyrinth. This was the cartoon short that aired in front of the feature film and likely to air with the home video and rebroadcasts. I do not see independent notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Angus and that would also apply any of the other similar Doraemon articles as well. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Semonik[edit]

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

He made a few recordings, and got a couple of mentions in a couple of local newspapers and on a few websites of little significance. There is o real evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly Merge): Doesn't seem to be much on him. Mostly local: [32], [33]; plus a couple of bloggish interviews: [34], [35]. His AllMusic page does not look good: [36]. Also, I'm not sure that someone's medical history confers any notability. I'm not in favor of one-sentence stubs and am leaning towards delete unless the article is expanded or unless cogent arguments are made to retain it. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC); edited 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: Changed to Delete -- coverage is still local news and bloggish sites. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current state of the article should have any bearing on whether it should be deleted, as long as sufficient sources exist to establish notability. I think policy agrees on that point. There are plenty of very short stubs on notable topics. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short, yes; one-sentence, no. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was prodded (incorrectly) as a fan page, correctly deprodded by Torchiest (who should have an interest in saving this, I think, as should David Gerard), reprodded by JBW, and re-deprodded by good old Floquenbeam whom I'm pinging here to say "hey, we miss you". There's a bit of banter at User_talk:Drmies#Proposed_deletion_of_Jim_Semonik, and I'll repeat that I have no real stake in this game. I think that a few newspaper articles don't make for notability. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence. The article was created after that article's AFD, and all this should be there - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This begs the question of whether that article should exist (yes, I see that it has survived AfDs, but I don't personally believe it passes NALBUM). Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I listed five sources in this AFD that I think establish notability. I would also be fine with merging this back into the album article per David, and following through on what we discussed at that AFD. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence. The main notability stems from that album, so a single article covering both the album and artist should suffice. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Intifada. And merge content from the history to the extent that consensus among the target article's editors allows. Consensus here is that we don't currently have good material for a separate article with this title, in particular because it's not clear whether it should cover any past or ongoing conflict, or a potential future conflict. Should consensus be reached about that (e.g. via a RfC on Talk:Intifada), the article can be recreated. Sandstein 10:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Third intifada[edit]

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

This article is a violation of so many policies and guidelines, it's difficult to know where to begin, but how about starting with WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that the final sentence "The demolition of the al-Aqsa Mosque, which is one of Israel’s strategic plans" (a quote) is being presented as fact shows that the article's creator (who removed the prod without a reason) is clearly not here to write a neutral encyclopedia. Number 5 7 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with WP:OR problem but it never justifies deleting a notable subject. A simple search, brings up reliable secondary sources for this subject, such as this, this, this and etc. I'm not ignoring the fair critique presented by the nominator, but they only has nothing to do with AFD policies. Mhhossein (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have missed the fact that I cited WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. Two of your cited sources are news articles from the past week, whilst the other one is an opinion piece from 2014 on a completely different topic (i.e. not the recent violence). The recent news articles only serve as speculation as to whether it will happen (or has), not that it actually has happened, so I'll also throw WP:CRYSTAL into the mix. Number 5 7 15:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with WP:AFD. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred," which even supports having a article for the subject? If the subject had already happened, could we have an article for that? I think yes, what do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) SYNTH is a perfectly acceptable deletion argument if that's the entire concept of the article (b) you're ignoring NOTNEWS and (c) regarding your last point, I wholly disagree – the news articles are merely speculation that something may be happening, not that it has or definitely will – this is tjhe very definition of a CRYSTAL violation. Number 5 7 23:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your (a) and suggest a WP:TNT for that. By the way, some fresh articles from reliable sources justify having such a subject. Mhhossein (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is fundamentally flawed, for reasons outlined by Number 57. However, the recent clashes about Al-Aqsa and the resulting disturbances in East Jerusalem deserves an article. Just in the past few weeks 500 Palestinians have been injured and many people killed on both sides. I have myself thought about doing something about this. But this isn't the way to go about it. Best to blow it up and start all over again. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with WP:TNT. Mhhossein (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that since November 2014, Third Intifada has existed as a redirect to Silent Intifada, which focuses on events during the latter half of 2014, and includes sources indicating that last year's increased violence was already being discussed as a potential "third Intifada". --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with the critiques about this article (i.e. with WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL), and I think someone needs to WP:BLOWITUP and start from scratch. However, it does appear that reliable sources use this term to describe a hypothetical conflict, and appears some sources claim the Third Intifada has already begun. See, for example, this source and this source. I think a good analogy for this article may be the article for World War III. There has never been a Third World War, but the term has received enough coverage to justify an article, per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: I decided to press the detonator myself, and I re-wrote the article per WP:BLOWITUP. Hopefully this will assuage the concerns regarding bias, SYNTH, and OR. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment: If the consensus is to keep, we should probably move this page to Third Intifada (note that Third Intifada currently redirects to Silent Intifada). The use of the definite article and the inconsistent capitalization of the current title likely warrant re-naming this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We keep film articles with reliable sources, that are in production and yet to be released. Third Intifada is often cited in the media.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Even if the much muted "Third Intifada" does indeed come to pass the article as nominated was hardly the best of starts was it? And without talking down his efforts, Notecardforfree's heroic rewrite is little more than a bit of vague speculation based on the musings of a few commentators. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnotherNewAccount, thank you for your kind words -- I have tried, as much as possible, to embody the WP:SOFIXIT philosophy. If the term "Third Intifada" was only being used in reference to current events in Israel/Palestine, then I would agree that WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL would apply in this case. However, it appears that the term has been used for years to describe a potential third Intifada, much in the same way that the term World War III is used to describe a hypothetical future conflict. See, for example, this N.Y. times article and this Haaretz article from 2014, this N.Y. times article from 2012, this Al Jazeera article from 2008, and this Christian Science Monitor article from 2008. All of those articles use the term to refer to a hypothetical future conflict (much like WWIII). Because the term has received so much coverage, I think this article deserves to stay. However, we should make it clear in the article that the term has been used primarily to describe a hypothetical future event, rather than anything that has actually occurred. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In present form, this article fits the description of Notecardforfree above, and his argument is convincing. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is no problem. All entries are updated with the authoritative References.. Felestin1714 (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with both Number and User:Kingsindian, but am abstaining (for the moment) because these things should be adjudicated by experienced editors with no horse in the race. Nearly all the 'keep' votes so far are completely extraneous to policy considerations. (b) The fundamental objection is that the title and subject are preemptive of what has not yet been established by a terminological consensus. The 'Third Intifada' article was sketched by User:ShulMaven late last year after a spate of attacks, but this fizzled out, and the article became Silent Intifada. The first Intifada lasted 6 years, the Second 5/6 years: both were mass movements expressive of widespread popular unrest. We are 2 weeks into an event that so far is characterized by 'lone wolf incidents' that have yet to find a response in a mass movement. This is therefore premature, the material should be sandboxed until reality clarifies what is going on. All of the incidents are already covered in other articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). If the term was only used in reference to current events, then I agree WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but that is not the case here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've adjusted my remark. Your comment was a very intelligent, informed and independent take on this. I was focused on other predictable automatic "voters". Usually, a new article of this type is created when the material in a mother article (say Palestinian political violence) on a specific set of events starts to get out of hand, and thus requires its own page. This stub should have been put on that or any other number of similar thematic pages, and, once sufficient work had been done to warrant an independent article (which has not been done) it could then be shifted. Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Nishidani. I agree with you that editors should be particularly cautious when dealing with recent events, especially during difficult times. There is certainly room to improve this article, but the mere fact that an article is a stub is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for deletion (see WP:TOOSHORT). There are plenty of sources that have discussed the term "Third Intifada" over the last few years, so I think we have more than enough material to work with. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten by Notecardforfree, overcoming the WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues raised. However, I would like to see the 2008 and 2012 sources listed above (and earlier sources if available) referenced in the article, to show the term has a history of being used in regard to a hypothetical future event analagous to use of "World War Three" as mentioned above. If Notecardforfree is not interested in adding those sources, I would be willing to do it myself; let me know. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GrammarFascist, I have updated the article according to your suggestions. I added the 2008 and 2012 sources, and I tried to provide a little more background information. I also did some research to see if anyone used the term prior to 2008, but I could not find any sources. I would be very curious to know when the term was first used. In any case, please feel free to continue editing the article if you think it can be improved. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notecardforfree. The problem is that 'Third Intifada' as a prospect has been in continuous use since at least 2006, and has at various moments like last year (September-November) immediately been evoked as now happening, only for it to pass. There are numerous 'shakings off', 14 by one account. These points may help.

David Pratt, Intifada,Casemate Publishers, 2009 pp.20-21, for the transition in 1987 from the expected thawra (revolt) to intifada, a Palestinian choice which surprised Arabic speakers abroad. Pratt also notes that the term was being bandied as a prospect when Hamas beat Fatah in the elections of 2006 (p.254)

For Third Intifada's early use, when Netanyahu opened the tunnel under Al-Aqsa on September 23 1996 some people called that the Second Intifada, lasting only 4 days. The term 'The Third Intifada' was being used for the period of violence in 1998-1999, implying the Al-Aqsa one 2000 onwards was the fourth, by a Palestinian reckoning.(Graham Usher, Dispatches from Palestine: The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process, Pluto Press, 1999 thus in an interview Ibrahim Ghoshah)

Just an aside, but there is a book by Y. Eyal,Ha-Intifada ha-rishona: Dikuy ha–Mered ha-aravi al yedey ha-tzava ha-Briti be-Eretz Israel, 1936–39, which, in its very title, called the Ist Intifada not that of 1987 but the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. (The First Intifada: The Suppression of the Arab Revolt by the British Army, 1936-1929, Ma’arahot, Tel Aviv 1998)- That would make this present 'shaking off', were it to be formally recognized as such, the 5th, or 15th, depending on the whimsy of the analyst.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I think you raise an important point that much of the discourse on this topic has marginalized many of the "shakings off" that have happened over the last century. Nevertheless, WP:GNG states that standalone articles are appropriate when a topic has received significant coverage from reliable sources. In this case, the term "Third Intifada" has been widely used by a variety of reliable sources since the "Second" Intifada (2000-2005) to refer to a hypothetical new, large-scale uprising. By way of analogy, there were many events labeled World War III by commentators that turned out to be nothing more than a flash in the pan. The World War III analogy is especially useful here, because there were many global conflicts prior to World War I that could have conceivably been called a World War. With regard to your concerns about the definition or numbering of Intifadas, perhaps a good solution would be to expand the Intifada article (currently a DAB) to explain the challenges associated with defining the term (indeed, there have been Intifadas outside Israel/Paelstine). You may also want to add events like the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 to the current DAB page located at Intifada. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been even better improved by your latest additions, Notecardforfree; I really think you've done very well at recreating The Third intifada as something that belongs on Wikipedia. (Though, once this discussion is closed, it should probably be moved to The Third Intifada, as it makes no sense to capitalize Third but not intifada.) I have made some minor corrections to the article's formatting. I am far from an expert in matters of the politics of Arabic-speaking regions, but the article seems to cover the topic adequately in its present form. That said, it also sounds as though the further additions proposed by Nishidani could improve the article as well. I would note that the term "World War III" has also been raised as a possibility by analysts many times, and about a number of different regions as where such a war would originate. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GrammarFascist! One quick point about potential renaming: I agree that renaming is likely warranted here. However, I think this article should be moved to "Third Intifada" (without the word "the" at the beginning of the title). At the moment, the articles for other Intifadas are located at First Intifada and Second Intifada, so I think it would be best to maintain consistency with existing articles. An article titled Third Intifada already exists, but it redirects to Silent Intifada. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, good catch about First Intifada and Second Intifada; I hadn't noticed those articles lacked the leading "The". I think you're right that this article should follow that convention. And I don't see moving the article over the redirect as a problem, as the Third Intifada article will still link to Silent Intifada for those looking for that article. And of course you're welcome. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/selective merge to Intifada. Relevant discussion of potential future intifadas, boycott-based intifadas, etc. can go there. Note that Third intifada currently redirects somewhere else; I'm going to point it here, since it seems like regardless of whether this article is deleted or kept, it's not a mainstream or common name for these events in Jerusalem, July 2014. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't redirect prior to the conclusion of this discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Nothing is served by preserving the redirect. If the consensus of this discussion is that "Third intifada" is commonly used to refer to specific events in Jerusalem in the summer of 2014, both the old redirect and this article title will be pointed back there. If the consensus is that it's a phrase that's used in passing to refer to a variety of specific things, then both will be deleted. To treat the two links differently, when they differ only by a "the", would be foolish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sourced name for 2014 riots.GreyShark (dibra) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a sourced name for a lot of other stuff. That's why we're having this debate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Greyshark09 that Third Intifada should not be redirected until this discussion concludes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first of all Third Intifada redirects to the Silent Intifada, so how many third intifadas can we have? Secondly, this is WP:FORK of Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015) article.GreyShark (dibra) 10:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark09, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). See also my discussion with Nishidani above regarding the difficult task of identifying the number of intifadas that have occurred. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a parallel discussion is taking place concerning Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015) article. I would like to invite @Prohibited Area, Midrashah, Squeamish Ossifrage, Mikeman67, and Nableezy: in this regard.GreyShark (dibra) 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Reform Seen as the unrest is not internationally recognised as a Third Intifada as of yet, I argue that either this article be deleted or it be renamed to something like: 2015 Palestinian Unrest detailing the events specific to the period currently speculated as the beginning of the 'Third Intifada'. Otherwise this article is sufficient for detailing the current violence.Prohibited Area (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reasonable amount of work has been done to warrant the preservation of this article into Wikipedia, probably under a reformed title: The concept of a third intifada. Without preempting history, there are strong sociological reasons why this will not occur, while the term itself can be documented as being in use since 1996, and repeatedly evoked since then for intimations of yet one more outbreak. It therefore has, regardless of what happens now, an interesting history in its own right.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited Area, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). If the term was only used in reference to current events, then I agree WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but that is not the case here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) on an overlapping topic is also at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone above points out, Third Intifada exists - and is a model of the bad articles spawned by a topic area with too many ill-defined articles. And of the use of Wikipedia for promoting causes. Third Intifada is a term in use for decades now, BOTH by Palestine activists pushing for a violent uprising. AND by by Israeli making a point of calling Palestinian Arab activism violent. I actually suspect that having an article about the term is a reasonable idea. But until/unless an awful lot of reliable sources decide to call the spate of lone wolf stabbing attacks and riots of the last few weeks by this name, any article about recent events should be called something else, and this article - if it is kept - should limit current events to a sentence or two cited to the reputable sources now musing aloud over whether this is or is not an intifada - sources I have seen cite the term only to point out that we are not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge to Intifada. As per User:Roscelese.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). The re-written version of the article, as it exists now, discusses the term as it applies to a hypothetical event, rather than specific current events. If the term was only used in reference to current events, then WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but that is not the case here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read it, carefully. And I think that redirecting to Intifada makes more sense in that it gives readers a broader sense of how the term is used.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move the content of this to Third Intifada. the broader term and its usage is fine, but as the OP pointed out its POV/OR/SYNTHESIS/many more. And anyways moving Third Intifada away from silent is fine as thats OR.Lihaas (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing about this article is encyclopedia worthy. Its at best WP:OR and definitely WP:CRYSTAL. - Galatz ^Talk 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz: Nothing? Mhhossein (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/selective merge to Intifada per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge to Intifada per Roscelese. That seems to be the best option. There's a bunch of WP:NEO articles that struggle to focus on whether it's about the term, or disparate things that different people have applied the term to (which hits OR and SYNTH issues fast). -- Callinus (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many international reliable sources which use Intafada for this round of violence in Palestine and Israel such as Foreign Policy [37] and Independent [38]. Even the Israeli sources have used this title: Ynetnews [39], and Haaretz [40].--Seyyed(t-c) 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add this to the list! It's published just 14 hrs ago. Mhhossein (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Patrick Acquaviva[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP user. My concern was Non notable footballer who hasn't played in a professional team. Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability. --Oscar_. (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a notable football freestyler with many accolades to his name, he is not a footballer as someone on this log implied. Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.17.28 (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources Spiderone 07:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:A7. Just Chilling (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Institute of Information Technology (BIIT)[edit]

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

A CSD A7 was previously defeated probably because of the institutional sound of this firm's name. However the indications from its website are that it is an enterprise with 14 employees [41] headquartered in an office above a supermarket [42] and offering WP:RUNOFTHEMILL webpage design, software development and data entry services [43]. (I will also note that there is a diploma-granting educational concern of the same name in Bogra, described as "a sister concern of BIIT Engineers Ltd" [44] but that does not appear to be related.) As for the subject of this article, I am seeing no evidence to indicate that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Koavf CSDed in August. Just Chilling declined on the grounds that, "A7 does not apply to educational institutions." Despite the highfalutin name, it is not a school. It's a mom-and-pop IT company that markets hardware and software, services the former, and develops the latter. No doubt they will gladly sell training as well and print out a certificate, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination a degree-granting institution. It is unrelated to BIIT, Bogra. The only source cited is their own website, and searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, InfoTrac, and ProQuest turned up nothing else. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyan Jay Acac[edit]

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

No evidence this person existed in history. I find it hard to believe that a Filipino born in 1890 (Spanish era Philippines) could have such an Americanized English name (with an H thrown in his first name). Hoax? RioHondo (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two offline sources provided do not seem to exist. sst ✈ 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would appear to be a hoax. Searching for "Jay Acac" returns nothing. Searching for Acac+"Philippine Naval Fleet" returns nothing. Searching for the two books quoted, Pearl of the Pacific: War and Recovery and History of the Filipino People: War in the Seas both return nothing. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't know if it is a hoax or not, but definitely not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Durga Mitra Mandal[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Fails WP:ORG. PROD reverted by creator without giving any reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until this can be achieved as a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough out there to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arina Dialect[edit]

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

Google search returns zero results for this topic [45]. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also could not find any references or sources that even mention this article subject. No online references, electronic articles, or books come back in library or archive searches. The article contains references that appear to exist. The first source referencing the number of speakers is literally "e18" (so... nothing), the second source appears to be a book, but no ISBN or any method of identifying or verifying it has been provided (the site provided doesn't exist - 404), the third reference is just the domain of a website, and the fourth source couldn't be verified. I believe that it's safe to say that this article fails WP:V and WP:GNG and hence can be deleted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially redirected the article to Khowar language (which the creator promptly reverted), but after reading what has been said here, now I'm wondering if this is even an actual dialect. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources by one of the commenting editors seem to firm up GNG issue. While advertising aspect needs to be cleaned up, appears to pass notability requirements. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Microfilm, Inc.[edit]

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

Article is poorly written and appears to be nothing more than an advert for the company. Almost all references are primary sources or closely affiliated third-party sources, or general listings. David Condrey ^{log talk} 06:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. The Popick and Reilly articles cited at the page look legit too.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep likely as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gheysens[edit]

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

Does not meet BIO. References fall into the follwing categories: interviews, which do not show notability; passing mention in articles on another subject, which do not show notability; unreliable sources, namely trade journals; and not independent, his alma mater. John from Idegon (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hard to take this nomination seriously. Multiple articles are included here from major newspapers, including The Philadelphia Inquirer and other major trade publications that are distinctly and inarguably about the subject. Perhaps its just spite of some kind on his part, but outside of Idegon its hard to make the argument with a straight face that there is no claim of notability supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with @Alansohn: as this article [54] is rather in depth, despite talking about the company, it talks about him in great detail. Also, I have no issues with the articles from his alma mater. Not sure how you would say they are not independent as the only connection to the subject is that he attended school there. In fact, most college newspapers have a rather thorough editorial process and are not in the business of promotion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The school is his high school. Surely you are not claiming an assuption of sound journalistic practice for a high school newspaper? Even if we were to make that assumption, it is so short as to be of no use in showing notability; it is akin to a job change notice common in many newspapers. They don't show notability either. As for the Philly Enquirer article, the content on him makes up only a small part of an already fairly short article, and the content on him is primarily him answering questions on the company. Not really what we are looking for to establish notability for a bio, is it? John from Idegon (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that alum from Villanova School of Business would take offense to their alma mater being referred to as a high school [55].--CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - John from Idegon - When you nominated the article for deletion, in an apparent fit of pique, the article had 13 sources. The claim of notability as CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, doesn't rest on the source from his high school, whose sole purpose was to confirm details of his graduation year. The article rests on the totality of sourcing in the article, which go far above and beyond the minimal standards needed to establish notability. Attacking one source does nothing; You'd need to rebut every single one of them to start making a dent here. This kind of referencing is exactly "what we are looking for to establish notability for a bio". Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes GNG with substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modulus Global[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sources are almost exclusively primary, with no significant third-party coverage. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Content is unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as aside from some News and browser links, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 2 October 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, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a ton of press releases but nothing I see in depth. In fact, there is very little coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough independent coverage to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Userfied at User:Bastewart22095/Eugene Moloney. Jujutacular (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Moloney[edit]

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

His career is not notable; neither is his death. Part of an education project--the advisor has been notified. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was easily able to find numerous secondary sources located at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep both because, as User:Crit writes, there was extensive coverage across Britain and Ireland. But also because it appears to have been covered as part of a broader concern in the British Isles over, "a society in which random attacks are sadly becoming the norm." [56].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the coverage seems limited to the time around his death, which is aainst the usual rules at WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or at best mention him elsewhere as the coverage maybe accumulates to an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While this seems to be a "true crime" story about an ordinary robbery gone bad, since it is part of a class project the closer should please be sure to userfy the piece in event of deletion. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL, run-of-the-mill journalist who got a lot of obits from his fellow journalists, the ordinary hubbub which is created when one of their own is killed, pure WP:SENSATIONalism, no coverage prior to his death, after his death occasionally mentioned, some see a new particular pattern in violent deaths in that area, but manslaughters/murders have happened since Cain killed Abel, everywhere on Earth, a really sad story, but not notable. Kraxler (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: he is only known for this WP:ONEEVENT so it not notable enough in his own right. Perhaps Death of Eugene Moloney moght be a more sustainable article. ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources that exist do not support passage of the relevant notability guidelines. As a journalist, the subject fails WP:JOURNALIST. As an event, the murder fails the various subsections of WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be any coverage of him as a journalist, but as a victim of a murder. Polequant (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete the significant coverage stems from his death not his career and thus WP:ONEVENT applies here. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 somebody wants to step up and work on this, there's no reason it can't be userfied, but keep in mind that implies a commitment to find the WP:RS which consensus here says are wanting. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Murphy(entrepreneur, author)[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced biography of an author. I can't find any reliable, independent sources that have written in depth about the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 02:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy as it seems there's simply not enough for a better article and sure people like this are featured through TV news shows but that's not always enough and available coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not return enough to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DDoS Mitigation Techniques[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY, may have redeeming value as an article but would need to be fundamentally rewritten with a case of WP:TNT. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - Absolutely not, this one does not need its own article. This information, about 2% of it, can be incorporated into the article for DDoS mitigation. If there is no consensus to merge, then I gladly move in the direction of delete. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for a separate article when DDoS mitigation (as the primary subject) is shorter than this entry. Jppcap (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantex[edit]

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

This is an advertisement dressed as an article. There is nothing to distinguish this company from many other similar companies, no evidence of notability, no justification for being the subject of an encyclopaedia article. Specifically it fails WP:ORG, WP:ARTSPAM Andyjsmith (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that some of the edits here have exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the promotional tone. However, notability is well-supported. This company has gotten quite a lot of independent—and often skeptical—news coverage about its unusual, and controversial, offerings of participation in specific athletes' future earnings. Some examples are already included in the footnotes of the article[57][58][59][60]; much, much more can be seen in the results of the searches linked above, such as [61]. A possibility here would be to retitle this article to something like Athlete IPO and refocus the text to emphasize the investment concept, rather than the company. (I might have alternatively suggested incorporating this into the article on the somewhat similar concept of celebrity bond, but that article is heavily focused on the monetization of copyright and other intellectual property assets, which doesn't apply to the athlete offerings.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, but the article is so firmly based around Fantex that what you're asking for is a ground-up rewrite. Let's face it, this is a brokerage company trading only four stocks.

A quick word about the supposedly reliable references:

#1 is self published

#2,5 are subscription only

#3,4,9,13 are about the wisdom of investing in sports stars. Fantex is mentioned but isn't the subject of the article.

#6 is just the usual Bloomberg data and PR

#16,17 is a genuine story which notes that "Last summer... Vernon Davis said he expected that soon, “the whole world is going to believe” in Fantex. The company isn’t quite there yet, but it’s still chugging along"

#8,10,11,12,14,15,18-21 are based on press releases

Andyjsmith (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I also found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but nothing for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe I am looking at the wrong informatino but there are plenty of reliable sources that cover the topic in depth [62], [63], [64]. Also, this comment, "nothing to distinguish this company from many other similar companies" strikes me curious as I cannot find a similar company. If someone can point one out I would be happy to have a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my sense (as a regular reader of coverage about the business of sports) is that Fantex is the only company with any substantial public presence in this sector. As I mentioned above, I share the nominator's concern that this article has become more promotional in tone than it was, or than it should be, but I would prefer to see this fixed rather than deleted, because what they do is certainly notable, and even interesting. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources above appear to be significant coverage. Problems with the article should be fixed by editing not deleting. Polequant (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Company does not have significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education and is just another company doing regular business. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There was no need to relist this. It's clearly not going to gain consensus in another 7 days. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Vita[edit]

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

Article mostly contains plot information. With nil references to withhold the notability, and merit an article, I recommend this article be deleted. Regards —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It got a review from Metro Silicon Valley, but I'm having trouble finding other reviews online. There's also this interview with the writers in Into The Twilight Zone: The Rod Serling Programme Guide, a self-published book from iUniverse. This isn't much, but maybe someone can find more/better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pardon if I'm misinterpreting the request and its context, but are we considering a proposal to delete an article about a particular episode of the Twilight Zone? If so, I would point out there's a lot more deletion to do! There are several dozen articles of this nature and the form and function of them seems to comport with the plethora of other notable television shows on Wikipedia. While it's true that various Wikipedia guidelines point out that notability doesn't directly inherit topically, such a generalization is clearly not the case here. Having episode pages for a notable television show about which much is published in all media and in many reputable venues is sensible and an established practice. Personally, Wikipedia is my only reputable source for many television show summaries and accounts for a majority of my visits. It's clear to me that deleting an episode page (and a single one, at that) makes no sense whatsoever.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as most episode articles are kept as they serve some purpose. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes. With regards to the previous two comments, a notable series does not imply that all episodes are notable, and Wikipedia is emphatically not a collection of summary-only descriptions of works. Perhaps there is a lot of deletion to do, but Other stuff exists, and until someone nominates them for deletion, we will focus on the article at hand. It is possible that many other episodes fail to meet notability guidelines, and should also be merged to a list, wherein the plot can concisely summarized, and only spun out when sufficient reliable, third-party sources have discussed the work. Note that interviews with creators are not independent. I don't think a single review in an alternative weekly is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The "Keep as most episode articles are kept as they serve some purpose" argument does not address any policy or guideline, see also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Animalparty! Those are certainly applicable policies here (I cited two of them in my own recommendation), but I think at some point, one has to acknowledge the sheer momentum of certain topics and practices. And Wikipedia as a home for pages of highly notable television shows' episodes is one such. Suggesting that each episode of every series on Wikipedia be cited in such a way offends the sensibilities behind WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY -- and leaves us with several hundred episodes and arguments over which ones "matter." And if we're going to bandy about policy, let's keep in mind that the one attempt at figuring out which TV episodes are "notable" -- WP:Notability_(TV_episodes) -- was shelved for lack of agreement. Like many of the essays on "notability" here outside of people and books, it's subjective stuff that no one can agree on). And besides, strictly applying policy in a way that inhibits our ability to keep an encyclopedia that has consistent coverage of topics of quality violates the WP:IGNORE policy.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@69.204.153.39: The way I see it, notability guidelines, while guidelines and not policy, are necessary to keep Wikipedia relatively bereft of fan-centric articles that merely cover plot, without any real-world relevance. It may be a harsh (if somewhat fuzzy) line in the sand, but if each episode (or segment of an episode) for this series "deserves" a stand-alone article, what's to stop a fan from making an article for every single issue of Superman (comic book), arguing that each one is important because it is part of a notable series? Existence does not equal notability. There are numerous wikis that are appropriate venues for in-depth plot summaries and in-universe exposition, for instance The Twilight Zone Wiki. Note that my suggestion for redirecting does not involve erasing all mention of the episode, and redirects preserve edit history: if the interested parties decide to expand List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes to give brief synopses of episodes, then information is not deleted, merely relocated, similar to how many non-notable comic book characters are relegated to say List of Marvel Comics characters: S, which also includes notable characters. Perhaps large-scale merges are called for, but that is a project beyond this AfD. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: You make excellent points, and certainly in the "Wiki land rush," some fan groups have gotten away with more than others. Certainly, your proposal of more succinct summaries of pages like this in the "episodes" page is rather reasonable. But despite what we've both said, that AfD's are limited to the topic at hand, I still have to say that I don't believe that we (the group of editors and admins in AfD -- a small, if highly diverse corner of Wikipedia) have the consensus-based "authority" to do what this AfD would imply.

I looked over some random edit histories for these pages. They were created largely between 2004 and 2008 by a plethora of different editors. While I don't mean to raise the old "all that work!" or "if we do x, then we must do y" objections, I do think that more consensus than an AfD ought to be required to proceed as we're considering. The implications are potentially far-reaching. Perhaps, instead of an AfD, a relevant administrator or interested party could open a discussion in another area of Wikipedia to receive input from the thousands of editors who write and maintain all of these summaries. Proceeding to delete, merge, or radically restructure the area of the encyclopedia they're concerned with one article at a time hardly seems fair to anyone, including those in AfD. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced article that fails to establish notability of the subject and is little more than a plot summary so it fails WP:PLOT as well. This type of article simply shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Delete in theory, not literally as there is an edit history. Really, redirect the page to the List of Twilight episodes page. It's just a plot summary, which can be kept elsewhere if it's necessary. The same goes for the rest of the episodes. WP:GNG is pretty basic and clear, and notability is not inherited. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for coming by and offering input! I can't say it's the input I'd hoped for, but it's in keeping with policy and other legalisms, and I have to trust folks working on the TV project know what they're doing. The outcome remains absurd. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting a single episode out of an entire set of articles makes no sense. Either only really notable episodes are kept (which would require a good discussion on its own), or all are kept. Randomly deleting an article out of the series is pointless. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reinoutr: It's worse than pointless; it's cynical, absurd, and inconsistent. It's policy for the sake of having policy (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), without any thought as to the outcomes or consequences on the wider encyclopedia or its criteria. I can tell you, if I opened up an encyclopedia and it had a list of Twilight Zone episodes, with some inconspicuously removed because some editors felt like it, I'd probably not find it a very credible encyclopedia of anything, since omissions are essentially arbitrary and case-by-case. Any change in this realm, be it inclusion or deletion, must have the hallmark of consistency. If not, the whole body of the encyclopedia becomes wildly inconsistent in its coverage.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VEX Robotics Design System[edit]

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

This article fails the general notability guideline. It has no independent, reliable sources. Sunfoo (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article seems reasonable for overall inclusion. I have quibbles with the text of it (particularly the bit mentioning pricing), but a robotics system targeted at young people that seems to have multiple organizations using its system for competitions involving many hundreds of schools meets any rational definition of notability. The fact that it has come to the notice of NASA and a number of high-level offices of state governments seems to corroborate that. There is no large corpus of scholarly writing on this system, but that's to be expected of a production product. I would definitely keep this, but flag the article for a more objective perspective.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now maybe until a better article can be made as I found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better sourcing unless someone else can take care of this. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, the argument by the ip is not based on guidelines. Sources do not reveal in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect at editors' discretion. Sandstein 10:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boyhood Studies[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "external refs provided. deletion nomination cancelled". Sources added are 1/ WorldCat, 2/ A book/journal sellers site, and 3/ a press release. Note that the journal is not new as the article states, but continues Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies (itself also PRODded for the same lack of notability). None of these establish notability in the least, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now if notability and better improvement can be made for this new journal. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails journal notability criteria. clpo13_(talk) 05:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Men's Studies Press just as Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies is. The journal itself doesn't qualify for an independent article as it fails all criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT. clpo13_(talk) 05:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed nomination. Sandstein 10:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Intramural Research[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now if no better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trinity College, Dublin#Student life. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College Miscellany[edit]

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

A college publication provides no evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trinity College, Dublin where it is currently mentioned as it is not set for a separate article, we'll move it there for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trinity College, Dublin I agree with the redirect. This is a very tempting article to keep, but we should be mindful that "notability is not inherited" (WP:INHERITORG). As such, a redirect can send this to the Trinity page, and if it merits inclusion on the higher-level page, some of the contents can be used there.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic is too broad to be usefully presented under the header of one list. This does not preclude recreation with a more manageable scope, such as a list of notable murder cases. The "keep" opinions are mostly very superficial and make little or no argument for why this should be retained. Sandstein 10:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of murders[edit]

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

One of these endless lists with no definable criteria for inclusion, nor it will never confines to our policy of neutral point of view for the rationale of what be considered a murder. Delete Pokerkiller (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTDUP of Category:Murder. Although it currently sounds more like "List of murder victims" than "List of murder (cases)", the issues appear expectably surmountable, like limiting to cases with articles only. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agreee with Hisashiyarouin, the article does however need some improvement. -- Kethrus |talk to me 08:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Uncertain, simply because we have so many lists of murders that I wonder if it might not be more useful to divide the cases listed here among the many more specific Category:Death-related lists.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - list is needed. period.BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a policy based rationale for keeping? Pokerkiller (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Taking User:BabbaQ's point. Some notable murders do not fit neatly into a sub-category.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just ridiculous. If anything rename it to "List of notable murders" and require all additions to have their own wiki-article. --Fixuture (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These kind of items are better treated with categories and subcategories instead of an incomplete list. Dimadick (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uncompletable, amorphous list. Steve Biko and a victim of Jack the Ripper?!? Carrite (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. There is no way the article could ever be a comprehensive as a list of all murders (which is what the current title seems to promise readers), and in general I think this is better handled through the use of categories. However, I like the idea of a "list of notable murders" that established clear criteria for inclusion.TheBlueCanoe 03:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As said by TheBlueCanoe, there is no possible way that every murder can be listed. I also propose renaming to "List of notable murders". In addition the article's style is hard to read and I would propose creating a table with the killings sorted by date instead of by name, as well as removing the image galleries. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a list of lists, e.g. List of murders committed by serial killers, List of unsolved deaths (which includes murders), List of assassinations, List of murdered popes, etc., and get rid of assassinations and victims without articles. Way too unwieldy as a single list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Second time I've seen "convert" today to mean "create a totally different list (of lists rather than of murders) so that we can redirect to it". If we're not using the content or even the title of the article under discussion, the outcome of the AfD is delete or redirect if there's a sensible target. AfD doesn't mandate the creation of a new article. Anyone can just do that and then redirect this title to the new list of lists. Great intentions, but outside the scope of AfD. Also, WP:NOTDUP is a straw man. I don't see anyone arguing that as a reason for deletion. By the same logic we could have List of events because it's not a duplicate of Category:Events. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is a delete without prejudice to redirecting and/or merging to an appropriate venue. --or even Userfying until such a venue is found to preserve the work. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll probably get around to creating~~ I've created Lists of murders ~~soon~~. In the meantime, the conversion is off. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I will preface my comment by saying that I almost always advocate for improvement rather than deletion (per WP:ATD and "don't throw the baby out with the WP:BATHWATER"). However, there are a two reasons why deletion is appropriate here:

There is no reasonably way to limit the scope of this list: According to WP:SALAT, "[l]ists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." As a matter of policy, Wikipedia should not have lists of cases about a specific crime, infraction, tort, or sin. Wikipedia does not have a list of Clean Water Act violations, a list of burglaries, or a list of arsons. I am sure you could find many notable examples of each, but a comprehensive list of such crimes would be far too broad to be of any use.
The selection criteria for this list are ambiguous and subjective: WP:LSC says that selection criteria for standalone lists must be "unambiguous" and "objective". The legal definition of "murder" varies between jurisdictions, so there are no clear standards for inclusion. Similarly, the definition of "murder" has changed over time and the definition of "murder" varies across different cultures.

Consequently, this list should be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Notecardforfree's excellent analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion has remained relatively superficial on both sides, with little if any in-depth discussion of the sources. Nonetheless, the balance of the opinions is so clearly in favor of deletion that I don't think I can find anything other than a consensus to delete. I would not be surprised, however, at a recreation if the topic continues to be covered in reliable sources. Sandstein 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incels[edit]

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

This is the fringe concept which is not even close to what I was trying to restore. Involuntary sexual absitenece or Involuntary celibacy whichever term is preferred is a documented concept covered in The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 by Henry G. Spooner dating to 1916. This covers only the unconfirmed recent term based on manospheres, the exact thing I was trying to prevent. I've requested Juliancolton to userfy what was in my space and compare sources and content. This current article is indeed a neologism and not what I was trying to restore Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin can userfy Involuntary celibacy to User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to my space we can compare why this does not cut the muster and the other version does. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other version which you say does cut the muster was deleted by consensus unless I am misinterpreting you. HighInBC 00:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, that the closing admin re-delete the restored article above as part of closing this one; it was requested only for comparison, which will no longer be necessary once this AFD is done. And it's been through at least three AFDs by now, depending on how you count it, so leaving it undeleted seems likely to cause trouble. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google search brings up 53,000+ results of the use of the term. The articles listed as sources in the article confirm that the term is in widespread use, especially this article, written by an expert on social media. The term doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. And, on a side note, I predict that, unfortunately, there will likely be future explosions of violence by members of this incel group because lack of success with women does, apparently, produce homicidal rage in some men. Anyway, since WP doesn't have an article on involuntary celibacy, I propose expanding this article to cover all aspects of this term, not just how it relates to the internet. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone, such as Valoem, wants to do an article on involuntary celibacy I think that would be fine to merge the Incels article into that as a sub-section. Until that's done, however, this article should be left as a stand alone entry. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various men have been "not getting any" since the dawn of time. I would not worry about any explosive repercussions because this is nothing new. Also I had an 8 year drought and it never made me homicidal, not even rage^{[citation needed]}. The only new thing here is the word for it, and trying to treat it like it is anything more than "not getting any". HighInBC 00:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting off-topic here, but it appears that the lack of success in mating strategy, combined with severe depression or some other form of mental/emotional issues, is what pushes some men over the edge. So, you were ok because, in spite of the drought, you otherwise had a solid mental state. You can see just from this discussion that this is actually quite a complex and serious topic worthy of an article on it. Unfortunately, some activist groups have tried to make hay with the recent mass shootings and that has brough political complications into discussions of the term. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had an article on "involuntary celibacy" (in fact, it appears that we've had several articles on this topic at different times). The most recent one was deleted after an AFD discussion just a few weeks ago. I really think it's too soon to be "trying again" at a topic that we basically just had a consensus to delete. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted recreation of the article was the recent Washington Post article on incels, which I linked to above. That's a strong source as it goes into the topic in depth. The first deletion discussion was Keep, the second was Merge, and the third was barely a delete, so I think the introduction of a new, solid source makes the difference. Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's an argument for an article on "incel," not an article on "involuntary celibacy" - I think it's a mistake to think that those are the same thing. The article that we just deleted at AFD in August (and which the current nom seems to want to re-create, again) tried to treat "involuntary celibacy" as a broader social science concept, that is applicable across a broad swath of history and in a wide variety of contexts. The sourcing for that was pretty poor, and as a result the article was (quite rightly, imo) deleted. What the Washington Post article talks about is something different, and narrower: a specific group of people who use "incel" in their conversations online. So regardless of what we're calling it, we have two different "things" here: one is basically a slang term that a specific group of people use to complain about not being able to get laid, the other is a very dodgy concept of "involuntary celibacy," much more broadly applied. We literally just voted to delete the article on the concept of "involuntary celibacy," and I think we should consider that issue closed. The question we're facing here is whether we should have an article on "incels" of the Elliot Rodgers variety - any discussions about merging this back into a broader article on "involuntary celibacy" (which I think is what Valoem is proposing) is a distraction. We just settled that issue, and it's too soon to dredge it back up. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix, it's difficult to separate "incel" from "involuntary celibacy" since they are synonyms as far as this topic goes, which is also why more than one version of this topic on Wikipedia has had "incel" as a WP:Alternative name. Even currently...this article states, "It is a shortened form of the more general term involuntary celibate, which describes individuals who are celibate, but not through personal choice." And like past Involuntary celibacy articles on Wikipedia, it mentions Denise Donnelly. I understand suggesting that we can have this article focus on being an article about a term, but similar was tried with the version Valoem was working on in his WP:Userspace. Editors kept having the lead of that version take the "is a term" approach despite the fact that the topic was not simply about the term, which is why I would cite the WP:Refers essay when removing the "is a term" wording. And this latest incarnation is not simply about the term either. And because it's about involuntary celibacy, even with a narrower focus, it would be challenging to try to keep editors from expanding the article to make it broader. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per the list of old Afd's in the header, there is strong community consensus to delete and salt. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again This seems to be basically the same thing as before with a less established name. The repeated recreation of this topic under various justifications and guises seems to be a shell game. HighInBC 00:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pretty torn here. I think some of the sources cited in the article [65][66][67] suggest that the use of the term "incel" online in the present context is notable and that we should address it somewhere. Per my comment above, however, I still strongly oppose an article which treats "involuntary celibacy" as a serious concept that applies more broadly - Valoem did his best to make that article fly in August, but the sourcing was just not there and we voted to delete it. So if we have an article on "incel," I think it should focus narrowly on the use of the term in online, PUA-MRA type communities. That's the usage of "involuntary celibacy" that seems like it might be notable here. Even then, I worry that the article would get used as a coatrack and a soapbox. I'm inclined to say that we should keep "incel" and "involuntary celibacy" as redirects to a broader article (maybe manosphere?), and have a brief discussion of the subject there. Open to being convinced otherwise though. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually did try to include a section on inceldom in the Manosphere article (which I also created), but all my attempts to insert any references to incels were reverted by ardent manospherian editors who insisted that incels had nothing to do with the manosphere and were not part of it (despite all the reliable sources we have indicating to the contrary). So eventually I just gave up. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is notable and has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep sourcing is light, but latest (yesterday's) washingtonpost article puts it over the bar IMO. But only just and perhaps not under this name. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This version suffers with vastly more flaws than the version I was trying to restore. It violates NPOV and WP:RECENTISM covering only one aspect of an issue which is historical. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fringe theory at best trying to gain traction through correlations (in stark contrast to the oft used phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"). The one survey mentioned is hardly notable as a sample size of 82 people does not yield useful results that can be applied across a population. Nothing has been established beyond Involuntary celibacy. From what I can gather, Incel is simply another term for the same exact topic and the deletion rationale for Involuntary celibacy should apply here as well. Simple case of people refusing to give up on a topic that doesn't warrant its own article here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do end up with an article focusing on involuntary celibacy as a general concept (rather than the incel subculture specifically), then we would do well to include historical examples of involuntary celibacy too, such as people being sentenced against their will to exile, solitary confinement, monasticism, etc. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Very selective merge to sexual frustration. If the concept was closed as delete just 6 weeks ago, there shouldn't be a question about an article for the abbreviated version/neologism of/for that same concept. Seems like it could qualify for CSD in that regard. Based on the contexts in which this neologism is used, if merged, sexual frustration is the clear choice as being nearly synonymous (see previous AfD for more on the unsuitability of other targets). Quoting from my comment from August, that there are sources which combine the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" does not mean there is a distinct concept that merits a stand-alone article. In order to have a stand-alone article, it must be a concept we don't already cover elsewhere. The same goes for a neologism about the same concept. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The term "beta uprising" is currently at DRV. I was wondering if this could be merged into this article. There's some coverage for it and the two have been linked somewhat, so if we could put the two in the same article it might be able to show notability for it overall. This is just a thought, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Beta uprising" does appear to be directly related to the Incel Internet sub-culture so I think it would be appropriate to include it in this article. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fork of an already unencyclopedic (per AfD) article. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Though we now have one (IMO) really strong source (Washington Post article focused on this topic). The results of old AfDs aren't hugely relevant when we have new sources... Hobit (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Washington Post article is rather unimpressive to me, actually. Especially because it takes the fringe theories of Brian G. Gilmartin (Loveshyness) into account, and references at one point to a study in which a meager 80 people were intervieuwed about their "incel". Just because the source itself (WP) is notable does not mean the sources used to write the particular article from this news outlet are necessarily as high-quality as Washington Post itself. A newspaper reported on a tiny sub-culture on the internet and a particular fringe theory in which they believe, and all of a sudden this makes said fringe theory worthy of a stand-alone article? I am not feeling it, sorry. My vote remains delete. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough, but I don't WP:N is about us evaluating how we feel about the sources. Rather it's about if the subject is "notable" enough that sources have covered it. They clearly have. And not hyper narrow or specialized sources either. Hobit (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, saying we should delete because we deleted in the past isn't a particularly strong argument given we have a new (Washington Post) article focused on this topic. If you're going to !vote for deletion, you really should explain why new sourcing doesn't meet the bar of WP:N. The older sources were, IMO, not great. But a newspaper with national scope covering the topic in depth is something that needs to be addressed by anyone !voting to delete. I get the sense people aren't looking at the sources but are instead (reasonably) frustrated with this topic popping up again and again. Which isn't a hugely strong argument for deletion. Hobit (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. A neologism must have frequent use, with multiple secondary sources describing that widespread use and meaning. All the sources here are either tied to one event and mention it only in passing, or are primary sources showing usage. Glancing over them, this almost feels more like a POV fork of Umpqua Community College shooting article. Possibly a small amount of the content here could be merged into there. --Aquillion (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a fork of an article that the community has repeatedly declared that it does not want. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Nice start to a well sourced article. Also, agree with rationale by Cla68, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism struggling to gain some wings. Not notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cla68. This term has gained sufficiently widespread usage. sst ✈ 14:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend merging the content into this User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy if AfD passes. The current content in incels violates WP:UNDUE focusing only on a specific fringe concept when it has a vastly longer history. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aquillion, fails WP:NEO. Kaldari (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, also this article's previous incarnations have met with consensus that it should not exist. Muldrake (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative comment: The related article Beta Uprising has been relisted for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Uprising. Sandstein 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has suggested merging Beta Uprising into 4chan. Perhaps the same could be done for this article if it fails deletion; most sources we have concerning incels are related to 4chan in some way (since /r9k/ is essentially the incel HQ). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. I do think that this warrants a mention somewhere, at the very least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Guy (Help!) 05:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You did notice that this is a fairly well sourced article, yes? Or at least one with better sources than most of our articles. An entire Washington Post article on a topic is generally viewed as a strong argument. Ignoring that and complaining about the topic being "slang" (which is what I assume you are implying) doesn't seem relevant. If you mean something else, could you explain? Hobit (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wacs lyrical[edit]

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

Non-notable student newspaper. Contested prod from 2010. - Richfife (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's barely much here unless this can be mentioned and redirected to the school. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and SwisterTwister. Nothing to show this is more than a student paper, with no widespread coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Soho Recordings[edit]

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

Article about a record label. I am unable to find sources that discuss the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 11:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 11:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 11:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 11:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of comedy-drama television series[edit]

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

Comedy-drama is a very popular genre. There are simply too many to list them all. A category is enough. JDDJS (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Comedy-drama television series. At 8,775 bytes, the article is not too long, as per WP:SIZERULE, and if it were to become too long, then portions of it could be WP:SPLIT into WP:SPINOUT articles.

It's also a functional article for navigation as per WP:LISTPURP. Furthermore, it appropriately complements the category. For example, the list article page received 1,684 page views in September 2015, while the Category page only received 194 page views. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per North America, per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. A list that grows too big can be split into sublists, and it would honestly be inane to only keep lists to which few articles belong and delete the lists of large groupings that most articles would fall into. postdlf (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions are based solely on the assumed inherent notability of the subject's political or administrative post, rather than on any discussion of the sources, which the nominator alleges (without opposition) to be insufficient. In the absence of a guideline assuming notability for an official of this rank, these "keep" opinions must be discounted because our relevant policies including WP:BLP and WP:V are quite clear that what articles - particularly about living people - can't do without are reliable sources. Sandstein 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subrahmanyam Vijay Kumar[edit]

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

very highly promotional article for mid-importance public servant.Extensive editing by COI and SPA editors--check the article history. None of his positions are minister , which would be notable, rather secretary to the ministry, which is a civil service and not a political position. Most of the references are his own writings; most of the rest are notices; some are straight PR. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Permanent Secretary is the top position in the civil service, not "mid-ranking" as claimed. Also, as repeatedly noted an article being promotional is not a reason for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking through the editors and their talk pages... even the IP address editors, I don't see where anyone would find COI or SPA. The contributors are often from around India and interested in India, but that doesn't indicate either COI or SPA: it makes sense. How does the article history show either COI or SPA? I'm baffled. Please explain. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AusLondoner, why do you think an article being promotional is not a reason for deletion? According to WP:Deletion policy, we can delete any article we think not suitable for the encycopedia, which in practice can only mean any reason that satisfies people at an AfD discussion. But it is much more specific than that: the specific policy is WP:PROMOTION, one of our fundamental policies, and much more critical than any guideline like WP:Notability. (as I see it the principal purpose of the notability guideline is to make sure we avoid content which could inherently only be promotional or directory.) To be sure, G11 is limited to articles exclusively promotional not capable of being fixed by normal editing; but this implies that deleting those of lesser degree need discussion, and AfD is the place. Agreed, that whether or not to delete something not so bad as to fall under G11 is a matter for decision article by article,and there can be valid different views on that. But if it does fall under WP:NOT, policy is that it ought to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very senior civil servants such as this gentleman are notable. Certainly not mid-ranking! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this qualifies as a Wikipedia article. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Nothing on searches helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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