Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 September	18 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. D. A Perera[edit]

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

A minor government official, the only references provided mention him in passing - there is nothing that substantiates his notability. Has been tagged for improvement since August 2015 with no changes. Dan arndt (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 23:33, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement here and the best search results I found were these links. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria. -- Chamith (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is a civil servant in the Customs department. His position is not even the head of the department, not that being the head of the department denotes notability. The referencing in the article (aside from a dead link I cannot access) are all passing mentions and do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updata Partners[edit]

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

Seems like a prime candidate for speedy deletion, though another editor has already opposed a PROD attempt, so clearly there is some opposing view. Article is cited only to the company website and I can't see any evidence online of reliable, independent coverage that would meet WP:NCORP (Company seems to be a behind-the-scenes investor so perhaps isn't very visible or interesting to the general media). Appears to be written by a single issue editor, maybe with a promotional intent? Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. The companies in its portfolio are covered all over the place, but I can't find any specific coverage of Updata to save this one. Alaynestone (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply not enough with Books finding listings and News links. Pinging past editors RA0808, Stuartyeates and Iridescent for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said in my PROD Non-notable company. No independent refs with in depth coverage.. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the above info. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does not seem to have materialized, and still seems to be more about promotion than information. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women’s Fund of Long Island[edit]

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

My searches found nothing than the following results here, here, here, here and here, to suggest better improvement from its current especially unacceptable version. If it hadn't been that I found minimal results, I would've simply PRODed or speedied (much like JVA Artists, Inc. which I encountered earlier) and this has obviously been. edited by the subjects since starting in August 2007 (initially started by SPA) and there's simply no obvious signs of improvement. Pinging tagger Ukexpat. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While worthy, this tiny, local group has a budget of $20,000 annually for grants. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Meyer[edit]

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

Judoka with no significant coverage and a world ranking of 75th. Winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is not enough to show notability. Continental gold medal winners have been deleted as non-notable.Jakejr (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is a very significant achievement. WP:NSPORT is clear that "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" (for example athletes pass WP:NSPORT if they come in the top 8 of a Commonwealth games event). In addition to the news article already cited, [1] and [2] were easy to find. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting the notability criteria for track and field, not judo. The Commonwealth Games is not the highest level, apparent if winning a medal produces a rank of 75. Highest level generally considered to be Olympics or good performance at world championships.Jakejr (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why of a ranking of 75th in the world implies non-notability. St Anselm (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons. 75 judoka times 14 divisions times 12 ratings a year equals a lot of possibly notable judoka. More importantly, a ranking that low indicates a lack of success at major competitions. There was a reason she didn't qualify for the world championships which had 40 in her division. If you're not among the top 40 I would question how notable you really are. We wouldn't say the 75th place finisher in the 100m at the world athletic championships was notable.Jakejr (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we would - because just competing in the championships would make you notable. (In the 2013 World Championships, there were, in fact, exactly 75 competitors.) Or to take another example, there are always 128 competitors in the main singles draw of a tennis grand slam. And we say they are notable simply for being there. (OK, technically we don't say that, but we presume notability for all who make it.) St Anselm (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is notable.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Commonwealth Games medal winners should always be kept. The track and field theshhold is lower, of course - top eight rather than top three. The other CG sports explicitly mentioned at WP:NSPORT are Badminton, which uses top eight as well, and gymnastics and triathlon, which both use top three. It is clear that the presumption of notability for CG medallists is in the spirit of the notability guidelines. St Anselm (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANOTE would support that if she had multiple medals, but not one.Jakejr (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very old essay indeed that you're quoting! WP:NSPORT would be more in keeping with current standards. Sionk (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I don't find any judo criteria on Wikipedia and the only martial arts criteria is mixed martial arts, which does not seem to be the same thing. However, she also won a bronze medal in 2013 at a World Cup Event in Samoa [3] and this article about it seems to indicate that she had also done it the previous year. SusunW (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a little more to her article, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Spears[edit]

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

Artist stub on a Canadian printmaker. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cannot find a single decent ref. His practice is pre-Internet, so if someone has an idea or knowledge about his work, let's hear it. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure because this is something that almost all sourcing would not be online and my searches found nothing so I'll have to say delete for now until this can be better. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSwisterTwister, I agree about sources likely being pre-internet. However given some notability, or being included in someone's museum collection would yield an entry in this amazing searchable index of Canadian Artists that is backed by the National Gallery of Canada. They have indexed collections information and publicity files etc. for 56,000 Canadian artists, going back quite a ways. Nothing comes up for him.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now in agreement with SwisterTwister. Theredproject (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked three databases which have Canadian newspaper coverage all the way back into the 1800s, and found exactly zilch. So nope, the notability's just not there. Furthermore, this is written like the kind of advertorial thing ("list of auction sales", my ass) that wouldn't be allowed to stay in this format even if it were properly sourced. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commentyou know, I think this could be an art dealer scam (those happen a lot) where the dealer gets a hold of an old insignificant work, and in order to pump up the price he says "hey, look, the artist has a Wikipedia page" to the clients.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah...that sounds completely plausible, and that would explain the "list of auction sales" part better than any other explanation I was able to to come up with for it. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I would expect a notable Canadian artist, even pre-internet to show in art catalogues and databases; this guy seems to be mostly invisible. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aristote Quitusisa[edit]

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

Kickboxer who doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:KICK. The WKA title is not enough to show notability. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. According to WP:KICK WKA has stopped being notable in 2000.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News and browser instantly found results, I'm not entirely sure if he's notable especially independently. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Political hack. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hack gap[edit]

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

Judging from the article, this seems to be a phrase used maybe twice, once each by two people. No evidence of notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too difficult for you to click on the links above and see for yourself what the usage of the phrase is? — goethean 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the article's sources. There is one article in which the phrase "hack deficit" (not "hack gap") appears, and another article that quotes the first article. That's it. No basis for a WP article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as I'm not convinced enough to fully state and I found results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Political hack. The "Hack" in "Hack gap" looks to refer to "political hack". Whether there are 2 or 20 sources, as long as it's based on that other neologism, I think it makes the most sense to mention it there. Can always spin it off later if the article grows considerably, but I don't see that happening any time soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political hack. I agree with Rhododendrites. We don't need a separate article for every spin-off term based off of a neologism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all of the above; violates WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaypee Integrated Sports Complex[edit]

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

Sports facility with no significant independent coverage.Jakejr (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because there's not even minimally good coverage although News, Books and highbeam all found results here and there. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a mere listing of various places that may be nice to visit. We are not a travel agency. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as G7 (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dark conscience[edit]

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

PROD removed without comment or improvement. original concern was: No evidence of meeting notability (films) guidelines or general notability guideline. Even if this article weren't created by the director (User:Scout Collins), I find no evidence that this article is anything less than undue promotion of a film that has received no significant attention. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

Delete per currently failing WP:NFF. After I fixed up its format some, and though a nomination of a brand new article is often considered WP:BITEY, I found that new editor Scout Collins appears to be the filmmaker herself, so we have issues with WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:COI, else a userfication might have been a consideration. She really needs to read WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not even minimally good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A duplicate of this article has just been created at A Dark Conscience (Film). --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now, the article creator has blanked the article and requested its speedy deletion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLG Cill Chomáin[edit]

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

This article covers a football club without giving any reason for considering it to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as News, Books and browser instantly found results but I'm not sure if they're enough to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable Irish football club. Quis separabit? 18:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishara Khader[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. I don't see anything that indicates that he is a distinguished or significant professor at his university. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, whether by impactful publications, awards, or anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delete as although News, Books and Scholar instantly found results, I'm not sure if there's worthwhile better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't appear to demonstrate notability. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the article is acceptable now. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SS Hewitt[edit]

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

I simply found nothing to suggest better improvement (my searches found nothing better than this which seems like a mirror) and this must obviously be caused by not much information known although I am still a bit curious to know if this actually existed (still questionable?). Pinging Calamondin12. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax. The ship's disappearance is documented in reliable sources (one of which I have just added to the references), but the article can be improved further. Calamondin12 (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article still in need of improvement, but that's not a reason to delete it. Vessel proven to have existed by RSs. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there is no consensus to delete this. The nominator advocated redirection and so, per WP:SK, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, this discussion should not have been started, let alone relisted and reviewed. Andrew D. (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedbird[edit]

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

I cannot see how this is independently notable from British Airways. This would fail WP:GNG. Redirecting this to British Airways would be a viable option. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as to term and delete article. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British Airways. "Speedbird" is the radio telephony callsign for British Airways. Such callsigns are not notable. Reading the article, I find the other uses of the term "Speedbird" as mildly interesting trivia, but nothing else. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I favor retention of this article and commented to taht effecton teh article's Talk page. "Speedbird" is again in teh news in connection with teh September 2015 incident at the Las Vegas airport. As the article explains, "speedbird" is not only a call sign but the name of a logo. The logo itself is notable because long in use and connected with an internationally important company; definitely not trivia. Editors interested in art (especially commercial art and graphic design) should be consulted. If this article is not retained, then as a fallback I favor moving the material elsewhere, as suggested above.Alfredwillis (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, I always wondered what this was when I would hear it on air traffic control. It's interesting to hear the explanation in the article. If you heard the ATC radio recording for the 777 in Vegas that caught fire this week, you heard "speedbird". If you had wondered what it meant, this article would have told you. It's a phrase that is used thousands of times a day on ATC radio. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The speedbird logo is an important icon in the history of 20th century graphic design and the development of the corporate logo. See for example here. This article will never be long but it needs to be kept separate from the main Imperial Airways, BOAC or British Airways articles. Some of the post-speedbird trivia needs trimming, but that is a different issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] I have now refactored the article to bring out the design aspect of the Speedbird and play down the airline side-issues, and begun the work of adding cites to demonstrate its notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Speedbird is independent of BA insofar as it predates BA by about four decades. Article gives useful info re its creation, and continued uses as BAs callsign. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After an inappropriate non-admin closure was undone following a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 17. Sandstein 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why relist, why not just close properly? WP:CONSENSUS is about more than just numbers, you need to think it through too. The first few, redirect votes were made with no knowledge of the logo's status as a design icon. Since that was made clear, every vote has been to keep it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There was history way before BA so personally I think redirecting is pointless, IMHO it is notable for a standalone article, I admit it does need improving but notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep borne by several companies and therefore notable independently of them. Artw (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as indicated, the word existed prior to British Airways. And, given the relatively low cost of storage, what's the actual upside of deleting it? It isn't creating clutter or problems, and it stands as a useful - if short - article. Given its daily use in aviation and its historic significance, it doesn't seem to qualify for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.61.206 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Tang[edit]

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

Not a notable artist. Look through the history if you like and you'll find this article was much pruned by New Media Theorist and others, but the previous version has only more fluff, much of which promotional URLs for Island6. This appears to be part of a walled garden involving Island6, discussion of which is currently at WP:COIN. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete glad to see this here as I was about to propose it myself. As the article says, this is a fictional character/artistic persona of Thomas Charveriat. I Deleted about 50% of the article on the basis that the invented, uncited text is fiction, aka original research. What's left is minimal, and part of the possible walled garden at at this WP:COIN discussion. At most I think this fictional character persona could be covered by a sentence or two at Thomas Charveriat or Island6, depending on which of those pages survive ongoing AFD and WP:Coin discussions. Reference search turns up nothing significant. New Media Theorist (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The COIN discussion (from some time in the nearish future, presumably moved here) is fascinating, even by WP:COIN standards. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plain and simple...simply delete as there has been no better improvement since starting in April 2010 and my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly redirect to Island6), as argued above. -- Hoary (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article reads as of it is a meta-performance art piece itself. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Vrac (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this WP:SNOW?New Media Theorist (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Downey III[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor which makes no strong claim of notability under WP:NACTOR, and rests entirely on primary and unreliable sources (his own website, his own LinkedIn profile, YouTube videos and IMDb) with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Also a conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the "née" in the introduction. As always, a Wikipedia article is not a thing that any actor is automatically entitled to have just because he exists; it's a thing that an actor earns by being the subject of enough reliable source coverage to verify that he passes a specific Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better improvement and I only found brief mentions at Books with there also being no move target. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Producers' and local performing artists' articles are almost always deleted, even if they have an IMDB page. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fields (band)[edit]

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

At best, the only thing that could save this article is that they were signed to Atlantic Records as, apart from that, my searches found no outstandingly good coverage here, here, here and here. They never seem to have made more of a noticeable impact aside from when they started and they're no further coverage after that and, if also found non-notable, I'll nominate the albums as well. Pinging the only still active user from the first AfD, Lankiveil and past editor Acabashi. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with SwisterTwister. The article has not added anything significant, or references (it's been given enough time), since its reinstatement after a deletion discussion (here), on 6 February 2007 (why did it come back?). 'One-hit-wonder' bands usually deserve a page on Wikipedia... 'One-obscure-album' bands usually not. If the band is not notable then, per SwisterTwister, the album and EP would not be either.

Even if there is a decision that the band is notable, the article should then be reduced to a few-lines' stub, including the removal of non-notables per WP:LISTPEOPLE, notability not rubbing off. Removing waffle down to acceptable essentials, if this is indeed enough for an article, it could stub in entirety as:

Fields were a 2006 to 2009 London-based Anglo-Icelandic electronic/indie band. They released their only album, Everything Last Winter, and EP 4 from the Village, through Atlantic Records' label Black Lab Records.^{[citation needed]} The album was produced by Michael Beinhorn at Sun Studios, Dublin.^{[citation needed]} Acabashi (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below is some of the reviews/coverage available. Note that it's from multiple countries. Some are just capsule reviews but there is a lot of them. See also the reviews listed at Everything Last Winter along with this other allmusic review. (the allmusic credits and bio both verify production by Beinhorn) The New York Daily News (Farber, Jim (6 March 2007), "BRITS ARE COMING AGAIN. A new invasion of U.K. musicians is making big waves", New York Daily News) has a little but they call the band The Field. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelton, Sam (27 September 2007), "Fields", The Advertiser

Gould, Nigel (20 April 2007), "Fields", Belfast Telegraph

Yeow Kai Chai (25 May 2007), "Rufus at his luxe best", Straits Times

Coleman, Andy (20 April 2007), "Shining in the darkness", Birmingham Mail

Verrico, Lisa (17 April 2007), "Fields;Pop;Music;Reviews;First night", The Times

Fulton, Rick (30 March 2007), "Album of the week", Scottish Daily Record

Keep. I'm baffled by this as I found plenty of decent coverage: BBC, Allmusic, Pitchfork, Hot Press, SPIN, Gigwise.com, New Zealand Herald, Prefix, CLASH, AV Club, Rolling Stone, PopMatters, FADER, a whole chapter in Jeff Touzeau's book Artists on Recording Techniques, and SPIN again. Their album was also reviewed in Q (listed at Metacritic). --Michig (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The sources provided by Michig definitely clinch this for me; RollingStone, BBC, and AllMusic all have fairly substantial coverage. I'm not sure how these did not turn up in the initial search, but regardless, they clear the notability threshold by a wide margin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire[edit]

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

Article has had multiple tags for 5 years and has not been seriously edited in the same time. This is an unnecessary content fork: the relevant information is better covered in the individual constituency articles. I note this article was considered along side many others in a previous AfD that ended with a keep decision, but was of a rather different nature to the others considered and the decision then did not really consider its own merits, or lack thereof, so I haven't labelled this a second nomination. Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems rather arbitrary as Hertfordshire is not a constituency. Number 5 7 17:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Failed candidates are generally NN. However the redlinks are an invite to create an article. We have plenty of material on sitting and past MPs to which this adds nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not particularly helpful. If you want to look up failed candidacies, you'll look by the name of the constituency, not by the ceremonial county. Also, this isn't very helpful because it provides information only about an extremely short period of time. Where's information about sixteen-century elections, for example? Surely Hertfordshire sent a couple of knights to Simon de Montfort's Parliament? Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed as an invalid deletion rationale. We do not delete articles just for being stubs. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borki, Żuromin County[edit]

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

its a stub Magicsan (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not delete articles just for being stubs; if the thing qualifies under one of our inclusion guidelines — such as the one for geographic places, under which all places that can be verified as existing are always valid potential article topics with no exceptions — then we just flag it as a stub and do not delete it just for not being better than it is. I'm speedy closing this as an invalid deletion rationale. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place exists in real life, and will continue to do so for some time, maybe centuries. Zezen (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Laborde[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest better improvement with the following being the best results, here, here, here and here. If you look at the history, you'll notice there was once more content but also unsourced and I suspect this has been edited by people close to him which is not a serious violation as long it's sourced and such...and this is not and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Michelin starred chef, then there's this, this, this, this, this, this etc..... Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was one of the closest I've looked at. I almost wanted to keep it based on WP:BASIC, but I don't think he quite gets over that hump. I think most of the cites provided by Kraxler are promotional. The fact that there is another person by this same name (the CEO of BNP Paribas Personal Finance) who gets a fair bit of press made researching a bit difficult. But for now I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow your reasoning. What is promotional about articles in the Financial Times or the London Evening Standard? Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemberga brunn[edit]

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

Granted it's a foreign company and from the past century so sources may not be easily accessible but my searches found nothing therefore unless good sources are found, there's not much here. Notifying author Liftarn. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the company's own site at http://www.hembergabrunn.se/ but that is not enough. Some other info can be found at http://www.ratebeer.com/brewers/hemberga-brunn-brunnen-bryggeri/20472/ and http://www.allabolag.se/what/Hemberga_Brunn and http://www.orebroguiden.com/arkiv/68706 // Liftarn (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately. I added a few references but the two of them are press releases and two of them simply confirms that the company was named after a local mineral spa. I can't really find anything else besides directory listings. I'd be willing to change my !vote if somebody can come up with something better. You should think that a company almost 70 years old has had something written about them. Maybe it's another case of sources not being digitized yet. Does someone have Atext or similar access? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found http://www.bygdeband.se/wp-content/uploads/uploaded/237/136761_nyupptackt_radiumkalla_1.pdf that is a 1926 article about Hemberga Brunn. It appears it was started after they discovered that the water was radioactive. Perhaps not something they want to stress today, but the brochure at http://www.bygdeband.se/wp-content/uploads/uploaded/237/136760_hemberga_brunn.pdf does. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two of the sources I added also mentioned the radioactivity of the spring. Those things appear to have been popular in the first part of the 20th Century. The two sources you list here would be useful for an Hemberga Spring article, but they do not say anything about the company I'm afraid. Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability in the article, a run-of-the-mill beverage distributor, web search turns up press releases, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edvin Kanka Ćudić[edit]

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

Crosswiki created POV BLP of non notable person. No sources to indicate notability. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not the human rights group that this person is connected to is notable or not is one thing. But it looks like notability for him, as an individual, isn't really there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cnnot find sources to validate notability. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete for now as I found no better sourcing than News links. Notifying first AfDs commenters Safiel, Whpq, Milowent and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are either dead or have no mention of the person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, I voted delete in the last AfD. Look like an unwarranted recreation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazo Dharejo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Has not been elected to any office. Need more independent sources for establishing notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AKS I have provided the newspapers refernces for Nazo Dharejo , so go through those references and find news about Nazo dharejo, there are required references so the article should not be deleted. Jogi 007 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to admit right off the top that this is a very badly written article in need of a major quality overhaul — but it does make a notability claim that's tied in some way to the Sindh Assembly. Given the bad quality of writing, I'm not at all clear on whether she sits in that body, or was merely a candidate for a seat that she didn't actually get elected or appointed to — clarifying that properly would be the pivotal difference between a keep or a delete here. Keep and flag for cleanup if she can be properly confirmed as having held a seat in the Sindh Assembly — but delete if she was just an unsuccessful candidate, as the article makes no other genuinely substantive claim of notability for anything else besides that. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is terribly written, but if I'm reading this reference correctly, she was selected to a reserved seat in the National Assembly. A quick search for additional sources got this profile in The Express Tribune. There is something to this person. GNG? Not there yet. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading it wrong. She was selected as a proposed candidate by the PML-N political party in 2013. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source talks only about candidature. No record of her ever being elected. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she fails WP:Politician, she was not elected, see list of those elected for the Fourteenth Assembly of the Sindh Assembly from the Pakistan Muslim League (N), aka PML-N, here. Note that in the Sindh Assembly the PML (N) is a small minoroity party, as opposed to its country-wide status. In any event, the article is too soon, since she has no significant coverage aside from the one profile in the Express-Tribune, basically the rest are just mentions. The article also appears to contain original research. Note: Sorath Thebo (profile) holds the only reserved seat for women for the PML-N in the Sindh Assembly. See also the June 2013 PML-N list of members in the Sindh Assembly. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No demonstration that WP:NPOL has been met. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, unelected candidate with only routine campaign coverage Kraxler (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal debate even after two relists, so calling this a soft delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Bazzi[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable glass manufacturer, does not meet GNG or any other criterion. Note: the article previously contained more material, some of it unsourced, some of it entirely spurious, which I have removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I discuss in such pages, so I apologize for any mistake I will commit; in it.wiki italian painters notability is my main occupation, so I hope I can help. The article is totally wrong, not only because there's no content and only bibliography, but also because the bibliography itself it's wrong:

Carlo Pirovano, La Pittura in Italia: Il Novecento, Vol. 2;
Raffaele De Grada, Il Novocento a Palazzo Isimbardi;
Paola Slavich, Ospedale maggiore/Cà granda: Ritratti moderni

Noone of these three books really talks about Carlo Bazzi (except for three insignificant quotes as "friend of", "pupil of"), so it's very misleading to consider them "further readings".

I was trying to know if it was possible to write this article in it.wiki, but the only notable thing I found on my books is that six Bazzi's paintings are owned by Banca Commerciale Italiana, which owns a good collection of art (source: this book, p. 193). I don't know how notable you can consider this thing here in en.wiki, but Carlo Bazzi in it.wiki probably would be considered very borderline. Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 17:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like this individual only picked up a small amount of notability with his work, and I feel like in the spirit of the rules (beyond just the mere words) this should probably be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Ambient[edit]

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

Non-solved issues after months of addition UnhappyRadio (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, this genre was invented by a person, and the page was created to be used as a source to make it more credible. The term has been used scarcely to describe a single artist.UnhappyRadio (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward delete. I have listed the issues with this article on the talk page. The submitter had many months to improve the article, remove original research, add reliable sources. There has been no effort to do so. The notability of the genre and neutrality of the article are highly questionable as well. Google search does not provide anything more reliable than the current "sources". This article should be removed asap. MiklakRYM (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner Publications[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference is self-published. ubiquity (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as you've would've at least expected better coverage but there's isn't any but this isn't actually entirely surprising as publishers publish but coverage about them isn't always. My searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence found of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Note there appears to be an identically named company from Texas that advertised in Popular Science magazine, but that doesn't affect the lack of notability for this Southern California company. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though nobody opposes a redirect, so you might want to try that as an editorial action. Sandstein 13:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Alger[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined: notability review required. Slashme (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Complicated Animals as he may be best known for that and I hope someone simply won't remove this and restore it without considering why this is taking place; my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Anthony[edit]

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

Musician BLP that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Article likely started as an autobiography--note article creator username "Occh27" and subject's real last name Occhigrossi. Large list of references, but these are almost entirely press releases, blog posts and passing mentions. Article creator and all other substantial contributors of content have few or no other edits other than to this article. I found no other coverage in reliable sources to support notability. --Finngall ^talk 18:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft to AFC for now as although the article would first appear acceptable, the sourcing could be better and my searches found nothing good but this may be become better later so saving it would help. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. As for the AfC suggestion, I vehemently oppose it, given it would benefit nobody. The subject is non-notable and will most likely remain so for the next 6 months, which is how long AfC drafts last before being nominated for deletion. Notability is determined by coverage, not by time. If he becomes notable then we can reconsider undeleting the article, but there is no use in adding another hopeless draft to the thousands already waiting for deletion in AfC's endless rejected categories. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People on the March[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing (I'm a Spanish speaker so I would've known what sources were relevant) and for this article to stay unsourced and the same since May 2005 is not a good sign. It appears there's no Spanish Wiki article and, granted this from Peru and before the Internet so sources may not be easily accessible but this still needs attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notability, no sources, very small political party. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to assert notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the lack of significance for this organization, it's best described as a section in some other page somewhere. It doesn't merit its own article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza San Luis Potosí[edit]

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

local preliminary round for a national pageant. Fails WP:GNG and unsourced. The Banner talk 21:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (changed from Delete) non-notable local pageant, WP:FANCRUFT Kraxler (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait~~ Keep Although the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants doesn't have explicit guidelines for notability, its mission statement tells us that they are looking to create articles covering state, national and international pageants. And San Luis Potosi is a state of Mexico. The real issue is whether the list can ever be reliably sourced. I don't know, but here's something to consider -- at some point in the past, someone started a series of articles on the annual pageants. There were only three -- 2010, 2011, and 2012 -- and not all of them were sourced. But at least one was. I'll be happy to add those sources to the instant article. But beyond that, I'll defer to the folks at the WikiProject. The project page has a section alerting its members to articles that are up for deletion and so, if anyone there really cares about this article, they can come on over and start filling in the other sources. And if not, we can revisit the question of deletion. By the way, it's those three annual articles that really seem non-notable. In the near future, I'll be proposing them for deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Of the three articles on the annual pageants, only one was reliably sourced; the other two had (i) a dead link and (ii) somebody's blog. I've added the one useful link to the instant article, as well as a 'citations-needed' box at the top of the page. I also went to the article on the national pageant and, from there, randomly looked at three of the annual articles for the 1990s. Not a one of them was reliably sourced. Frankly, if the folks at WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants can't be bothered to reliably source the national pageant, it seems unlikely that they will ever get around to fixing the state-level pageants. I'll keep my vote as "Wait", but I can see changing that to "Delete" if the question comes up again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dozen state pageants have been dleted lately, because there was no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. (aka failed GNG) and there's also WP:GEOSCOPE. Kraxler (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Your citing of WP:GeoScope gave me pause to think and, as I was thinking, it occurred to me that this same argument could be used against any of the state-level pageants in the Miss America or Miss USA competitions. So I checked several of the pages for those state-level pageants and found that some of them are in as bad shape, source-wise, as the instant article. Others did have a good deal more sourcing, but only from local newspapers. So, if your arguments are good enough to delete the instant article, they ought to be good enough to delete a goodly number of Miss America and Miss USA articles. And yet, those articles continue to exist. I'm aware that 'other stuff exists' is not a compelling counter-argument, but I'm not pointing to any random collection of 'other stuff' -- I'm pointing to a series of articles that are directly comparable to the instant article. It also bears noting that, earlier this year, someone nominated Miss_South_Dakota for deletion on essentially the same grounds being proposed here. The consensus there was to keep. So, the appropriate outcome here also is to keep. To do otherwise would have us subjecting the Mexican state-level pageants to a tougher standard than we apply to the US state-level pageants. And I'm just not comfortable with doing that.

I'm new here to Wikipedia and when I posted my first comment, I wasn't aware that these nominations had an expiration date. I see now that "Wait" is not a proper position and I've changed it to "Keep". NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper course is to look for additional sources for this article, and nominate the badly sourced US states' pageants for deletion. We can not argue that because something else is wrong we should do it the wrong way here too. Caution, metaphor follows Try to tell a police officer who stops you for passing a red light that you have seen others doing it too, and that he can fine you only if he fines all other traffic violators also. We both know what the officer's answer will be. That's the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF.Metaphor ends here Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we are in the situation of agreeing on the nature of the problem, but disagreeing on how to solve it. Before I address that point, I'll address your metaphor. It's a good metaphor, in that it succinctly describes why WP:OTHERSTUFF needs to be a guiding principle. But in the instant case, you and I have played no significant role in the development of this article (my only contributions were the small edits I described above). So, in your metaphor, you and I are playing the role of the police officer, not the driver. You want to give the driver a ticket, and I'm pointing out that the last time somebody tried to give a driver a ticket for the very same thing, the court found them 'not guilty'. And forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but your metaphor fails on another level -- running a red light can get somebody killed, but keeping an article on a beauty pageant ... .

You and I have been debating the issue of under-sourcing. Although I'm new to Wikipedia, I've seen enough to suspect that under-sourcing is very rarely sufficient grounds for deletion. You need to make the stronger argument that the reason the article is under-sourced is because proper sources simply don't exist. But San Luis Potosi (the state) has a population of about three million and San Luis Potosi (the metropolitan area) has a population of about one million. The city has newspapers and those newspapers almost certainly covered the pageants. To satisfy myself on this point, I did some on-line checking. I found that El Sol de San Luis has an on-line archive and that this archive includes articles on the pageant. Indeed, I saw enough to convince myself that a Spanish-speaking editor could do on-line sourcing for this article going back at least as far as 2008, and could probably get that done within a half hour. So, the sources do exist. The problem here, as I noted in my first post, is that the good folks at the BeautyPageant Project are probably never going to get around to doing the work. Is that a good enough reason to delete? I presume you would say "yes". Me, I'm not so sure. In a few days, an administrator will come ambling by and we'll see what he or she thinks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being new here, I suggest you read WP:NEVENT, especially the section WP:GEOSCOPE. Coverage in local newspapers usually is not deemed sufficient to establish notability of an event. And, to show that there are indeed sources that cover the event, in any nespaper, please post a link here. It's not enough to say that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, it's necessary to show them. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. But rather than post those links here, I found it more efficient to simply add them to the subject article. That had the benefit of giving me some experience with the news-article citation template. And there is the additional benefit of demonstrating to the closing administrator that the subject article is indeed as well-sourced as the Miss_South_Dakota article.

I also followed your suggestion for re-reading WP:NEVENT. A closer reading shows that the guideline is not clear as to its scope of application. The 'events' discussed there include crimes, accidents and weather-related events, none of which seem to be quite on-point with the discussion here. But what you and I might think of that is not really the point. The very existence of more than 100 articles on state-level US pageants suggests that the Wikipedia community has already decided that WP:NEVENT does not apply here.

Thanks again for your advice. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the sources to the article is as good as showing them here. The closing admin will consider them. The NEVENT guideline applies to all events, without restrictions, those expressly mentioned there and those things that just are events. The existence of any number of other articles, as an AfD argument, is addressed in OTHERSTUFF. Although citing precedent of guideline usage, policy decisions, other AfDs and previous discussions is well accepted, the mere existence of other articles may be due to not having them nominated for deletion yet. We can not claim that other being wrong gives us the right to do it the wrong way too. Every AfD is to be considered on its own merits. As an aside, Wikipedia has now about 5 million articles, and at AfD appear about a 120 per day, you see, there may be lots of candidates for AfD out there, and not enough people to do the screening. Kraxler (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: an interesting facet of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay that is rarely mentioned is the part about "they [comparisons to other articles] may form part of a cogent argument". User:NewYorkActuary has made a cogent argument. That OTHERSTUFF is cited in the context of precedent set by AFD (i.e. consensus) and consistency (also a form of consensus) is logical and appropriate. I also take issue with the definition of "local" in this case, as has been pointed out San Luis Potosí (both city and state) are significant population centers. (on a side note, I for one am sick of this pageant AFD business, while we are throwing around essays perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be given consideration....) Vrac (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument about OTHERSTUFF, I've used the "may form part of a cogent argument" part a couple of times myself. Fact is that about a dozen of local (statewide) Mexican beauty pageant articles have been deleted recently, for lack of coverage. So, precedent would favor to delete in this case. If you analyze my last 500 AfD votes, I doubt that you will discover what I like and what I don't like, because the same type of topic/topic area may be, or may be not, notable, depending on a variety of circumstances, and my votes are always policy-guideline-based. There are noe 5 refs in the article, all from local newspapers. There seems to be no coverage outside this area. Besides, the articles are about five different particular editions of the event, not about the history or the actual organization of the event. It's still time to dig something up. Kraxler (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IDONTLIKETHAT was a reference to the nominator, who, you'll have to admit, has a strange obsession with these things. The recent deletion of Mexican state pageants is more a reflection of general lack of knowledge/interest in Mexican topics than anything else. I follow Mexico deletion sorting and I frequently see things get nominated that would be no-brainer keeps if it were the American equivalent. Add in the fact that it's a beauty pageant and you get a double-death knell. A more interesting precedent is NewYorkActuary's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss South Dakota example (also nominated by guess who): an American state with about 1/3 the population of San Luis Potosí (and mostly rural to boot, the largest town in SD is barely a city by American standards); and yet it is snowball kept at AFD. The South Dakota article is also referenced with local sources, sources that I would argue are way more "local" than the San Luis Potosí ones given the relative population size. Even the District of Columbia has a pageant article and it's not even a state. Dare I say it all smells a bit like systemic bias.... Vrac (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been aware of the Miss South Dakota AfD, thanks for the link. Well, seeing voters say "statewide pageants are notable" in South Dakota, and nobody coming up with the same rationale at any of the Mexican pageants, does indeed look strange. Kraxler (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire)[edit]

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

Although I am an avid fan of election articles, having created several thousand myself, there doesn't really seem to be any point to articles like this. West Yorkshire is a ceremonial county, but not an electoral district, so this ends up just being about the results in a small number of constituencies. Results at the county level do not have any particular importance in British elections. I am also nominating the other West Yorkshire article for deletion (United Kingdom general election, 2005 (West Yorkshire)), and if this is successful, I will do a further AfD on the various other articles in this vein (e.g. Cornwall, Edinburgh, Lancashire, London etc). Number 5 7 19:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there User:Number 57. May I ask how you found this article? AusLondonder (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found it ages ago, probably after spotting it appearing on the new article bot feed. As you may recall, I prodded it at the time, but you removed the prod and we had a discussion on the talk page that ended when I asked for evidence of consensus that these articles were noteworthy (this discussion would suggest otherwise). I just forgot about it until I saw today that you were still creating them. Why is that of interest to you? Number 5 7 20:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may interest you WP:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall given your plans to nominate other article such as London and Cornwall. AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a speedy keep situation, particularly when an identical AfD the previous week resulted in the articles being deleted. The more recent discussion linked above suggests that consensus may have changed. Number 5 7 20:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Elections receive substantial, ongoing coverage in the news, as such election articles are nearly always notable, I can't think of a time when they wouldn't be. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SuperCarnivore591: Yes, elections always receive significant coverage, and all national elections are deemed automatically notable, hence why we have the United Kingdom general election, 2015 article and why I have written so many articles myself. However, this AfD is on an article about the results in a small number of constituencies with no apparent reason why West Yorkshire's results are notable enough to be singled out (i.e. it seems to be a rather pointless WP:CONTENTFORK. Number 5 7 08:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a necessary article for this arbitrary land area. Just use the constituency pages. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 16:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this has been relisted again, I am pinging @Bondegezou, MrPenguin20, and Super Nintendo Chalmers: who all commented on the existence of these types of pages at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015/Archive 4#New election result articles. Number 5 7 15:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having been pinged... Delete I appreciate the effort, but I cannot see the point of this article. We have an article for the election, indeed many related articles (on polling, for each individual constituency). This article merely collates information on other articles. While the results tables cites the Yorkshire Post, the newspaper does not give the data in that form, so it all becomes a bit original research-ish. I can see some value in separate articles for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales given the distinct political cultures in each, but not in these articles at county level. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On a somewhat tangential note, the prior Cornwall AfD encompassed a rather different sort of article that I feel warranted re-consideration, thus I have done this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire. People here may wish to comment there. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't United Kingdom general election, 2005 (West Yorkshire) have some sort of AfD notice so people no it's included in this discussion? Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, now added. Number 5 7 09:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; West Yorkshire not really existing as a jurisdiction anymore, I don't see a practical benefit to this article. This is different from Cornwall, which is an actual jurisdiction currently. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike Wales and Cornwall, "West Yorkshire" isn't a distinct jurisdiction. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CERF (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG: the product has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Further, merging the content into the company that developed it (Rescentris) does not appear appropriate, since the company itself does not even seem to be notable (WP:PRODUCT). The deepest independent coverage I could find for the product is on page 96 of this paper, but that short review, to me, is insufficient to establish notability. Edcolins (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional external source for CERF as a scientific data management tool (scientists against malaria and NAABB) and added some peer review journal articles that use CERF in discussions of the value of semantic technologies to scientific data curation. Invasifspecies (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated broken links and added additional external source Invasifspecies (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It's mentioned in a few sources, but the it's brief - the extensive coverage isn't there. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is notable and has Valid resources (Toomass (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Could you please elaborate? Which "valid resources" do you mean? To me, the coverage is really thin, i.e. not significant. --Edcolins (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - research on this is difficult because the acronym is also the last name of an internet pioneer Vint Cerf. But I could find no substantial coverage of this software which would indicate it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of references in the article, but most of them look like they're unlikely to meet our WP:RS requirements. I spot-checked a half dozen which looked like they might be reasonable, but they all turned out to be either first-party, passing mentions, or unable to satisfy WP:RS for one reason or another. It would be useful if somebody would pick the two or three best references and list them here for more detailed review, but lacking that, I don't see this passing the bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XE Mobile[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing good (with the best solid mentions I found here) and it is not surprising as it only seemed to have lasted about a year. At best, if others agree, this can mentioned at a related article such as AT&T. Pinging past editors Mrzaius and Strunke. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the genericness of "XE Mobile" is causing problems, with searches providing results such as HTC Sensation XE and XE.com mobile apps. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing available to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brigham Young University. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAGICC Lab[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe mention and redirect to Brighham Young University as I found enough results to suggest this is known and may be best known through the university, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Brigham Young University, Doesn't really warrant a standalone article but personally think it atleast deserves a mention at BYU. –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Heritage Academy. Not entirely sure on the redirect location but aint gonna relist to find out so I'm going with Rainbow Unicorn & redirecting it to National Heritage Academy (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canton Charter Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable school - no indication that this passes WP:SCHOOLS, WP:CORP, WP:GNG. Previous PROD contested. Recommend redirection to either National Heritage Academy (slight preference) or Canton, Michigan#Public charter schools (2nd choice). Okay with keeping or not keeping revision history and okay with outright deletion. If there is zero discussion after a week, recommend a quick redirect-without-prejudice-to-revert to either of the above destinations rather than re-listing (this can be done by a non-admin, see WP:Non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable elementary school that hasn't made national news. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question from the nominator for Charlie the Pig: Would you be okay with a redirect to National Heritage Academy, Canton, Michigan#Public charter schools, or either one? I ask because I will not withdraw/speedy-close unless there is a solution that all participants in this discussion, including myself, can agree on (this is what wikt:consensus means) and which does not require the use of administrative tools. So far, you nave only explicitly indicated that you are only okay with delete, Kudpong has only explicitly indicated he is okay with redirect, and I'm okay with either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That could also be another option. I'm fine with it. Best of wishes! Charlie the Pig (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course as per age-old practice and precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES and probably nearly 1,000 AfD closures.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular precedent that you know of that would sway the decision for the redirect target? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: This discussion is mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#WP:X or Y. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for Kudpung. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to National Heritage Academy seems good, since they operate those schools it's similar to a school district in that way. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatsan at44[edit]

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

My searches found no good results (with the best results here, here and here, there's no good move target aside from list of airguns and I'm not sure if Hatsan is independently notable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...Simply not notable. To me, the article basically says "Hey, Turkey makes a BB gun!". So, what...who cares.--RAF910 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient in-depth coverage available to assert notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Najarpur mandir[edit]

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

This temple has no notability and the article's only reference is a dead link. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete for lack of notability. The article's only assertion of notability is its unsourced claim that the temple is an "import pilgrimage" for members of a certain religious sect. But the sole reference doesn't mention this. Indeed, the sole reference is an article about the village of Najarpur, in which the mandir is given only passing mention. To be fair, that passing mention describes the mandir as "well known". But on the other hand, one of the references in the article on Najarpur includes a link to a travel site that lists six "things to see" when in Najarpur, and the mandir is not on that list. Furthermore, a quick visit to an English-language site hosted by the sect lists about 200 mandirs in India and Nepal, and says nothing about the Najarpur mandir being unique or special in any way. And so a merge to the article on Najarpur, followed by a deletion of the instant article, seems in order. I've already begun the merge process, by importing some of the content from the instant article into the article on the village (see the diff here). NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. Quis separabit? 18:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, searches did not turn up enough to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Masi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Does not appear to have made the national chart, and little reliable coverage. Mdann52 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything to show notability. Google News search for "luigi masi" only brings up mentions of the name on Italian websites, probably different a person(s) unrelated to him, since according to the article he lives in London. The chart his songs apparently were on also don't seem to be notable [4] (Music Week). Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found no better sourcing with my best result being a popjustice.com link (not familiar with this website). SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. I just nominated his two other articles here. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Smith[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. All the sources seem to come from his own company, from trade directories & promotional interviews. Bazj (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His business position is notable enough, and not all the sources come from his own company. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to delete, not seeing any good improvement. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "business position" are you referring to? Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO curriculum, spiked with name-dropping, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any improvement and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing on the search engines shows notability. As Kraxler said, notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent coverage, and lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somdutt Bhardwaj[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)

Junior faculty at a minor university. Only references are from current employer. No sign that this passes WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has worked in Lovely professional university and senior faculty member of the present University 117.224.212.65 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please have a look at WP:AFD. In order to be taken into consideration, your arguments need to be based in policy. Working at a lovely university and being a senior faculty member certainly is not enough to meet our notability (in the WP sense) guidelines. Also, Bhardwaj does not seem to be "senior faculty", as the only sources available list him as an assistant professor. --Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is founder of the university si he is senior and notable person of the university 117.219.46.171 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founder, no less! That's not what the article on the university says. We'll need some good independent reliable sources to source that. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Somdutt Bhardwaj may not be willing to have article but Wikipedia says let the other publicise you and write about others so, please keep it floating and if movie actress and actor find place on Wikipedia and a person who is contributing his mind, body and soul his appearance is made questionable by the Wikipedia, in India such kind of contribution is remarkable. 117.237.25.32 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "notable" (in the WP sense) is not the same thing as worthy. Many events or people are unworthy, but notable, worthy and notable, unworthy and not notable, worthy but not notable. There's no direct relationship. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His work is notable for the welfare of the society.Drkyt (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is good enogh for publishing as it has notable issues, social welfare and his multi dimension personality makes it notable.164.100.1.213 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 164.100.1.213 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There simply isn't enough verifiable coverage to warrant an article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{oldafdfull|result=speedy keep|votepage=as appropriate|date=2015 September 17}}111.93.59.122 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)~~ Struck template that belongs on talk page of articles after an AfD has been closed. IP, if you want to !vote, please read WP:AFD to see how that is done. --Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The only thing in the article that looks like an independent reliable source is the Times of India story, but that has no nontrivial coverage of the subject, only a quote from him. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- NN junior lecturer. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wing configuration. Sandstein 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planform[edit]

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

Reason The aeronautical aspect is the only current focus for this article, but the need for it does not stand up. At the general level we already have discussions of the overall wing configuration, supersonic aircraft, subsonic aircraft, lift (force) and so on, while at the detail level we have plenty of articles on things like aspect ratio (aeronautics), swept wing, delta wing, swing wing, tailless aircraft and so on. The exact planform of a design emerges as a complex compromise between many of these detailed technicalities and in the context of the general principles, it cannot sensibly be discussed in isolation. Wikipedia is NOTADICTIONARY and there is no value in having a separate article sandwiched in between the two general and detail levels of treatment we already have. This article should be deleted and re-purposed as a redirect to Multiview orthographic projection#Plan. There is no point in making it a standalone disambig page, as the proposed redirect destination needs to achieve that anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If falls afoul of WP:NOTADICTIONARY and also has no refs, so fails WP:GNG as well. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are dozens of inlinks to Planform from aircraft articles. If the Planform article is deleted/repurposed then those links will need to be changed. DexDor^(talk) 18:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing the Aviation WikiProject can take in our stride. :-)

Most will probably end up linking to Wing configuration#Wing planform. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a redirect at Planform (aircraft). DexDor^(talk) 20:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ahunt and no sources? - FOX 52 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect...altho I'm not sure what to I really don't think this stands up as an article subject...I don't know if the word is used outside aviation, but really it's just jargon for 'what the thing looks like in plan view'TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Planform" is just a generic term for a shape seen in plan (i.e. from above) and is used in many other disciplines, for example the study of river meanders and hot gas convection patterns.[5][6] I suggested redirecting to Multiview orthographic projection#Plan in my original justification. I assumed the current page would be deleted first, but I don't know if that is necessarily so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I checked a sample of the many links to this page. Most are gratuitously inserted where the term would not normally be invoked and the articles become clearer if the reference is deleted. Some appear to be ~~plain wrongly used~~ inappropriate to the current content, e.g. to describe the outline shape of a boat's sail or a surfboard's vertical fin. [apparently the marine usage is valid. 18:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)] It all looks very much like one over-enthusiastic but ill-informed editor's handiwork. The number of residual links that will need disambiguating is a lot smaller than appears at first sight, and the large number present at the moment should not be taken as an indicator of this article's significance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have moved the new redirect to Planform (aeronautics) in line with current practice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates Wing configuration for no real reason, which is already much more complete and better referenced.NiD.29 03:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 23:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Norman[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)

Subject fails the general notability guideline as well as WP:NPOL and WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage of him in any outside sources that I could find. Sources are all either self-published sites, non-notable blogs or sites. Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article. I found some sources I planned to use. I hope this will help.

--Giant Bernard (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please be advised that IMDB is not considered an acceptable source for WP. --Cagepanes (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that it is used as a source in many places in the encyclopedia. Is this your judgement, or is there a discussion somewhere perhaps? Dustin (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is allowed as an external link on an article about a person who has worked in the film industry — but as a user-generated site that can and does contain uncaught errors, it doesn't count as a reliable source for use as a reference. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The subject is currently at third place for his party's presidential ticket and placed third in the 2016 Libertarian National Convention with 11% of the vote. Being that the Libertarian Party is a notable party in the United States, being in the third place spot makes him notable. --Cagepanes (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Striking comments as invalid -they were left by a sock of indeffed user Kbabej. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as although II find his goals humorous, I see nothing to suggest improvement and there are no outstanding roles to suggest moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed a vote? Disclosure: I have done major work on the article recently. --Giant Bernard (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote we're having here. And yes, we'd like to hear from you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have reviewed Wikipedia policies and I have come to the conclusion that Nathan Norman is notable under Wikipedia policies. He has been covered in the publications The New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Independent Political Report, Irregular Times, American Third Party Report, Internet Movie Database, The Green Papers, Politics1.com, and did feature interviews with Starry Constellation Magazine and Silber Media. --Giant Bernard (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ddcm8991. -Moonboy54 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this page was created back in January 2006. Nobody questioned the subject's notability until he decided to run for president. That gives the appearance of political animus behind this nomination. Nevertheless, politics aside, the subject meets the criteria under WP:ENTERTAINER. He has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" including a significant role in Unidentified, lead guitarist for Devo 2.0, and a starring role in commercials for various notable companies. Those three significant roles alone constitute "multiple." Now he is running for president and he has started to receive significant coverage for that as well, as Giant Bernard points out.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. The subject's "claims to fame" fall into two categories: politics and entertainment (which can itself be broken down into Music and Film). Let's start with his notability as a musician. The subject's only substantial claim here is that he was a member of Devo 2.0. But the notability guidelines for musicians state quite clearly that individuals do not inherit notability from any bands in which they were members. And as for Devo 2.0 itself, it only released one album and it didn't chart. Devo 2.0 itself does not meet the criteria for notability and has its own article only because of its relationship with the real Devo. So, the subject's claim to notability as a musician is an unusual case of "inheritance twice removed". As for notability as an actor, Mr. Saturn points us to a "significant" role in the film Unidentified. But the folks who wrote the article on the film didn't consider the instant subject's role to atbe significant, as he is not even mentioned in the article. Furthermore, five of the six persons listed as "Main Cast" don't have their own articles (the exception is Rebecca St. James, whose notability stems largely from being a Grammy- and Dove-Award-winning singer). And so, whether we look at music or films, the subject does not meet any of the well-established guidelines for notability in those fields.

Looking to politics, the guidelines on notability are clear that it is not conferred upon anyone simply because they are running for an office. But there is another bizarre aspect to this ... the subject is only 24 years old! He is not eligible to be president of the United States. And so, any claim to notability on the basis of being a candidate for US president not only fails to meet the criteria for political notability, it also raises concerns for being a political version of a fringe theory.

Finally, I'll quickly address a concern raised by User:William_S._Saturn. None of here knows what was in the heart of the nominator when this nomination was made. Mr. Saturn raises the plausible possibility when he suggests a "political animus". But let me suggest another plausible possibility. In the years immediately following its creation, the article rarely received more than ten views per month. There were many months in which it received no views at all. It might well be that the political activity of the subject is precisely what caused the page to start getting more views, and the nomination might be the simple result of someone seeing it for the first time. Given the equal plausibility of these two possibilities, I'm inclined to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: In my last paragraph, I wrote of the number of views per month. That was in error. I meant the number of views per day. I regret any inconvenience caused by my error. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't make any difference whether he is included on the cast list of the wikipedia article for the movie or not. Reliable sources say he was in the movie and he is listed as part of the cast at IMDB. Regardless, even if that significance is in dispute, the subject retains inherent notability as an entertainer because of his multiple prominent roles in Devo 2.0 (which is notable on its own regardless of why) and starring performances in commercials for notable companies. The merits of his presidential candidacy should have no bearing on the outcome of this AFD. The question here is whether he satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER due to "multiple" significant roles in entertainment, and by virtue of the two significant roles alone, he meets that criteria. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how those roles can be considered notable. Moonboy54 (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The roles do not need to be notable, they have to be significant. Lead guitarist is a significant role in a band that has already been established as notable due to coverage in reliable sources. Starring roles are also significant roles in commercials for multiple notable companies.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length of my first posting, I'll not repeat my earlier points here. I'll just list a few questions and direct comments.

Devo 2.0 The guidelines at WP:Music state (at the end of the first section) Note that members of notable bands are re-directed to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Mr. Saturn, even if you consider Devo 2.0 to be independently notable, can you give us any reason to ignore this well-established guideline?

It's not being ignored. Band membership is not the only claim of notability. There are additional claims of notability including acting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film actor The guideline at WP:ACTORBIO requires evidence of "multiple" significant roles. So far, we have been pointed to only one film (Unidentified). The subject article points us to another -- an appearance on a television show. But the article for that show ( here) doesn't mention the subject, either as a member of the main cast or as a recurring character. Indeed, even the fancruft page giving an entire list of characters who appeared on the show doesn't mention the subject. As things stand right now, the only evidence we have that the subject appeared in an episode of that show comes from IMDB (and specifically, an IMDB biography that is credited to "Agent").

I cited above to WP:ENTERTAINER. The subject is notable for more than just being an actor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercials Aside from the question of whether an actor can be notable for appearing in a few television commercials, there is the problem of verifiability. As you know, it is not enough for a statement to be true, it must also be verifiable from third-party sources. All we have in the article are statements made by the subject in interviews. As primary (i.e. first-person) sources, they are not acceptable. Before typing this post, I went to the web site for AdWeek (a trade publication for the advertising industry) and checked their on-line archive. That archive goes back to the late 90s, thus spanning the subject's acting-in-commercials period. There is nothing there, not even a passing mention. Mr. Saturn, can you point us to anything, whether in the trade publications or the mainstream media, that provides significant coverage of the subject's career in commercials?

I really don't know enough about this to respond. I actually found the commercial discussed on one of the magazine interviews on the website you mentioned [7].--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political campaign In your earlier response, Mr. Saturn, you stated that "the merits of [the subject's] presidential candidacy should have no bearing on the outcome of this AFD". Perhaps that was a concession that the subject has failed to establish notability under WP:NPOL (and if I've misinterpreted your statement, please correct me). But my point here is that, whether or not you are conceding the issue, the article itself makes no such concession. The subject's political activities are the first thing mentioned in the introduction and there is a separate section devoted to his political campaign (and the amount of text devoted to that section is roughly on a par with the amount of text in the "entertainer" section). The article's only external link goes to the official web site for the subject's political campaign and there is a navbox that lists the subject as a candidate for "US Presidential election, 2016". This article is very much about the subject's candidacy. And given that his age makes him ineligible for office, the fringe nature of the candidacy should have a bearing on the outcome of this discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"given that his age makes him ineligible for office, the fringe nature of the candidacy should have a bearing on the outcome of this discussion" - Absolutely not. It is not appropriate for wikipedia to exclude candidates based on age. If reliable sources list someone as a candidate, then they should be listed regardless of whether anyone agrees with the content of the campaign or believe the candidate is ineligible for the office. Several presidential candidates have attained ballot access (such as Peta Lindsay) despite being under 35.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the motive for this nomination has been called into question by User:William S. Saturn above, I (as the nominator) would like to clarify that there is no "political animus" involved. User:NewYorkActuary has accurately assessed that "the political activity of the subject is precisely what caused the page to start getting more views, and the nomination might be the simple result of someone seeing it for the first time". Yes, I was unaware of this page until the subject was listed as a candidate. I concluded he was non-notable after reviewing the sources for the entire article, not just the ones for his candidacy (note I referred to WP:MUSIC in the nomination statement). I still stand by that position, and note that much of the sourcing for his music/entertainment career is largely based on IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source because it is largely user-generated (see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb).--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not seeing the notability here. SOXROX (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't see signicant coverage in sources that satisfy WP:RS.--Newbreeder (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep. Even if it could be argued that his acting or political ventures by themselves are not notable (and that's certainly disputable, since his article has been up for a long time with only the acting), I think the two careers combine definitely lead to notability. Academic Challenger (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Having multiple careers, even in entertainment and related fields, does not ensure notability. The careers, or at least one, must clearly meet notability guidelines. The age of an article is no indicator of notability, either. It has been pointed elsewhere in this conversation that the page received a very low number of views until recently.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No establishment of notability. Significant coverage in sources meeting the WP:RS threshold is just not there.--4scoreN7 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since this is not a vote I assume all the people above misapplying Wikipedia policy by ignoring the truth that Nathan Norman actually fulfills the requirements of WP:Entertainer will be disregarded. --Giant Bernard (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER is passed on the basis of reliable source coverage. No notability claim on Wikipedia ever confers a freebie on a person who can be sourced only to blogs, IMDb and his own website. A claim does not automatically pass an inclusion criterion just because it's made — the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim is what gets a person past ENTERTAINER, not the claim itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see interviews on Starry Constellation Magazine and SilberMedia. I do not believe these can be classified as "blogs, IMDb and his own website." Starry Constellation Magazine is sourced on a total of 35 wikipedia pages. SilberMedia is sourced on 11 wikipedia pages. Furthermore, I do not believe the New York Post, Irregular Times, The Green Papers, and Politics1.com would fall into that category either.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of those fall into the category of WP:QUESTIONABLE or WP:USERGENERATED. Of the ones you listed, the New York Post comes closest to being an RS in itself, but it is often treated with suspicion as such because of its tabloid-ish style and the countless high-profile lawsuits and controversies its content has sparked over the years. Besides, it only mentions the subject once, does not give significant coverage. The others don't have a an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and so cannot be classified as RS in and of themselves. They may be useful for verifying non-controversial information, but are insufficient for establishment of notability. Thus, in my judgment, the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with the subject don't count toward satisfying WP:GNG — they represent the subject talking about himself, rather than other people with fact checking capabilities and a lack of vested interest talking about him, and are therefore subject to the same problems as any other PR-style source. Interviews are acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article already contains enough independent sourcing to pass GNG — but they cannot be the foundation of the article's sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more reliable sources I found:

http://davisclipper.com/bookmark/25957143-Role-heightened-actor-s-spirituality
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/16-stones/Film?oid=3333455
http://www.journalinquirer.com/archives/new-generation-devo-performs-at-buckley/article_fc6e7d01-f78d-5c0b-80d9-8ed25cc8ece3.html
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Are-we-not-kids-2539581.php
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/09/iprs-troll-vernon-starts-his-own-blog/
http://pittcountynow.com/addon/tv&p=5&tvid=4610&episode=2&tvseason=1&tvname=Hannah%20Montana
http://www.allmusic.com/artist/nathan-norman-mn0000115853/credits
http://www.smh.com.au/news/music/a-new-age-for-the-new-wave/2006/03/22/1142703448155.html
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=20060321&id=q6MkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=azsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3754,2318000&hl=en

--Giant Bernard (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extra citations. But most of them merely confirm the subject's membership in Devo 2.0. That membership has never been in dispute. The real issue is how much (if any) notability can be inherited by the subject based on that membership. And the notability guidelines for musicians tell us that the answer is "none". Regarding the additional film appearance, 16 Stones has the same problem as does Unidentified. If you look at the posters for those two films (here and here), you find that the subject does not appear on either of them (either in the picture or in the listing of the main cast). This tells us that, in both cases, even the producers of the films did not think that the subject's role was significant. But my main reason for writing this post is to address the AllMusic citation. There is a reason why AllMusic is not considered a reliable source, and your citation is a perfect illustration. The three drummer credits are not to the subject, but to a same-named jazz drummer active in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. (You can see a picture of that other person by scrolling down to the bottom of this page.) NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am showing that Nathan Norman has been cover in reliable sources for his significant roles. I think 16 Stones is notable even though it is a red link. The Davis Clipper felt the role significant enough to merit a report on its effect on Nathan Norman's faith. --Giant Bernard (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created 16 Stones and so it is a red link no more. --Giant Bernard (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like now even if you discount the commercials, the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" of WP:ENTERTAINER is satisfied by the significant role in the notable production Devo 2.0 and the significant role in notable film 16 Stones. Therefore, notability is established and so the page should be kept.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Is the Nathan Norman who has a role in 16 Stones the same Nathan Norman who was in Devo.2 and in commercials, and the same person who is running for president? Because going by the sources, it's virtually impossible to tell whether they are all the same person. NewYorkActuary demonstrated above there is more than one musician named Nathan Norman. And a search on Google or Facebook will reveal that there are multiple persons having that name. What's confusing is that person who is the subject of The Davis Clipper article is described as being a life-long resident of Utah. In October 2014, he is said to be living "in North Salt Lake", but the presidential candidate of the same name says on his website that he is from Scranton, PA. While it's not inconceivable that he could have relocated within the past year, he also states on the site "I grew up in a lower middle class family in Scranton" which is completely at odds with what is reported in the Davis Clipper (which says Norman "grew up in West Point and has also lived in Centerville" - both towns in Utah). Also note the Clipper article makes no mention of a musical career, or his previous entertainment endeavors, so it's difficult to know for certain if it's the same person from Devo.2 & commercials. At the very least, I'm finding it highly difficult to believe that the person in The Davis Clipper article is the same person as the presidential candidate. Aside from the clear discrepancies noted above, the vastly different persona and demeanor that comes across of that of the subject in the aforementioned article and that of the candidate - exhibit A, exhibit B - along with the latter's noted tendencies to troll and use fake names (see exhibit A and B), there is more ample reason to find it dubious that the two are the same person.

In the event that the article is kept, the above-noted discrepancies will need to be resolved through verification in reliable secondary sources, or removal of primarily/unreliably sourced content. Otherwise, we leave Wikipedia open to potentially significant and contentious WP:BLP issues.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all that being said, I add that while there is indeed significant coverage in the Davis Clipper article, that particular publication is a small weekly newspaper that falls into the WP:QUESTIONABLE category. Although, in the above words of Bearcat, "acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article already contains enough independent sourcing to pass GNG", insufficient for establishment of notability. I remain unconvinced that notability has been established, per WP:ENTERTAINER or otherwise.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted him on his campaign page and he pointed me to some of those sources. He did disclaim that the allmusic.com drummer was not him. --Giant Bernard (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giant Bernard, if you're looking for more cites, a list of them appears here. They're from The Saturnalian, a blog run by a "William S. Saturn". NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source unfortunately.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read through the entry and while he has set himself up to be an entertainer, he is just not that notable as of yet. As for seeking the U.S. Presidency, he is a bit too young. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John David Bland[edit]

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

Actor biography which appears to fail WP:BIO. Speedy per WP:CSD#A7 was declined because his acting appearances in notable productions were deemed a sufficient claim of notability, but I'm not finding substantial coverage of him specifically. Sole provided reference thus far is his entry at IMDb, which is not a reliable source. His most prominent role was in Tropical Heat--given that the series was a cult hit in Serbia and the article creator is Serbian (per his user page), I might suggest to him (or others) to come up with an article on Mr. Bland in that language if possible, but that seems like a stretch given how little I could find in English. --Finngall ^talk 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as there's nothing to suggest improvement and it seems his longest work may've been Sweating Bullets but he's not mentioned there so we'll have to delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In my closing, I ignored the !vote by Bluesangrel, which is not policy-based. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jabs Newby[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Played for a small division 3 school in college and the NBL is semi-professional and not listed in WP:NBASKETBALL for automatic notability. A search for sources turns up with WP:ROUTINE coverage or coverage from non-independent league sources or other localized sources. Pokerkiller (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the National Basketball League of Canada is classified as a fully professional league, and it is quite popular in many of its teams' cities, especially London and Windsor. Several former NBA players have competed there, as seen in this article, and far more have made significant impacts on major NCAA Division I basketball teams. Newby played at the D-I program at Eastern Kentucky and was one of the top picks in the 2014 NBL Canada draft. This article is currently a stub and non-routine coverage, like this feature article, could easily be found with some expansion. I also feel like some of the guidelines on WP:NBASKETBALL are flawed, especially #3, which involves the Continental Basketball Association (CBA). TempleM (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- See my reply to Editorofthewiki below .One source doesn't indicate notability. Pokerkiller (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping the guy. The Canadian league is, indeed, a fully professional basketball and it's been since it's foundation, it's a league in a growing process, the player is young and can progress in his career.Intruder007 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a policy based reason for keeping the article? Pokerkiller (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator note, Intruder007 was canvassed in his talk page in order to participate in the AFD. Pokerkiller (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, I'd just stay away from the canvassing accusations and let the AfD stand or fall on its own merits. It's one editor and you could make the case he/she meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't matter if NBL Canada is a "fully professional league," that's not how WP:NBASKETBALL works (that's the wording of WP:FOOTY). NBL Canada is not a league that assumes notability, the player needs to meet WP:GNG. I haven't had a chance to look into GNG for this player, but will do so and make a vote. I can tell you that the article is going to require more independent reliable sources than it has today. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's claims aren't credible: Newby began his collegiate career in Division I and never played in Division III. The NBL is a fully professional league, not semi-professional. In addition to the source TempleM listed, I found this, this, this and this to establish he meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Division II not Division III my mistake, but still the four sources you listed are Wp:Routine coverage that mentions Newby in a passing content, all four of the sources are either one sentence (or in the fourth source two sentences) mentions regarding a transaction or a all-rookie mention. You should know better that none of these four sources count towards WP:GNG. Only the source TempleM, who is the article creator, mentions counts towards GNG, and it's rather weak as a human interest story from the very local newspaper. One source doesn't meet GNG, multiple sources does, give me more proof of significant coverage and I'll withdraw my vote, but until then he don't meet our guidelines. Pokerkiller (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly wouldn't qualify the third as being routine since it details the trade, how the team planned to use Newby, etc. the fourth I guess you could arge to be trivial. I have also found this Italian source which concers Newby and I wouldnt consider to be trivial. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Italian source is also a passing mention Pokerkiller (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not sure if you would consider this a "passing mention," but Yahoo! Sports has a few paragraphs on Newby's name in this article. TempleM (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - College basketball's 10 most interesting names? I wouldn't put that as significant coverage, or even a reliable source despite coming from Yahoo. Pokerkiller (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        How about this one at Our Sports Central, which is a reliable source for minor league sports? It includes a brief summary of Newby's career and a quote in two somewhat long paragraphs. TempleM (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There's no use going into the WP:NBASKETBALL debate because all articles need to pass GNG anyway, its a guideline that assumes (often wrongly in my eyes) a player from a certain league receives sufficient coverage to make him notable, it doesn't confer notability by itself. There are a few sources, some in depth (I wouldn't be confortable with the Italian source being used, its a fan website, not a reliable source) but I would like to see a few more in depth articles before being convinced. I did a quick search and didn't find more that what was given, though my knowledge of Canadian newspapers is nearly bare. If its not possible to find decent coverage of a player who has been based in two-English speaking (and basketball-following) nations than he's not notable enough. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArmstrongJulian: Here are some reliable sources that aren't included in the article yet: [8], [9], [10]. TempleM (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of this personal opinion nonsense. Enough with that. If he plays in a fully pro league, he meets the standard and deleted the article is a violation of site etiquette and just trying to destroy other editor's work for no reason.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Escapade (programming language)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The one external link provided is a dead link. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has existed since December 2003 but has hardly gotten much better improvement and because of the name, searching is not easy but the best I seemed to find is this. Unless better can be found, I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No establishment of notability, no references, no improvements in a very long time. I can't find any working references (the one deadlink reference appears to have been archived by the Internet Archive either). Rwessel (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the sake of completeness, this article was recent restored to its current form, after having been reduced to an (inappropriate) redirect last December. I originally nominated that redirect at RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_10#Escapade_.28programming_language.29. Rwessel (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imhyre Kértez[edit]

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

This article came from a longer unsourced article in the Spanish Wikipedia. I can't find sources about or mentioning Imhyre Kértez that don't copy information from Wikipedia or are reliable sources. This was made by an IP user in the Spanish Wikipedia, with probably no expansion since its edits. Also can't find anyone else with the Imhyre name. Perhaps checking with a genuine list of people who performed in the National Theatre in Warsaw historically or examining extra details in the other article could be ways to check if this person existed. TheGGoose (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails WP:V, and may well be a hoax. The original article in the Spanish Wikipedia includes additional paragraphs that read more like a ghost story. Among other alleged statements from the Spanish Wiki:
- The subject and his family decided against fleeing to Argentina and instead hid inside a basement for months, only to run out of supplies when the German invasion and occupation lasted months longer than expected.
- The scene suddenly shifts from the basement of the dwelling to the attic.
- While nearing death, presumably by starvation (which supposedly occurred on Christmas 1939), the subject wrote texts on the walls of the attic about "the existence of God, human suffering, and nirvana."
- Later, in 1942, a German official took over and remodeled the building, but a week after painting the walls, the subject's writing began to show through. The officer left the building saying that "strange things happen."
- In 1948, a Polish entrepreneur (itself unlikely, under Communism) bought the building and discovered the text, compiling it and ordering 200 copies to be printed "in the Bünisthe Tulin" (a phrase not found anywhere else on Google). Because "other strange events were reported," residents closed down and preserved the attic.

No evidence to support any of this appears online. As noted above, "Imhyre" does not appear to be an authentic name; conceivably, the name could have been suggested by the actual Nobel laureate Imre Kertész. The original Spanish-language article was created in May 2004 by an IP with no other edits. Since in-depth fields of scholarly research have developed surrounding victims of the Nazis in World War II, it seems unthinkable that a story like this one (particularly since the subject was supposedly a prominent actor in Warsaw) would have totally escaped notice in reliable sources. Likewise, no references exist for the subject's writings, the preservation of the building or even the location where the events allegedly took place. Counting the Spanish-language version, this appears to be the longest-lived known hoax on Wikipedia. Calamondin12 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply asolutely nothing and searches found nothing. I'm a Spanish speaker so I would've found good sources and what is also interesting is that he was Hungarian-Spanish and yet no apparent sources from either side and thw IP was from Buenos Aires, Argentina (unless they were traveling, that's quite far from both Hungary and Spain) and no further edits which is not helping their case. Pinging user who added and translated RichardMills65. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm including a quick link to the article's Spanish-language Wikipedia version for anyone interested to view. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I just tagged it for G3, so this article should banish soon based on the discussion.~~ I'm curious if the Spanish article will be deleted as well, and if the list of hoaxes can include hoaxes on from non-English Wikipedias. TheGGoose (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I also see that the article creator, User talk:emijrp, has a long history of translating non-notable stubs from other Wikipedias. Ravenswing 21:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it's clearly a hoax Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure if it's a hoax... but if it is it's not a notable hoax. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW, WP:A10, WP:G12, WP:G3 apply, so I'm closing this now. —SpacemanSpiff 19:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RjArjun[edit]

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

Delete. Person not notable. Appears to be a case of ~~WP:CITEKILL~~ WP:BOMBARD. I checked first 20 references cited and none even had mention of RJ Arjun. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like hoax article with non related references.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article creator had created pages RjLuxArjun and Rj LuxArjun earlier today which was marked for CSD (and deleted). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References used in the articles are seems to be WP:BOMBARD to hoax the notability. It also fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. In addition, the references are talking about RJ Balaji and is a copyvio which has to be nominated under CSD G12, @AKS.9955: have you noted? — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes @Sanskari:. I did notice that but by that time I had filed for AfD already and refrained from reverting the AfD tag. I am sure this will get deleted. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's very common.

. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanpara as a district[edit]

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

Unremarkable political opinion piece. Just doesn't quite fit into any Speedy Deletion categories or I'd have gone that route. --Non-Dropframe _talk 12:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 'Unremarkable' is a generous description. Pity this couldn't be speedy-deleted. I also note that the article author has been deleting the AfD tag on the article, NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I already speedied it once as it adds nothing to the article on Nanpara. Deb (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's hardly much here and hardly much improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bletchley Park. As an alternative to merge given that there is no sourced content to merge. Sam Walton (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Park Cipher[edit]

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

Unremarkable cipher. Article appears to be based on the author's original research. No claim of significance. --Non-Dropframe _talk 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least merge into Bletchley_Park#Intelligence_reporting. There is not enough here to stand alone as a separate article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Bletchley Park. Insufficient coverage to have a separate article, and it's not an entirely unreasonable search term. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- too NN to be worth an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Corporate Games[edit]

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

I ran across this whilst dealing with the contributions of a corporate account promoting the World Corporate Games, of which this appears to be a subdivision. There appears to be very little in the way of independent sourcing regarding this event, and it would appear that the only significant contributors to this article are employees of corporate-games.com. This appears to fail WP:EVENT; there is no evidence that it has any notable historical impact nor that it has received widespread coverage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I found nothing better than these [http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=UK+Corporate+Games links. BTW, it's good to see you around Yunshui. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice to creation of a comprehensible article on the topic which may be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptic model[edit]

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

This is nonsense, isn't it? Speedy was declined, but... try reading it! I'm pretty sure it doesn't make sense in English, even in scientific/psychology circles. No real references, no context! Stephenb (Talk) 12:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's written from a hollistic point of view --Cristi215 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Holistic point of view" or not, it fails as an encyclopedia article, as I'm none the wiser having read it. Damned if I know what the subject really is and the bluelinks go nowhere useful. Jargon is not a substitute for straightforward explanation to a general audience. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is poorly written, but the concept is real and published in philosophy. I did a quick search because this theory also seemed similar to a plot point of my favorite book, Anathem, which does base the fiction on real (if strange) philosophiCal theories of mind and quantum states. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title is potentially a subject for an article, perhaps. The content is nonsense, however. I believe other recent edits by this user demonstrate this, too Stephenb (Talk) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any usable content or any prospect that any usable content will show up. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this is a real term, this article has nothing to do with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as G4 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JaiKNair[edit]

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

She's only the winner of Zee Tv, so i cannot find any importance of why this article should be there on Wikipedia. Also the references doesn't provide any importance of article. Josu4u (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She ? Jai is a male dancer and choreographer in Bollywood movies . So I think he can have a wikipedia page . He is famous in his field.

Johnywalker005 (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've actually speedied this because it's basically Jai Kumar Nair which has been nomianted for AfD twice once of which I participated and voted deleted. This may need to actually be salted as it's getting close to happening too many times (three times is a bit much especially with basically no improvement). SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oxfordshire Senior Football League. Sam Walton (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adderbury Park Football Club[edit]

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

Suggest redirecting to Oxfordshire Senior Football League, non-notable club JMHamo (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Just about a plausable search term, but the club itself, per WP:FOOTYN has not competed at a sufficiently high level to be independantly notable. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable topic; redirecting works just as well. Giant Snowman 17:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not played at a notable level of football and fails WP:GNG too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - remind me User:Fenix down what the appropriate level is. I thought it was Level 10 - which this team spent 3 seaons in according to [11] in Hellenic Football League Division One West. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Level ten is normally taken to be the benchmark for notability, but that is because it is the lowest level for entry into the FA Cup, as noted here and therefore fulfilling the requirement in WP:FOOTYN that a team has played in a national competition. I am not sure what level the Hellenic Football League was at prior to the 2004-05 reorganisation of non-league football, so there is only one season where I can be certain the club would have been eligible for the FA Cup. However, I can find no indication that they entered in any of the three seasons and so would not fulfill FOOTYN. I don't really see anything to satisfy GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

Renamed to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident.

Let me start by thanking the 126 people who have contributed to this discussion. Opinions here were divided in four main camps: delete, definitely rename, keep with no mention of renaming, and keep but also consider renaming. Of these groups, the most common opinion (about 1/3) was from people who felt the article should be deleted, usually with a reference to WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SINGLEEVENT or a similar rationale. The second most common opinion (about 1/4) came from those who felt we should keep this article but that it should definitely be renamed to focus of the incident rather than the individual. The renaming group often gave very similar rationales to the deletion group, but felt that having an article dedicated to the incident (rather than a biography page) would be sufficient to address the BLP1E concerns. About 1/5 of participants felt the article should be kept as a biography page, with a number arguing that Ahmed Mohamed’s notability in someway exceeded a single event threshold. Most of the remaining opinions came from people who seemed to be okay with either keeping the page as is or renaming it.

Due to expressed concerns by others about sockpuppets and new editors in this discussion, I checked the edit count of everyone that participated here and also noted that two accounts are presently blocked. 20 of the comments came from inexperienced users, and these split 8/12 for keep / delete. Given the very large participation here, I don’t think these views were common enough to influence the outcome.

With only about 1/3 of participants favoring outright deletion, I think it is clear that there is no consensus for that outcome at this time. However, the essential rationale offered by most of the people favoring deletion, i.e. that Ahmed Mohamed lacks the notability sufficient for a biography, is a serious concern, and one that was mirrored by many of the people who favored renaming the article. Though only a handful of the delete votes mentioned renaming as an alternative option, I am going to assume that many of these participants would agree that renaming is better than keeping the nominal biography as is. Given that, plus the many editors who explicitly mentioned renaming, I have concluded that renaming and refocusing the article on the incident is the compromise outcome that comes closest to a consensus.

Having concluded that renaming seems the most appropriate outcome of this discussion, I had to choose a title. The most commonly mentioned new title was Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. However, some people have expressed a concern that this choice is either a BLP problem or technically inaccurate due to questions of how an “arrest” is legally defined in Texas. Given those concerns, I chose to go with the second most common suggestion Ahmed Mohamed clock incident as an interim choice that no one seemed to object to. Along with the move, editors should be advised to rewrite the article to remove biographical elements not relevant to the current incident.

To be clear though, this new name is not intended as a final name choice. The recently started move discussion at the article talk page, should be allowed to continue and reach a more definitive conclusion.

Thanks again to everyone who participated. Dragons flight (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohamed (student)[edit]

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

~~Delete WP:SINGLEEVENT Action Hero Shoot! 10:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: vote from blocked sock stricken. For full disclosure, I did !vote keep. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a vote, it was the nomination. --McGeddon (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article sparked massive outrage, went up to Obama and Zuckerberg supporting it. If need be, merge it into Islamophobia in the United States or rename it to an article about the incident. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with your argument (see my !vote below) but I believe you mean't the incident sparked massive outrage, not this article. Thank you for your participation here, sincerely! Juneau Mike (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelh2001:, Aah yes, my mistake. I meant incident, and ended up typing article. Oops. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:SINGLEEVENT is about "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both", it is not a standalone reason to delete an article about an individual. You possibly meant WP:BLP1E, but the follow-up reactions including a White House invitation would, I think, count as multiple events. --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move with redirect National significance and attention linked, at least by the media, with substantial existing sociopolitical factors. Not on the order of a flurry of articles about a person who rescued a kid from a burning building that doesn't give an impression of significance in the grand scheme of things. Likely to be cited for a long time ahead. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the discussion of the event rather than the student being the notable topic here. When it comes to the choice of a name for the article, then I don't know that there's any more likely a name under which people would be searching for the article than the kid's name. Of course, his name could be redirected to the article under another title. The title notwithstanding, the topic is firmly notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, if the article is redirected, which would most likely be a move, it would be an automatic redirect. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E – Mohamed is an otherwise low-profile individual known only for this one event. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator blanked this page and removed the AfD template from the article an hour ago - this was reverted and the user was advised to follow WP:WDAFD instead. --McGeddon (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as this seems to be a textbook WP:BLP1E situation. There was a mention in the MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas) article, which seems entirely appropriate for now. Until and unless Mohamed receives coverage for something else, there's no need for a standalone article. The reaction coverage is still about the single event. We don't have an article for Andrew Joseph Stack even though there was a ton of reaction reported in the news because he was just known for the single event. This is even less significant than that event. There's also a strong case to be made against this due to the fact Mohamed is a minor. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does him being a minor have to anything with the article? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MINORS might be relevant, though it isn't policy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I had in mind. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went thru that page earlier, but it seems to offer nothing significant to this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion, as the amount of coverage for this has continued to grow. Now I'd say rename to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, as the incident itself passes WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [12] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "to-may-toe" the rest of the world says "arrested" - including the major Texas newspapers Houston Chronicle: "The 14-year-old Irving ISD student was arrested. " Dallas Morning News: "Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought " Austin Statesman: "Irving police arrested MacArthur High School freshman " El Paso Times :A 14-year-old Muslim boy has been arrested in North Texas . That Texas statutes may play with special terminology for their arrest of minors, doesn't matter to Wikipedia WP:EUPHEMISM / WP:JARGON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: No, it's real issue regarding BLP. Regardless of JARGON or EUPHEMISM, we cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice. Ahmed "has never been arrested" and he can truthfully state that on applications, or court or anywhere else where an arrest is a disqualifying condition. Ten days after being taken in custody, his fingerprints and photographs will be destroyed. Juvenile law has semantic differences for the same reason we have BLP policies. The largest difference is that it's not an arrest and the "charges" for adjudication is for delinquency, not "hoax bomb." Juvenile court would only have a finding of "delinquent" or "not delinquent." The premise for taking him into custody was that his act, had it been committed by an adult, was a crime - but juveniles are not charged with adult crimes in Juveniles court nor do they face the same penalties of incaceration or fines. The semantics are very important if someone searches for his name based on a job application and this comes up as an "arrest" and they believe he lied on the application when he answered "No." If a source is claiming an "arrest" it needs to be in their voice and certainly not in the title. Police software for reports in Texas won't even allow "arrest" as a disposition for 10-15 y/o juveniles (but we only see that in the press release as the report is sealed - only "detained" or "taken into custody" are allowed and it's why the Irving Police press release didn't say "arrest"). --DHeyward (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, there is no BLP issues at all in representing what literally thousands of the most reliable sources around the world are reporting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we are WP:NOTNEWS. This page and text is supposed to last forever. We cannot say he has been arrested. In 20 years, it's WP:LIBELous and none of those news sources will remember Ahmed. It's knowingly false material (unless you can't read) and it's about a non-public person. If it costs him a job, it's absolutely shameful. --DHeyward (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so nice to see you concerned for people's reputations and well being. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See comment from Irving Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne, who said that the unreleased police report describes the event as "Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School"' [13]. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is why WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS exist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per Torchiest. shoy (reactions) 13:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
I don't understand how a mere mention on the MacArthur page merits this event. This thing has gone international, sparking outrage from all parts of the globe, has received response from POTUS, and non American people as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. The event may be notable, but an article on the person is pretty clearly WP:BLP1E since there is nothing else that makes him notable. If he goes on to do other great things, then an article about Mohamed the person can be written then. shoy (reactions) 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The event won't be notable the day after tomorrow. Tomorrow's football, Sunday is NFL, tonight's another Republican debate, Monday is probably Kardashian or Caitlyn Jenner. It was just an arrest: there will be no court case, no prosecution, no nothing. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [14] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That argument does not hold any water. An event is not notable just because it resulted in a prosecution. The event is notable because there is a very substantial number of sources both nationally and internationally covering the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is very notable because it's a BLP violation to claim he was arrested when Texas law specifically says juveniles are not arrested §52.01(b) and page 7 of the document explains why "taken into custody" is not "arrested". --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is well past the day after tomorrow for the day after tomorrow, and the event is still making headlines in various parts of the world. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Torchiest has changed their opinion, what's your rationale now? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The majority of the coverage on this individual is not about the actual event that occured. Significant amount of coverage is about the other social issues surround the case that made the arrest possible. These social issues include bigotry and the risk-averse priorities that could have an impact on possible progress as well as a discussion on how much energy should be invested in national security, and when such investments go too far. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles and biographies on individuals who are notable primarily because of their social impact. Since the social impact of this particular incident affects society at large, including a particular age demographic and ethnic demographics, it seems to be encyclopedic to me. If not, all the delete voters should put their money where their finger tips are and also nominate/vote to delete other BLP articles on individuals whose main contribution is their social impact. Also, WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH would apply since much content could be added on his notable relatives besides the subsequent notable propositions that have been made. Furthermore, he is the first person i have heard of who has been able to get so many scholarships, without the usual step of being awarded a standardised academically rigorous, internationally recognised qualification, an advanced educational body certificate or an equivalent entry-level framework test for admissions. Such uniqueness gives weight to the notion of his notability. And the arguments about privacy concerns are unconvincing due to the fact that his dad is quite high profile himself and has no qualms putting his son in the spotlight. And then redirecting would risk putting precious content at the mercy of trigger-happy bold editors who are deletionists. On a final note, the deletion discussion in itself is probably on shaky grounds due to the nominator having socked and his subsequent ill-advised behavior. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable individual. WP:BLP1E comet1440 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — comet1440 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and consider renaming to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. It is not clear yet if the individual himself is notable enough to have an article, but the arrest of him is certainly notable. Also, this event has already spurred other events, such as invitation of Mohamed to the White House, the Toronto Science Fair, etc. And each of these future events will have multiple, reliable sources covering them, so this event's notability is not short-lived.VR _talk 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [15] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Vice regent:. I was considering that and had created a discussion on the talk page, however before I could move, it got nominated here. Would appreciate some feedback there as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per concurring opinions above, although renaming of the article may be in order.Juneau Mike (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and possible move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed or Ahmed Mohamed clock incident - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [16] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename to incident. He does appear to be a member of a significant family, though, which could be a factor in keeping without renaming. BPK (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support deleting this article, the person is only notable for this particular event. If you must keep, then change the name to something appropriate to the event instead of person since it is widely reported about event. The incident itself may be blown out of proportion because he is Muslim. There were similar incidents previously where alarm clocks in lockers were falsely reported. Thanks Rajkancherla (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajkancherla: Which is why three users including me have suggested renaming the article. Yes, the issue is an issue because of the boys religion. Otherwise, it would have never occurred. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Torchiest's rationale. -- Chamith (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Torchiest has changed their opinion, what's your rationale now? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SINGLEEVENT - The individual is with no significant contribution except for the single news event which became a social media hype. This is a news event and to be directed to the news and events category for the MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas). When this individual does make significant contribution, it is appropriate for a page named after him. Bijtaj (talk)

~~Delete~~ as this is another single news WP:BLP1E WP:SINGLEEVENT situation gone viral. There is no substantial contribution of this individual other than the news created due to the social media hype. Instead it should be recorded under events or news possibly titled MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas) student arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijtaj (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Bijtaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [17] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bijtat apparently voted twice, moved together for consolidation. Dragons flight (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the wide coverage of the subject which satisfies WP:GNG, but rename to the incident rather than the biographical subject. Or if that fails as an option, it at least deserves mention on the school's article. Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. A mention at the high school's WP page is sufficient.173.218.58.224 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — 173.218.58.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Only a single event like this can't make a person notable enough to have a WP article on his/her name. But, as Barrack Obama, Marc Zuckerberg etc. influential persons has concentrated on this event or incident, so this incident or event can be an article. But the boy hasn't done any notable deed so that there should be a WP article created. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 17:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with User talk:Vice regent and User:Cwobeel above. We should keep the topic, but move the article name to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. The event has received significant coverage and is part of both a larger national discussion on race and religion as well as the history of the digital age (ie. stories about a young Steve Wozniak for example) - which makes it larger than a single news media event. In addition, as pointed out above, there are responses from President Obama, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and schools such as MIT. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [18] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I should add that I mentioned just Wozniak because he was really the early digital inventor - Steve Jobs helped him out and was a designer but was not a digital inventor in the same way as Wozniak when they were teenagers in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, comparisons are clearly fair for the article.-Classicfilms (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also; Spadikam. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Cool film, I will have to watch it.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does every novelty news story warrant a Wikipedia article? This one certainly doesn't. Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge with MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas). --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is not a vote - admins like to see people giving a reason, not just saying 'delete' or 'keep'. Robofish (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curious thta you chose to post this under a keep !vote and not under any of the delete !votes, which also are one lines with no explanation in many cases. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of my comment above, every other comment had a least a minimal rationale except the one I was replying to. (Even 'per someone else' is more than nothing.) Robofish (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E. I suggest keeping a section in the article about his high school. EngineerFromVega ^★ 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or delete: The debate has gone to level where it is almost impossible to take sides. So, it is my suggestion to either keep or delete but please close this debate asap.--Badnaam (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Badnaam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This discussion will only be closed early if it reaches a clear overwhelming consensus in one direction (which looks unlikely). Otherwise it will continue for the full seven days as is standard. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep as the event is being covered my multiple sources and has become an international sensation.Arifjwadder (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SINGLEEVENT. "Sparking massive outrage", "Being an internet sensation" does not make a low-profile individual notable. A mention in the institution's article would be more than enough. Faizan (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone bothered reading the comments about moving/redirecting the article? The article has vastly grown in the last few hours. People who are asking for delete on the bases of Singleevent or BLP1E, also read McGeddon stated. The occurrences, the reactions, the entire controversy is far greater than a mention on the school's page. As stated by a few others, and admitted by me, the incident is very much notable, even if the person is not. Also, I'm amused that users with fewer than 1000 edits are just popping up here and commenting delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep The event is significant and the individual's role is substantial and is well documented. Ahmed Mohamed, for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.--Fairview360
strong delete setting apart from what an encyclopedia is supposed to be is, as already said, a textbook example of WP:BLP1E, but also WP:10YEARS. As a personal note: this guy doesn't need all this kind of attention, he's already a victim, his life shouldn't become the battleground, even of such a noble battle as fight racism and xenophobia is.--Vituzzu (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Preferably Delete; but if kept, rename to be about the incident, not the person.~~ While receiving a personal comment from the President is unusual, on balance this doesn't seem to me like a clearly notable enough incident to justify its own article. For one thing, there's nothing more to say about it than there is at the moment; no one's been charged with anything, so this seems like a story likely to fade quickly. A mention in MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas) is appropriate, but not a separate article unless Mohamed goes on to achieve wider fame. If it isn't deleted/merged away, this article should be at least renamed to be about the event, per WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind on this one, the story has proved to have more 'legs' than I expected. Changing my position to keep, though I still think it should be renamed to be about the event, not the person. Robofish (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major news coverage. —Lowellian (reply) 00:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - sigh. Eeekster (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Please provide a proper rationale along with your opinion.--Chamith (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to an article about the event. We have one notable event here. The invitation to the White House is just part of the response to this event, and is not notable in its own right. The individual is not notable except for his involvement in the event. The current article focuses almost exclusively on the event. And the event is blatantly notable. The current name should be kept as a redirect page, because it's almost certainly linked to from many places outside WP by now. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep very notable event and recognition by POTUS and founder of Facebook.Alhanuty (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, loads of coverage of significant depth from literally thousands of secondary sources all over the planet. And here's some interesting reading from a little website called WhiteHouse.gov -- We Stand with Ahmed (and We Hope He'll Join Us for Astronomy Night). — Cirt (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This boy went viral and made the world news, therefore its in my opinion Wikipedia-material. User:KajMetz (talk)
- Wikipedia is not a viral news website. You can go to Buzzfeed if that's what you're looking for. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does de facto act as a news site, especially if it's the kind of event that you know will result in significant coverage in the future. Think about what has happened now: the President of the United States has made public statements in favor of this boy. There will be opinion articles, journal articles, and other pieces for years to come. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This will be important even ten years from now as a historic reference to the ongoing social changes and controversies in the US, particularly those involving minorities. For example Kim Davis (county clerk) still has her own article. NightShadeAEB (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid justification for an article. Unless you would like to show me your crystal ball, I don't see how you can predict the future on where the "turning point" in US opinion was. This is just another incident of decades-old discrimination in the US. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when you can accurately predict significant coverage. For example: if a passenger plane with hundreds of people disintegrates in midair, you will know instantly that there will be significant coverage and it will be notable. Also please note OTHERSTUFF exists is a valid rationale at times: for example if a similar topic survives AFD, it can be successfully used in an OTHERSTUFF exists rationale. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Don't let Wikipedia turn into Conservapedia. 135.23.189.197 (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move This should be moved to an article about the event. The coverage of this event may drop off rather quickly in the major media, but it will likely continue to be referred to occasionally, and is certainly notable. Someone reading about this a year or two from now, should be able to come to Wikipedia and find good NPOV info on the subject.Plvt2 (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic case of 1E. The young man is not notable by our standards. It's a shit storm in the media, but everything is a shit storm in the media (perhaps the authors of this article want to devote their attention to Summer of Trump?). So what if Obama tweeted about it too? That's what Twitter is--everyone does it, for everything. Redirecting to the "event" makes no sense either, since there really is no event by our (encyclopedic) standards. A redirect to the school is the most we need--and let us not inflate that school's article either. I wish we spelled NOTNEWS bold, and in all-caps. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a better name to priortize on the event, not the person.--Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. We need to uphold our guidelines which enjoy broad consensus, and not get carried away by the emotions of the moment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps rename to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed until he becomes notable for more than the one event. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [19] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What I thought was just a Facebook phenomenon at first turns out to be global now. Found references in Indian (TOI, HT, Hindi language (Jagran),) Pakistani (DAWN), Indonesian (Jakarta Post) sources, etc. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per what Rsriknth05 said--Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly more than just a single event, given the wider range of issues that this has raised, but also agree that it should be retitled Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [20] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider renaming to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, like another said. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [21] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Mahatma Gandhi was thrown out of Train meant only for White people. That important incident made him to bring revolution through nonviolent protest throughout his life. Similarly the story of Ahmed Muhammad relates to daily humiliation of millions of Muslims from the hands of hypersensitive people and it may result in some kind revolution in thought process towards innocent muslims, who have to bear the brunt from every side. It's therefore, strongly advised to keep this article. User:Haseebahmadkhan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Haseebahmadkhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. BLP1E and TOOSOON. The incident is mentioned in the article on the school; that's sufficient until Mohamed establishes notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So obviously notable it hurts. May need to evolve into an article about the incident, but no way it should be deleted. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - Remember Elián González (the Cuban boy). Ahmed Mohammad is likely to become more notable in the future just like Elián. I would worry about the so many real dumb articles that are not being deleted.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS keeps being used as an argument in this AFD. Regardless, whether or not someone is "likely to become more notable" is wholly irrelevant. When they become notable, they can have an article. We don't try to predict notability. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is why on earth would a school in America do this to a 14 year old student? After learning it was not a bomb, police are called to get him arrested and also suspended from school. It's shocking to the whole world and that makes it notable.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. If there is more to come on this person it can be revisited. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Large number of sleeper accounts are coming here. This AFD is a joke. Old accounts with few edits became aware of this AFD?.112.79.36.212 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the very definition of WP:BLP1E. Will you remember him a year from now? I suspect we'll see great things from him in the future, but he has not invented anything yet. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E/SINGLEEVENT does not mandate any particular outcome, but prescribes the criteria to be applied in particular circumstances like these. There's very little argument that the subject does not meet the GNG -- for good reason, since being the subject of front-page articles in virtually every major American newspaper and the subject of lead coverage in multiple national network evening news broadcasts is essentially irrefutable. The coverage raise two distinct sets of issues, the more prominent relating to Islamophobia, but also a less prominent but still quite important discussion regarding the barbarous stupidy of school officials who insist that their uninformed reactions to students who actually have done nothing wrong still justifies punishment. (For a rare example of school officials actually owning up to overreacting (albeit a bit grudgingly), see the update here [22].) This is the kind of discussion that makes reasonable outside observers view Wikipedia governance as idiocy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The events surrounding this individual in 2015 are highly significant to the USA and worthy of an article. If the article is not deemed to be worthy due to undue weight on a single event in the life of this otherwise not WP-noteworthy individual, the article should be renamed to reflect the event instead of the person. Again, keep the article, rename away from the person if needed. Rr parker (talk)
Keep and rename to perhaps Incident at MacArthur High School (2015). As being the events surrounding one person, WP:BASIC is exceeded and WP:PERP tells us that an article is not automatically disallowed by being a BLP1E. My thought is that this exceedingly well-sourced article should be less about the boy, and more about the ignorance and overreaction of those set in authority who do NOT understand the science or persons they were set to judge. The teacher messed up. The school administration messed up. The police messed up. Mistakes by authority happen, and such blatant errors need to be seen under a strong light. Sad that it took their errors to get him a presidential invite to The White House. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to comply with BLP1E. The event here is significant as it is widely covered in diverse sources and meets criteria laid out at WP:EVENTCRIT. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People should only ask for a delete if they think there is no hope that there will ever be significant coverage of a subject. Once the President of the United States makes public statements in favor of this person, it's guaranteed that there will be significant coverage in the future, if not today. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep & rename but protect. I just know this is going to be a hotbed for edit warring & POV-pushing from both sides of the issue (the people who cry "ISLAMOPHOBIA" and those who think there was a good reason to be suspicious of the kid). Rename to something like Michael Q. Schmidt suggested. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite - This should not be a biography. The incident is notable, the individual is not (possibly in the future). --George100 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename: It can be kept because person is covered by many news papers across the world. Frankly speaking I wanted to create this article on that student. Anyway, but in any case instead of deleting, as per User:MichaelQSchmidt above renaming it to Incident at MacArthur High School (2015) can be a better option. (Or we can wait, Obama and Zuckerberg invited him, If Jimbo also invites him then it will be strong reason to keep this article. ) --Human3015^TALK 13:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I searched for Ahmed Mohamed on Wikipedia because I thought (rightly) that I would find a better digest of information on this case than in any single press outlet. Happy to see the article renamed, with a redirect from Ahmed Mohamed (student) Alarichall (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per the one-event rule; failing that we should rename the article to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed" or similar, because it's the event, not the individual, that possesses notability. I'd caution participants in this discussion to avoid arguments based on furthering social goals against xenophobia, because—as worthy a cause as that is—per neutral point of view it's not Wikipedia's place to be taking a stand on it. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [23] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a news event that will be forgotten in a few days. The individual involved doesn't appear to surpass the BLP1E bar. The incident is unlikely to have any lasting cultural or social significance. Deli nk (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed or Ahmed Mohamed incident or other appropriate title. I'm sympathetic to WP:SINGLEEVENT arguments with respect to BLP. But the episode unquestionably merits inclusion by Wikipedia's criteria (significant, world-wide coverage by numerous top-end reliable sources such as the NY Times, BBC, and so on). It's as much or more about the reaction of the school district, public figures and others rather than the young man himself. If he becomes an award-winning engineer or otherwise notable in his own right we can revisit whether to have an article on him. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [24] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The individual is clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)][reply]
Keep, a clearly notable topic that has made international news. Like it or not, Wikipedia does in practice serve (among many other things) as a repository of information on many news events. Of course, as a biography, this would be a BLP1E, so I would strongly recommend that it be renamed to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed or similar. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [25] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The initial situation itself escalated, and then escalated into a notable socio-political event with a lawsuit probably in the offing. You never want to be on the wrong side of the phrase "the way the law is written," which is what happened to this kid, but it's both an excellent example of the law of unintended consequences and every cloud having a silver lining thanks to our saturated social media world -everyone has bandwidth. Too, some people simply have greatness, or at least fame, thrust upon them. I mean, jeeze, when I was 14, I wasn't even jacking off to Playboy yet! kencf0618 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SINGLEEVENT I vote delete because this falls under a single event. Most of what people are getting outraged about falls under half-truths and not the complete picture. If FERPA did not exist, the school would have been able to put out more info but as of now they have not. How will this event look in 6 months? In a year? 2 years? 10 years? Are they mad because of the kid was detained because of the device? Because the device looked like something as defined under current Hoax Bomb law? Or are they looking for outrage for Islamophobia? The latter is the case for many it seems, especially those wikipedians in other countries and wanting to push their own POV. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very snide/nasty comment to make about us non American editors. So we're POV pushing is it? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable comment and lack of WP:AGF. Your assumptions are misplaced, and only demonstrate a certain bias. Shameful. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse, but ADHOM aside, I think the point being made is that this event is no longer "single" nor minimal, as it and now has far-reaching ramifications and existing wide coverage. See WP:NNEWS. The triggering event has become many and is worthy of coverage. Considering the involved parties and the responses, the event is more likely to have continuing ramifications and affect. The violation of civil rights and free speech and presidential attention assure that we need not speculate about what might exist in 2 months or 2 years or 10 years sparked by this event. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I really dislike that the nominator is a confirmed sockpuppet, and I question the efficacy of continuing an AFD created by someone with an agenda. I suggest it be closed by ANYONE as No consensus with leave to be re-opened by a non-sockpuppet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (rename). This is indisputably a BLP1E, but the event is notable and needs an article. Arrest of Ahmed Muhammad seems like a good name. The use of changing the name is that it clarifies that we aren't providing a complete, balanced biography of the boy, but are looking at him through the lens of this event. Even so, I can definitely accept keeping it without a rename, should that be the consensus; deleting it would be unacceptable. Wnt (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [26] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to Closing admin: AfD stats is not showing my !vote or that of FairView360s. Please do make due consideration. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the seven days are over. Compare this article's coverage and links to similar incidents involving Islamic (Muslim) and non-Muslim students. If it is deleted, then we can either make a note of it, in the news section, the day it occurred on Wikipedia's homepage, and/or mention it in a (quite substantial) division of his high school's Wikipedia article. I do agree that while receiving a personal invitation from MIT, Facebook, and Obama, and being featured in the major and minor presidential debates and in a White House press briefing and in overseas/national newspapers is somewhat big, it doesn't always translate into a definitive case of notoriety- these people and groups issue many statements and commentaries, some of which are archived and forgotten. Until a few years ago, I would normally have agreed with the statement that Wikipedia is not meant for trivial news or other stuff, but that argument by the administration can't carry as much weight as it did years ago, when we still had at least two or three major not-online, print encyclopedias- if not more- still readily available for purchase on a worldwide basis, and before Wikipedia, which is now taken somewhat more seriously, even in academics, than it used to be by the public as a well-cited news source, accumulated the huge amount of news information and other information on local and regional news and happenings that it now has on an almost uncountable number of domestic and international events of many kinds- a sort of online transnational mega-almanac and public record, as well as an encyclopedia. I do agree that this matter will get more attention because he's Islamic, but that doesn't change the fact that it has achieved worldwide public notice, at least for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.153.31 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable person, per WP:1E. RGloucester — ☎ 02:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is incredibly obvious that this topic is notable – to the degree that it is hardly worth saying. The fact that the notability is associated with a single event (or set of closely related events) may be a reasonable argument for renaming the article, but deleting the article completely would make no sense. As far as I know, there is currently no separate article about the incident and its repercussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Straightforward, unequivocal example that should be deleted in full accordance with WP:BLP1E, and also WP:NOTNEWS WP:MINORS...all the keep votes violate WP:BLP1E and probably haven't read it for all its unambiguous worth. This is a story no one will remember a month from now...much less 10 years from now. Claiming this incident is notable or that it will have a lasting impact (or repercussions) is ludicrous. JackTheVicar (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. All 30+ of us who have voted keep are ignoramuses who know jack about policies. Yes, we understand. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E says that for such individuals "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." That is what I proposed in my Keep (merge) vote above. NOTNEWS says that breaking news "should not be treated differently" - it is not a call for the encyclopedia to be out of date. Wnt (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for same reasons as "Kim Davis (county clerk)" article exists. Either keep both or delete both. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUTX isn't considered as a valid reason to keep/delete an article. -- Chamith (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an active RM at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Interested parties are hereby invited to participate in that. But that's about renaming the article, not deleting it. Here we should also keep in mind the difference between renaming something and deleting it – per my own prior comment recorded above. I suggest that it is obvious we will not conclude here to delete this article entirely, after its huge amount of associated news coverage and responses by prominent public figures. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: That RM has been withdrawn, because apparently a content fork article (at Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy) had already been created with the incident as the topic. The RM had been submitted without awareness of that, so it didn't really make sense (unless the other article were to be deleted, which seems unlikely at this point). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Although I'm OK with renaming the article for the event, the information needs to be kept. This event has had too much coverage to let this article go away. (Oh, and Jimbo is watching this one per comments on his talk page, so be on your best behavior kids!) Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 10:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this biography is known merely for being at the center of news story that has gotten attention lately, but one that is likely to be forgotten soon. Gnome de plume (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. It doesn't matter whether people have "forgotten" or not. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this is an important piece of information which says something about fears and paranoias of the time we live in. It would be probably not included in traditional encyclopedias, but we are different, and we should/can afford document and cover this story in a professional manner to preserve a more detailed picture of the time we live in for future generations. Deletion would be unconstructive and uncreative, in this case. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly one event and "person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." (WP:PSEUDO). Gmcbjames (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just rename it to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed then? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wasn't arrested, he was detained. [27] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The event can be easily incorporated into another article with less than a couple of sentences with a redirect - putting the subject matter into proper context with appropriate weight. A separate article is a bit of a stretch for an event which will be forgotten by the next news cycle. Gmcbjames (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Massive Stealth canvassing is going here. 112.79.37.44 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This whole AfD is a sham. Newbie users, users who have been dormant for seven years, sockpuppets and what not have been trying to delete it, and made pathetic statements like non American users are POV pushing and don't understand policies. Then there are personal attacks also. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment - you realize, I hope, that Google searches of the name and incident are driving traffic to the article. Additionally, within Wikipedia, Jimbo's talk page is one of the most watched talk pages on the entire site -- and this AfD was mentioned there, by Jimbo, so that will drive more traffic to this AfD than is normal. That said, regardless of each of our positions on the matter, we still need to remain civil. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 21:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly rename). The incident is worth keeping; it has been covered in the national and international press. I don't feel strongly about the title though. "Ahmed Mohamed incident" would be fine. --Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All editors wanting to rename the article to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed" should realize the kid was never arrested, he was detained and taken into custody by the Irving PD. [28] Regardless of what reliable sources have stated, he was not arrested. Further, how can any of you comment on the validity of the article if you don't even know the simple facts of the case? Methinks too many Wikipedia editors of late are social media news skimmers rather than actual students of what's truly going on in the world. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many of them also seem to be showing up via the brigading or canvassing effect. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there actually a difference in Texas between being "arrested" and "taken into custody"? It is true that he wasn't charged, but that's a different matter? --174.88.134.156 (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody'll remember this in 10 years. WP:SINGLEEVENT and be done with it. Rcsprinter¹²³ (converse) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcsprinter123: It's not a biography, it's an article on an event. The title just happens to be that of the person involved. I'd move it myself, but I seem to recall that one isn't supposed to rename an article while the AFD is ongoing. And notability is not temporary. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete biography article, per WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It has been mentioned that there is a possibility of renaming the article to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed". Given that the subject is a minor, I think we should be judicious in the application of WP:NOTNEWS. Mr. Mohamed has the right to not be immortalized in an encyclopedia for his role in this dubious affair. Sławomir
Biały 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You got a point there. Imagine 10 years down the road trying to get a job someplace and people search for him and find this article. Not to say the hiring party won't find the info from a news search or basic background search as his finger prints were taken/processed, despite the outcome, the stigma is still there. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E NOTNEWS and there are tons of kids that draw pictures of guns that get detained and we don't need cruft like that. If he uses his clock to blow something up, we can add it later.^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - See WP:BLP and WP:TPG]} --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a nasty and useless comment. Shameful and refactored - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NotNews. A very unfortunate, and very forgettable, incident of no encyclopedic value. Further, there is WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Each of these —BY THEMSELVES— is reason for deleting this article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This is a classic storm-in-a-teacup that causes a short-lived media frenzy and will be forgotten in months. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rename to the event this is going to be one of the lasting events in the "Racist Texans" narrative [29] [30] [31] [32] (If you think you need to arrest someone because you think they have a bomb, at a minimum you are going to evacuate the fucking school) as well as the "conservatives are anti-intellectual" narrative and the "Americans willing to give up liberties for illusion of safety" narrative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the state of Texas, hoax bombs are illegal, much like what would happen if you are in a TSA line at an airport and say "I have a bomb". They didn't have to believe it truly was a bomb for this kid to be detained, the device just looking like a bomb was enough for the police to be involved. See here for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your apologetics for racism wont make it any less a part of the world's view of Texas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: There's no need to say WV's posting apologetics for racism. WV is just explaining how Texas does things, like it or not. Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "narratives"? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a biography, despite the title. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an attempt at a biography that's mostly about the clock. In any case, I'd think WP:NOTNEWS applies. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. Obviously this doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS (I wonder who even suggested it in the first place, because that idea is really stupid), though WP:BLP1E would be an issue unless you rename it. The arrest is obviously notable, so I don't know where all these delete votes came from. Epic Genius (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [33] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want to be technical... Detention of Ahmed Mohamed, then. Epic Genius (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for the content. Obvious notability. It's not so clear that it belongs in its own article, though. I think there needs to be a single article addressing this incident, and the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic, and others of the kind. If the separate article is retained then it could be reached by a "main article" link off that one. Currently bomb scare redirects to bomb threat, but I'm thinking that combining the two concepts is exactly the kind of thinking that got the kid arrested. If nobody intended a threat, then it's not the same thing as a threat, and there should be an article going into the consequences when it's treated as one. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident or similar. That avoids WV's oft-voiced concern about the legal terminology (possibly vs lay reporting and actual legal effect) of the word "arrest". Nothing about this person seems notable except this incident. But it is in lots of major national news, both the event itself and the resulting political response, soul-searching, social analysis, etc., relating to issues other than this person himself. So (at least for now) the event not the person would merit an article. If it winds up being ephemeral, we can always have a new RfD or merger discussion the future (which would take into account "notability not being transient" even if nobody winds up caring or talking about it later). Likewise, if the person himself spins this into a wider project or other activities (or somehow else becomes notable for other reasons entirely). DMacks (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He was handcuffed and moved to the police station; it was the arrest and the detention. The subject story is not the news that is the event, occurred with the subject because of his invention of the clock, the notable work of the Teener student. I do not doubt notability for the event of the subject that he passes. The suitable rename is Event of Ahmed Mohamed.Justice007 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Reasons have been mentioned before. I find it utterly hilariuos that some people are trying to put this under oneevent and Notnews category. These guys should understand that everything starts with "oneevent" and then snowballs. To be deleted from wikipedia after this much coverage on international media and long lasting effects on activism and possible changes to the law, anyone calling this a single event without longterm repercussions is just making his peers laugh out loud. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. But here's a funny idea. If "everything starts with "oneevent" and then snowballs," let's just have one article Big Bang and turn every other article on the wiki into a subhed. If this notion offends you, please chill and think of Foghorn Leghorn David in DC (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one event and not notable.--MONGO 08:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable now. Yann (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Politrukki (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, just temporary fame, It's a news event that will be forgotten in a few days and nobody care, we also delete this article in arwiki --Ibrahim.ID »» 10:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. See Zero tolerance (schools)#Media attention - there are other cases similar that this doesn't deserve coverage over, and other places a condensed version of the content can go. -- Callinus (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My compliments to whoever closes this. We've been thru this type of AfD very many times. But the early close by Bigtimepeace in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident (October 2009) counsels the correct action. Close as no consensus and wait, though there is a strong argument to also move to an "event" name, as the subject is only notable for that event.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI to all: A request to change the title of the article to focus on the incident rather than the person has been submitted. Interested parties are hereby invited to participate in the discussion of the appropriate name that the article should have (if it is not deleted). The discussion of the name of the article should, at least primarily, take plate at Talk:Ahmed Mohamed (student) (not here). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. More canvassing from you? Really??? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as canvassing to be honest. Given that several users who have !voted Delete have said they support an article about the event, BarrelProof is merely informing people here of the debate. I see nothing wrong with it. Why are you making such a big fuss about everything? The very fact that the article talk and the AfD are so long shows clearly that there is more to the article than just BLP1E. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not canvassing. Anyone can participate at Talk:Ahmed Mohamed (student)#Requested move 21 September_2015. If the article is kept, the next step could be a move. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If its "canvassing", its useful canvassing, WV. The event is going to be on wikipedia, let's give it a proper name. I heard you maybe don't like "Arrest"? LOL.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. This is NOT a vote to delete, but I can't exactly vote to keep, either, as this doesn't really meet WP:BLP as would be required for an article with the child's name. On the other hand, the information about this event should remain in Wikipedia. It's a notable current event with potentially lasting encyclopedic value. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's no longer WP:BLP1E The invitations from the president, MIT and various other institutions are separate events, notable, and covered in reliable sources. It makes sense to keep it as a stub and build it up as the already notable, reliably sourced invitations come to pass as additional events. Also, Hullaballoo makes a good point. Users will come here to find out what's known about the subject. There's enough here for a stub and we look stupid if we have nothing. Weak support for renaming to "Incident" if "Keep" doesn't garner the consensus it ought to. If so, his name should remain on the dab page, for people searching for him and unaware of the byzantine wikiways that got the article changed to "incident". But really, if one is building this encyclopedia for users, one should think about the way users will use the encyclopedia. Please note, this is not a case of WP:IAR. There's plenty of policy based analysis that would support a "keep". ONEEVENT, and BLP1E don't compel changing this to "Incident" or deleting it. NOTNEWS is just plain dumb as a reason. David in DC (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time seeing those as unrelated events - not one would have happened without the inappropriate overreaction to the bringing of the clock to the school. But they are all tied up in making the incident something that will have legs. "Cool clock" is likely to become a catch phrase.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an an article about the event. Still WP:BLP1E. Jonathunder (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and we should probably give a serious warning to the nominator of this AFD. It seems every time there is a big international story, someone wants to delete the Wikipedia article about it. The article about the person is basically about the event. The event does not need a separate article though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per arguments by User:Kleinebeesjes. -Mardus /talk 02:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E + WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia needs higher quality articles, not more fluff like this. Muscat Hoe (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E, made more pressing in this case because the person of interest is a minor. In response to User:Kleinebeesjes, if there is an important social issue that needs to be documented, it can be done without making a full-scale article in his name (as has been done in the past with Star Wars Kid and Mattress Performance). The kid is in the news because of things that have been done to him, not because of something that he himself did. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the user above, who said we need higher quality articles, and not fluff, the kid has been invited to the United Nations. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rsrikanth05: I have noticed that @Muscat Hoe has not made that many edits—only 96 in total. They may not have the necessary experience on Wikipedia to know about "higher-quality articles". Epic Genius (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Epicgenius: Half a dozen other editors here are along those lines, ranging from the nominator, to the guy who Speedy'd this before it came to AfD, the a posts below with 3 edits and the guy who posted on my talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rsrikanth05: Do you want (yourself or me) to find the SPAs and mark these as well? Epic Genius (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Epicgenius: I'm not too good with SPAs, so I would leave that up to you. All I can say is two users, including the one you just marked and the guy who Speedy'd it first, both have similar edits, and one of them has a history of changing other people's !votes on AfDs and was marked as an SPA in an earlier AfD. Should we take this to your talk page? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Rsrikanth05: Yeah, we should probably take this to my talk page. As for experience with SPAs, me neither. I just marked people with less than 100 contribs. Epic Genius (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Several should not have been tagged (imo). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted. IP impersonating a user making unsubstantiated claims about a living person] redacted by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a valid !vote? An IP impersonating a user? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

move to event clear WP:BLP1E, but the event is notable (although fleeting) Gaijin42 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments by Callinus. The arrest is no more notable than any other resulting from zero tolerance policies. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not notable? The article, the talk page, and this AfD are live examples of it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely fails WP:Notability (people). This kid is not going to be relevant a week from now. Delete it fat! -Cool4thesummer (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)— Cool4thesummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep & rename Article has clearly has notability by the vast amount of ongoing attention the subject has received. Should be re-named and focused on the incident and reactions not the student himself though. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to focus not on the student, but the incident. Due to the amount of attention given to the matter, the article deals with a notable event. Rename to something like, Islamic student hoax bomb controversy. Psalm84 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective transwiki to Wikinews: The subject has not received coverage outside of the event; belongs in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Esquivalience ^t 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work, for a plethora of reasons--it's written in an encyclopedic tone, the original event is long past the point of newsworthiness, there's no specific focus to this article, etc. C628 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no separate article about the event. This deletion debate is for the article about the event. @Dan Wylie-Sears 2 and Jonathunder: you may want to reconsider your comments. Epic Genius (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Big news event happens. Article is started. Lots of readers flock it. Someone is unhappy about encyclopedia articles for news events and launches a notability challenge. Lots of people flood the debate. Article is invariably kept, because our readers want and expect articles about breaking news events. Time passes. A second challenge is made. Then we can calmly decide whether the event was a mere flash of the news camera or an actual event of some sort of lasting sociological or historical significance. That's how these things go... Carrite (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:MINORS and WP:NOTNEWS. No move to an article about "the arrest" is appropriate because he was handcuffed and detained but not arrested, as pointed out above. The delete is "weak" because there is followup coverage about the "invented" clock just being a routine 1970's Radio Shack alarm clock which had been removed form its case without any circuit modification, and the incident might have some continuing coverage. See for example the Balloon boy hoax. Edison (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have seen people point to a Texas statute that they claims says that Texas doesnt "arrest" minors, it just "detains" them, but I have not seen any significant set reliable sources that back that analysis, in fact all the major analysis from all the major reliable source around the world present it as what the rest of the world sees it as "arrest". But even if it were "police detention" and not "arrest", that doesnt make the fact that the "police detention" of the young man has has significant coverage and will continue to receive significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ; consider renaming to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed". The controversy and news have been about the arrest. I don't understand why folks suggest a redirect to the school; the school is no more relevant than the town, the police force, Muslims in Texas, or any other generic topic. Anybody who is looking for "Ahmed Mohamed" is going to be pretty unhappy to be redirected to one of many anodyne articles about a public high school. Instead, the article should focus on the arrest and subsequent coverage, which is indeed of national importance. As a person, he has not achieved general notability; but as an arrest, triggering a storm of controversy, this is a highly notable event. --Lquilter (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename The article strikes me as being rather news-like, but the arrest of Mohamed has triggered a massive response and intense coverage from a wide variety of sources, which has lasted a week and counting. I think at this point it’s too early to tell whether the arrest will have lasting impact, so I would recommend keeping the article now per WP:RAPID. Let’s wait a month or two to see if this has any lasting impact and act accordingly. Also, I support renaming the article to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not support renaming the article with the word Arrest. Ahmed was detained under suspicion. Probable Cause was never fully developed for an Arrest. 2601:CD:4102:9A5D:740D:9BDB:4EA5:36F (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)— 2601:CD:4102:9A5D:740D:9BDB:4EA5:36F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page is not for discussion of the title. That is happening on the article talk page itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enough of this silliness! An arrest occurs when someone is handcuffed and taken to a police station, as happened here. You are confusing being arrested with being charged with a crime. They are TOTALLY different things. Ahmed Mohamed was arrested. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Michaelh2001: Please tell this to User:Winkelvi who has posted He wasn't arrested, he was detained 15 times above this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handcuffing and going to a police station doesn't always equal arrest. Did they ever say to him, "Ahmed Mohamed, you are under arrest for...you have the right to remain silent..."? No? Then, he wasn't arrested - he was detained for questioning. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename/rewrite as an article about the event. It's clearly very newsworthy, even if the individual is not. Stephenb (Talk) 08:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Newsworthy"? Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, it's an encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is more than "newsworthy" at this point. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, he is visiting with international dignitaries at the United Nations headquarters in New York, today. If he's in New York City = probably means he will get a LOT more press and maybe even be on a couple Late Night talk shows. Let's just wait and watch how today's events unfold. We have 18 hours, notability has been established, as stated by 60+ people here. Inspite of this, one admin went ahead and deleted the page and then hastily restored it stating Oops, deletion discussion hasn't run its course. This AfD is a perfect case study for systemic bias. Some people here don't seem to understand the concept of Good Faith, or understand the concept of Reliable Sources either. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...or WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:BLP, or what an encyclopedia truly is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the level of personal attacks from you Delete supporters on this AfD is amazing. Some of you go outright calling people like me POV pushers, some say we don't understand policy at all. Blah, blah, blah. Keep it up. You make the wikiverse a brilliant place!. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi (WV) is completely correct. We're sorry if long-standing policies and guidelines, as well as what Wikipedia actually is, get in the way of your want for a soapbox or newstand. We're an encyclopedia. You're in the wrong place. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy hearing that I'm in the wrong place after being around for 10 years and having so many DYKs and ITNs in my kitty. Apparently, I'm in the wrong place. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand, assuming good faith, how people could possibly support keeping the article given that its circumstances are textbook violations of long-standing and well-documented Wikipedia polices (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E). I don't thinking the policies could possibly be any clearer than this. Also note that these events are already covered here, so the article is just a big redundancy. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By the time I created this article, it was no longer BLP1E. He had already been invited by POTUS, Zuck, among others. Today, the kid is on his way to the UN. Look at the sheer number of people talking about this. It is Not News as well, because it has started debate among people into American society, this time even more seriously. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except notability criteria for the person himself is different. He is notable for the event. So if anything this article should certainly be merged, but WP:NOTNEWS still applies, as it's a news story. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to an event article. Rewrites are preferable to starting over from scratch. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would suggest the article be rewritten as an incident that speaks to issues such as racism, the laws, and religious stereotypes. It's not about Ahmed, the individual, but the implication of an event at the end of which a schoolboy was sent to jail for committing no crime. It could also be clubbed with another article about these issues, if there is one. Do refer to the arguments in the AfD for the article [Durga Shakti Nagpal]. It is an analogous article in many ways. Rohini (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, for reasons elaborated on at great length by both keep and delete !votes above, and in the move discussion on the article talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Muslim boy gets cuffed for bringing a clock, the issue goes to the president, tech giants, an astronaut, the UN, and has opened a Pandoras Box on racial profiling. Those arguing Delete are merely trying to push their own twisted Propaganda here. ChirpingChewingGum (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)— ChirpingChewingGum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep/rename/move -- I support the above idea for the article to be Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. The individual is not, by himself notable, but the incident is arguably quite notable. -Jordgette [talk] 22:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Privacy violation of minors should not be encouraged. The article will still be on Wikipedia in a hundred years from now. ErikvanB (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and will remain in the enduring record of thousands of reliable sources for centuries... so what? Wikipedia's neutral stance and care about sharing within itself only that which has already been widely share elsewhere is quite decent. Or is you consider widely sourced acknowledgement by the President of the United States himself to itself to be a privacy violation? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename - Well I originally came to delete but judging by the amount of sources on Google and the fact he's gained support from the likes of Obama I'd say he's certainly notable, I agree the article does need renaming but have absolutely no idea what to!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident or something similarly neutral. This has precedent in many topics about people who are famous for events outside of their control (see, for instance, Murder of JonBenét Ramsey). If he ever becomes notable because of his own unrelated achievements, there can be an article dedicated to him. clpo13_(talk) 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The one triggering event has become many with "Congressional Leaders Pleading for Investigation" and "calling for an investigation by Department of Justice. This is far from some run-of-the-mill incident. Anyone really still trying to claim this as non-notable? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:A7. -- GB fan 12:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khayal Abbas AKhtar[edit]

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

Delete Doesn't meet notability. the references are unreliable Action Hero Shoot! 10:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep ant delect this coz this person being a controversial personality in his country. His article has been attacked (several times) with vandalism in past. You, being an experienced wikipedian, suggest either to remove it from wikipedia (to avoid expected vandalism in future) or anything else?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.helpline (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

keep.Khayal Abbas AKhtar

this article need references which is fixed cheaked....

End of dabete

~~error fixed removed tag clear......~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.helpline (talk • contribs)

Delete having no reliable secondary sources, just WP:PRIMARY quote sites and a WP:NEWSPRIMARY/WP:BLOGS interview. Seems to have been speedied in the past as Khayal Abbas Akhtar (with a lowercase K). --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep you cant see the link from wiki ok i can adding the more links ......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.helpline (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 September 2015‎
Delete. I'd consider this a prime A7 candidate, as there's no credible assertion of notability. ‑ iridescent 12:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beneve[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism. It is certainly not being used by people from Shanghai, as I live there. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 09:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jocquel Skinner[edit]

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

Notability:Subject is an undrafted player from small college who has been cut several times. Has yet to make the 53 man roster and as far as I can find, didn't make the practice squad last year. Outside sources are mostly pertaining to transactions Edday1051 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't even been drafted. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 09:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically not much has happened and although News and browser both found results, there's still not much. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable former college football player and wannabe pro who has been a member of several NFL preseason squads without catching on anywhere -- not even as a member of a regular season practice squad. Does not satisfy the specific notability criteria for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor pro football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season NFL or CFL game). Lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 primary schools in Singapore. Or elsewhere as subsequent consensus may determine. Sandstein 13:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Anthony's Primary School[edit]

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

Non notable primary school. The existence of this school is supported by sources but none that might support any claims that this school is in any way out of the ordinary, important , or significant per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Our normal practice as documented in WP:OUTCOMES and supported by policy is to redirect such school articles. As the creator is known for reverting redirects of Singapore schools, the community is asked to confirm that 'redirect' is the appropriate status for this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possible targets include La Sallian educational institutions#Singapore and Bukit Batok New Town#Education. I'm not sure which target precedent favors, and I don't have a personal preference. If WP:X or Y is an issue, then I would prefer to pick a redirect target but if that would be controversial, then I will not object to delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the redirect target is as long as the school is mentioned. All primary schools in Singapore are on List of primary schools in Singapore so that is a good default target. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore per above. Does not appear to have individual notability, but it is a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per the sources found below. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore, or appropriate locality article. This is how we have handled lower schools in hundreds of AfDs, this one should be treated the same. Jacona (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment I believe this article is a victim of poor referencing, rather than notability. It is a school with over 100 years of history, no mean feat considering that Singapore only gained independence merely 50 years ago (1965). Even its original school building has been gazetted by the Urban Redevelopment Authority as a conservation building (source). For editors who love to cite guidelines, particularly WP:ORG, these archival newspaper articles [34], [35] and [36] demonstrate sustained (over 100 years) and substantial coverage of the subject. Lastly, this website by Singapore's National Library Board also talks about this organisation.--Lionratz (t<alk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionratz:The references you mention are on web sites that are currently down for me and for others as well (see [37] and [38]). It is possible that these domains are not available to people in my country, or it is possible that they are experiencing temporary problems. Archive.org was no help. If the links ARE visible to you, consider adding them to archive.org or another repository then linking the archived versions here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC) The web sites are now back up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the new references above, though the emphasis of the article should reflect the historic nature of the school rather than the long list of non-notable extra-curricular activities which needs severe editing. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate article. From other AFD's we've established we should delete primary school articles. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @MrWooHoo:'s comment of 02:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC): I think past practice is that elementary and junior high schools are not presumed to be notable in the same way almost all accredited, diploma-granting high schools are. However, like any other organization, they may be notable on a case-by-case basis if they satisfy WP:GNG, WP:CORP, or some other criteria. In other words, they aren't de facto disqualified simply because they happen to be an elementary school. When I see a school (not a school building) that his historical (very old for its country), a school that meets in a historical building, a school that is "very unique" in some way (say, it hosts a world-renowned children's music program), a school with a Blue Ribbon Schools or similar award, a school with International Baccalaureate- or similar-programs, or a school which formerly included a diploma-granting high school which ceased operation (surprisingly common among US Roman Catholic schools), I give a long pause before going into "automatic redirect/automatic !vote 'redirect'" mode. Ditto schools that are famous for WP:ONEEVENT where the event clearly meets WP:N but it does not have its own article and where the school article discusses the event in depth (in those cases a split or move may be warranted, but not deletion). That's not to say I won't come down on the side of redirect/delete, but I will give it significant thought. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the millions upon millions of Primary schools that have been sent here - Consensus is to redirect them all and always will be, As an aside the creator deserves blocking for reverting! (Well if it's the same person anyway). –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a Singaporean historian, I second the historic value. Deletion destroys knowledge. Bpc.sg (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. No evidence that this is anything but. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for others. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above editors. Nothing to show stand-alone notability for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Presbyterian Church in Singapore. The merge should probably be preformed very selectively. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Presbyterian Church, Singapore[edit]

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

non-notable church - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Prod declined without comment. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a non-notable church. one of the earliest historic Presbyterian church in Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpc.sg (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Presbyterian Church in Singapore--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be anything beyond an ordinary church. St Anselm (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete. the church has a historic CHINESE origin. as such, English literature may not be abundant. they are quite a good amount of offline material. Bpc.sg (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as although my searches found nothing good, it may be locally significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinance (LDS Church)[edit]

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

Ordinance (LDS Church) is a newly created article which is largely word-for-word identical to the existing article Ordinance (Latter Day Saints). Clearly, both are describing near-identical things although there are some subtle differences which the author contends are important enough to warrant a separate article, although this seems to be an undesirable WP:CFORK. To me, any differences are clearly better dealt with within the original article; in the current form it is difficult to ascertain what the differences actually are, requiring a side-by-side comparison - which will become worse in future as ongoing edits will render such comparisons near impossible. The author of the new article opposes rationalising the articles back into one and claims this is the correct way to proceed, although I and another editor dispute this. For discussion see Talk:Ordinance_(LDS_Church)#Contested deletion, Talk:Ordinance_(Latter_Day_Saints)#LDS_POV and User talk:ARTEST4ECHO#Your contributed article, Ordinance (LDS Church). RichardOSmith (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose

They are not word-for-word identical to each other. If you go to Compare Pages you will see that there are major differences between the two pages. A side by side comparison is a simple matter. Here are just 4 Major examples of how that are different both wording and doctrinally (and I could list many more):
1. The "Temple ordinances" section. It covers the fact that most sects do not practice these at all, as only the original church founded by Smith, the LDS Church-derived and Cutlerite-derived denominations do these ordinance. It also covers ordinance that only sects like Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) practice.
2. The inclusion of a 3rd Priesthood (the Patriarchal priesthood) justification for Lineal succession (Mormonism) in many sects, but wholly rejected by the LDS Church, so Ordinance (LDS Church) only list two priesthoods.
3. The non-saving ordinances includes information that some ordinance that are not practiced by the LDS Church, such as Animal sacrifice, Foot washing, The Lord's Supper and Evangelist's blessing. The (LDS Church) page doesn't include this information as they have never done these ordinances.
4. The LDS Church page has a section on ordinances that only they practiced, but have now stopped practicing.
This is how MOS:LDS and WP:NCLDS has defined how articles related to the Latter Day Saint movement vs the LDS Church are supposed to work. For example Sacrament (Community of Christ) vs Sacrament (LDS Church) vs Sacrament (Latter Day Saints) and First Presidency (Latter Day Saints) vs First Presidency (Community of Christ) vs First Presidency (LDS Church) and Priesthood (Latter Day Saints) vs Priesthood (LDS Church) vs Priesthood (Community of Christ). There are hundreds of sect that fall under the "Latter Day Saint" umbrella. Maybe an administrators who understands how the Latter Day Saint movement is broken up, such as @Good Olfactory:, can better explain this, as it seems I have failed to do so.
To force the LDS Church, the Community of Christ, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) and the hundreds of other sects to share the same page is both impractical it is very POVish towards those that believe the LDS Church is the only true successor to Smith. It would be like asking the "Christianity" pages to conform only to the Catholic churches beliefs. That is why MOS:LDS and WP:NCLDS set up this method. What RichardOSmith seems to be missing is that there are major doctoral differences between the different sects, so these pages are different.
Another editor has not dispute the contents on the page. The only other editor has been @Jgstokes:, who seemed to me to agreed that the "Latter Day Saints" page had an inappropriate LDS Church POV, and seemed to agree that as it was written it was a (LDS Church) version instead of the (Latter Day Saints) version it should be. I have as of yet seen Jgstokes disagree with me. We have worked together to improve the page. The only other person involved, besides RichardOSmith, has been Drmies, who seems to have a problem with the way I created the page not its content. (see my talk page). I feel he doesn't yet know the facts and will address that there as I did not just Copy and Paste it as he suggests. If you go to the histories, you will see I did a massive rewrites, using my sandbox, in a way moved the page to Ordinance (LDS Church), and modified it to included information on other sects as should have been Ordinance (Latter Day Saints), using my sandboxes. If anything (Latter Day Saints) is a copy of the new (LDS Church).

As time goes on more and more differences will come up. I have only as of yet added 5 of the major Latter Day Saint denominations to the the (Latter Day Saint) page. I think deleting (LDS Church) will only harm things as then there were be ether a POV toward the LDS Church or a POV away from the LDS Church. Again this is why MOS:LDS and WP:NCLDS has defined defined it to work this way.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 12:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies and ARTEST4ECHO off-topic exchange NE Ent 14:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is SUCH a good idea to create articles from scratch... Drmies (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - I know you have an issue with the way I went about creating this page, and you know I disagree. However, How the page was created is not a criteria for deletion and it doesn't change the fact that the two pages are no longer the same, have a different focus, this is how Latter Day Saint movement vs LDS Church pages are supposed to work, that trying to merge them is both impractical and LDS Church POVish, and as time goes on more and more differences will come up.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can disagree with the very true statement that "it's a good idea to start articles from scratch", but I'll be glad to add "and not by copying and pasting an entire article and making some changes". Sheesh--you're going to have to accept this at some point; a "yes Drmies" will do. Note also that I didn't say we should delete this page, though yesterday I came this close to deleting it simply via Wikipedia:A10. What is totally missing in the whiny edit summary here with its false appeal to our civility polity is a "thanks for not deleting it". You're welcome anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome to think what you want, but I disagree with your assessment of the situation, and don't plan on "thanking you" any times soon. If you want to have a legitimate discussion on what you think I did wrong or if this page is the same page or not, fine, but calling me "Lazy", "Whiny", and "Distasteful", and other comments you have made seems uncivil to me, especially from an Administrator (WP:ADMINCOND) which makes it impossible for me to agree with you.

Again the How the page was created is not a criteria for deletion and it doesn't change the fact that the two pages are no longer the same.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 17:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose I believe the argument ARTEST4ECHO has made to be sound, and I couldn't agree more. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folks talking about each other instead of the article NE Ent 14:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have seen the way Drmies has gone after him over his strong opposition to the page. It is my belief that Drmies' opinion is based on a strong anti-LDS bias and a disregard for the relevant Wikipedia policies. I fully realize that in so saying, I make myself a target for Drmies' ire to be turned on me, and I don't care. The reasons ARTEST4ECHO set forth have gone ignored and unanswered by Drmies, who is resorting to petty personal attacks that have no basis in fact. It is my opinion that this page makes a vital distinction between ordinances as practiced by the LDS Church and ordinances as practiced by the remaining sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Any effort to delete this page in its infancy demonstrates a limited vision and a clear anti-LDS bias, which are, simply put, totally wrong reasons to delete a page, and I am unalterably opposed to any premature attempt to delete this page, especially as made by editors who are far less than neutral on the subject. That's my two cents. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes, you talk about petty personal attacks, yet spend most of your argument attacking Drmies, who is just doing his job as an admin. What's all this about him having "a strong anti-LDS bias and a disregard for the relevant Wikipedia policies"? Do you have any evidence of that, or is it an empty personal attack? Instead of assuming bad faith and commenting on other contributors, why don't you just make an argument based on the criteria for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilley (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 September 2015

The evidence supporting my comment on this issue is on the talk page for all to see. Further, Drmies is in violation of WP policy by having another account whose focus is solely to substantiate the views expressed by Drmies. I can prove this. Go to my talk page. The last comment on there is from a Richardosmith, asking me to withdraw my comments on this page attacking him. I have never attacked a Richardosmith, on this, or any other WP page. So I knew right away that this was a duplicate account solely meant to agree with Drmies. Those are the facts of the matter. I therefore find it hard to believe anything he says, because his conduct has been far less than honest and above-board. As to my specific argument against the deletion of this page, I stated in the comment above my belief that ARTEST4ECHO's argument is sound, and the fact that I echoed it speaks volumes about what my position is. In the meantime, now you have my specific reasons for the previous comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes: your original comment consists of four sections:

first sentence - agreement with ARTEST4ECHO's 'keep' rationale
next four sentences - unjustifiable personal attack aimed directly at Drmies
next sentence - further agreement with ARTEST4ECHO
the text "Any effort to delete this page in its infancy demonstrates a limited vision and a clear anti-LDS bias, which are, simply put, totally wrong reasons to delete a page, and I am unalterably opposed to any premature attempt to delete this page, especially as made by editors who are far less than neutral on the subject".

I note that in this last part you refer to editors in the plural, so you are aiming this at myself and possibly pre-emptively at anyone else who would dare to come along and support deletion. (If you were aiming that at Drmies as well then bear in mind that he has not made any attempt to delete this page - in fact, he declined speedy deletion.) So I repeat what I wrote on your talk page: unless you can substantiate your claims that I have "limited vision", "a clear anti-LDS bias" and am "far less than neutral on the subject", please withdraw this personal attack. To make things worse, you are now claiming that I am a sockpuppet of Drmies. Stop digging. Drmies is an administrator who could have speedily deleted this article after I nominated it, but chose not to. Why would it make sense to do that, and then have the sockpuppet account nominate the article for deletion instead? So please withdraw that accusation too. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints): 3. Do not over-specialize: do not create articles specific to one faction of the Latter Day Saint movement if the article could be improved by treating the subject within a larger context. Make any distinctions on one of the articles. There's no reason to have such nearly duplicate articles on the exact same subject, one taking a slightly different viewpoint. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC); edited 04:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and Softlavender. (Merge any salient points back, if necessary, and next time start from scratch) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Softlavender. The guideline is pretty clear and this appears to be what it describes not to do. AlbinoFerret 13:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NE Ent 14:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Softlavender and WP:CFORK. As others have pointed out any particulars of note can be merged into the appropriate article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVFORK. Anything that isn't can be merged as noted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVFORK. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unneeded fork. A single article about the topic describing the similarities and differences among the various LDS sects is the way to go. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The arguments for deletion have already been well made. Chillum 01:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and this show how similar the two articles are. Obvious POVFORK. BTW, it's early this year: it's snowing. --Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and urge SNOW closure Probable copyvio, POVFORK, and no non-LDS sources. p b p 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not sure why this hasn't been closed yet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Inherently over-complicated discussion that needs to be split into smaller batches. Lumping together lists related to players, national teams, fully professional leagues, semi-professional leagues etc. is not something that is conducive to a sensible discussion. It would be better to allow further comment here before proceeding. Any that are renominated should be grouped into more useful batches (i.e. players, club, leagues, national teams, etc). Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This deletion listing includes all national football team, football league and individual player hat trick lists that I could find.

A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. For national teams or major competitions, results are already listed (eg Japan national football team results and fixtures; Romania national football team results etc). We also list top goalscorers, notable matches, finals etc. These lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's important to note that, by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being original research. There are 200+ national football teams, hundreds of professional football leagues - a list of hat-tricks in each of these is simply unnecessary.

I have excluded List of FIFA Women's World Cup hat-tricks and List of FIFA World Cup hat-tricks for now, on the grounds that these competitions have an irregularity (occurring every 4 years) and prestige which makes hat-tricks within them more notable. There may be other individual articles that editors consider worth saving, which I encourage them to note in their discussion below. Fundamentally, though, these topics are not notable and do not fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. If football statistics sites do not see fit to create them, I do not see why we should Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Absurd to bundle all of these together - they need separate consideration, at least by category (i.e. individual, league or national team). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, hat-tricks scored by Scotland players (or the lack of) is clearly a notable subject. Look at this search. Loads of articles in reliable sources discussing the fact that Colin Stein was (for a very long time) the last player to score a hat-trick (eg1 Sky Sports, eg2 The Scotsman). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - completely inappropriate AfD lumping togehter lists related to players, national teams, fully professional leagues, semi-professional leagues etc. I'm not saying that there are not non-notable lists in this group, but that the notion that any list of hat tricks is non-notable is not necessarily correct, that GNG could be satisfied through reliable sourcing potentially. For example, I see no reason why List of Cristiano Ronaldo hat-tricks might not be a notable subject given his outstanding goalscoring record, though I would doubt that List of I-League 2nd Division hat-tricks as a non-fully professional league would be. Fenix down (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously we're going to Speedy Delete!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe O'Brien Field[edit]

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

totally useless Magicsan (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May not meet WP:GNG in which case redirect and merge to Elizabethton Twins. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Nominatiors rationale makes no sense. "Totally useless" is not a reason to delete anything and this is a stadium used by a professional baseball team. Spanneraol (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is easy to find sources for the stadium by following the 'find sources' links in the nom. Oculi (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In part for the terrible AfD reasoning, also because it is notable. Alex (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No basis provided for deleting. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QSuper[edit]

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

Here's yet another article about a company or a business product that just doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this non-profit organization passes WP:GNG. Standard searches revealed many significant writeups in independent reliable sources. Just a few examples: [39][40][41]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third party references: and remove all these messages which makes editing difficult. Action Hero Shoot! 11:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Google shows more. Besides, I think if something was done by an act of parliament, it should stay. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep given its age, its origins and its connections. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julius tiangson[edit]

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

At the moment, the article reads completely like a campaign advertisment. That's horrible, but the more important fact is that we're talking about a mere political candidate that isn't particularly notable. This looks like a clear-cut case to me of an article that should be removed from Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found a few results, I see nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No establishment of notability per WP:GNG or WP:Politician.--4scoreN7 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always, unelected candidates in forthcoming elections do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article before being named a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. He'll certainly get an article if he wins the seat once the campaign is over, but nothing here already gets him an article now. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being an unelected candidate for a federal election does not make a person notable. They would have to be notable prior to becoming a candidate, and all I see when I read the article is a blatant promotional advertisement, nothing that would support a claim of notability. Since when do Wikipedia articles detail the platforms of candidates? If he's elected on October 19, then like all other elected MPs, the subject would meet notability requirements and an article can be added at that time. Cmr08 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 13:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save My Soul – Music to Prevent Malaria[edit]

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

My searches found nothing better than this to suggest improvement and there's no move target as this article is an orphan. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find anything on the search engines. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eak the Geek[edit]

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

My searches found coverage for him here, here, here and here which look promising but I'm not sure if he's solidly notable as he seems to have retired and there's not much else. Pinging the only still active tagger Discospinster. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, searches returned only blogs and trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Social Research and Communications (UDIK)[edit]

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

Article created by the organization. Rather new, can't seem to find any reliable sources that they are widely known. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as unless better non-English sourcing can be found, I found nothing to suggest improvement and this being the my best search results. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scape Martinez[edit]

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

He seems to have gotten some attention (see here, here, here and here) but I'm simply not seeing any considerable improvement and there's no move target. Pinging Grayfell, FreeRangeFrog and Gbawden. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Fisher (actor)[edit]

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

Promotional tone, with unsupported claims of success, only sources are his own website and a link that doesn't have any text, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there isn't even something substantial to suggest moving elsewhere and there's simply only local coverage with all my searches finding exactly that. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a supporting cast member in the Teen Beach movies but I can't find his leading roles for the WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nordin Abdullah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Prior AfD had only one participant who voted keep due to subject showing up in Google News. Well, that's not enough, I see the same passing mentions, but coverage should be also in-depth. This is just a reasonably successful businessman, nothing to make him encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as there's simply not as much as there could be and my searches found nothing good and this has not been improved in the time it has existed (the author's username suggested this was an autobio or someone connected). Pinging past editors Kinu and RJFJR (these were the best and most active I saw). SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little in the way of actual substantive material to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Cataldo[edit]

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

Insufficient notability . Director of an arts program at college, and operator of a purified water delivery service, DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News, Books and browser all immediately found links, there's nothing to suggest as much better improvement as there could be. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only basis for notability here seems to be a spammy local-business magazine promotion of local businessmen, and it isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tischler (doctor)[edit]

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

top implant dentist in the Hudson valley isn;'t notability. One of a string of promotional articles about dentists. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to be doing well in his professional life, but there's little I see that would make him encyclopedic. Fails WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:bio Pokerkiller (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found Books and News links for him, there's not much to suggest better improvement but feel free to draft and userfy for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 11). Sam Walton (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeAndre Brackensick[edit]

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

No appreciable achievement beyond Idol, which he did not win. All the WP:RS coverage is his hometown paper, and on his Idol track to defeat. No charted recordings. No significant reviews. John from Idegon (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage outside his relation to the reality show, thus WP:ONEEVENT. At best, merge to the list of people involved with the said show, if one exists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that it looks more like he should be described in some section of a larger page somewhere, although I'm not sure where. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 11) as delete is good but in the benefit of the doubt chance he becomes better known later, moving to American Idol for which he's obviously best known and my searches found nothing but results for this at News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - having toured nationally with some of the Idol runners-up, he's arguably passing WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per SwisterTwister - just going on tour doesn't meet the criteria... the tour itself has to receive significant coverage. Even then, the person may be notable. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SwisterTwister. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Trixie[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, resting primarily on primary sources like the band's own Facebook, Bandcamp, Twitter, Soundcloud and Instagram. The only non-social-networking sources here are the webpages of specific venues where they've performed — which are unreliable sources, and are all in the band's own hometown and thus fail to vault them over NMUSIC #4. A Wikipedia article is not something that every band automatically gets to have just because they exist; it's something that a band earns by getting media coverage for one or more accomplishments that satisfy a specific inclusion criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article just doesn't demonstrate significant notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's absolutely nothing good to suggest improvement aside from a few links. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP music notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhero2099 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Happy to be Fat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources. There are two dead links and a single link to the episode online. There are no reliable secondary sources that I could find using a Google search. Does not meet notability requirements per WP:GNG --Iamozy (talk) 21:46, 2 September 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 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After looking, I've found coverage of this here, here, and here. Generally speaking, though, the response to this program has been on blogs and the like. I'm not sure what to think, personally. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Springfield News Sun would be a reliable source in this case. A blog is not a reliable source, and the LA Times only mentions that an actress was in the episode. A passing mention does not count as a source, as it says nothing about the episode except for the fact that it exists. I'm thinking that with only a single source, this article does not meet notability requirements per WP:GNG --Iamozy (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree that the best thing is just to delete the article. I do want, though, to also see what more editors think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge or expand If this is the total amount of information to be included, it might as well be merged into a list; but if anyone has access to a recording or transcription, or even a more detailed description in a TV guide, it could be expanded. Whether the episodes of this series are worth expansion is another question. My view is that it depends on the importance of the series as a whole. If it is one of the series of the greatest truly major aesthetic or historical or popular importance, we could justify detailed treatment. I don;'t see that this is the case, but I'm not an expert there. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A transcript or recording is a primary source. Original research does not justify the existence of a Wikipedia article. Also, there is no such thing as notability-by-association. Even if the series is notable, that doesn't mean the subject of this article is. As for merging, that was proposed 7 years ago and was never done. There isn't really any logical place to do so in the True Life article. I don't see it ever getting done, so I don't think that is a good enough reason to keep this article a second time. --Iamozy (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 04:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show notability. News produced a handful of trivial mentions, Newspapers - zero, books returned zero independent sources, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR also returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Can't even find it on MTV series website anymore. External link is 404 too. — Wylie pedia 09:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For deletion. Whether to change to a dab page is a matter for ongoing editorial consensus-finding. Sandstein 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naczelnik[edit]

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

The article has no essence. The word is a literal translation into Polish of the generic terms "chief" or "head" and nothing beyond that (and nothing in the article suggests that something can be beyond that). The article had references in Polish language, but of course they use the word "nachelnik" wherever the English text would use the word "chief" or "head". - üser:Altenmann >t 15:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't mind a few articles here and there with some local flavour. We also have Knyaz for the word Duke among numerous similar examples. BTW, the Russian term Nachalnik doesn't mean the same thing. It is more like a governor. Poeticbent talk 01:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And what flavor does it have beyond literal translation? "Knyaz" is not "Duke". But "naczelnik" is "chief". - üser:Altenmann >t 02:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, both have their own flavors. It is just that you are more familiar with Knyaz. Now, perhaps a merger of that with Naczelnik Państwa could be considered. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, "Naczelnik Poczty", a very original title, and how 'Naczelnik Panstwa' is not the same as 'Head of State'? - üser:Altenmann >t 14:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While we do not have Wikipedia:Notability (titles), this is a notable Polish title. As my proof for that, take the following encyclopedic entries on that very title in Polish encyclopedias online: [42] and [43], [44] (those for Naczelnik Państwa). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. And here is the Googe translation of this Polish encyclopedia article 'naczelnik':
chief, supervisor, leader;

Chief of tribe, family, organization, office, etc .; in Poland 1973-1990 territorial state authority (municipalities, cities and villages, cities up to 50 thousand inhabitants; district in the city); the executive body and managing the national council and abolished by the 1990 Act on Local Self-Government and Law on government employees; ZHP also superior; former commander in chief, for example. uprising; title used by T. Kosciuszko during the revolt of 1794 in the January Uprising underground organ of government (heads of districts, provinces and cities).

I say, a common word. Every language has the same one. Here is Russian title:

nachalnik: Начальник штаба (Chief of Staff), Начальник политического отдела (chief of political department), начальник конницы (chief of cavalry), начальник ГУЛАГA (chief of GULAG) начальник НКВД (chief of NKVD), Гражданин начальник (oh, you cannot just translate this; this really deserves an article, or a section), Военный начальник (Military Chief), Вахтенный начальник (Chief of Watch), Земский начальник (Head of Zemstvo), and 1000 more. This does to mean that I am going to write the article nachalnik. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide non-Polish sources which confirm that this word has some content beyond a dictionary definition "chief", "head" in Polish language. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively (that is, the part about Kościuszko) with Naczelnik państwa. The other uses (naczelnik poczty, policji) are not notable. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as a disambiguation page per NewYorkActuary's proposal below. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 04:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. I propose that the page be re-written to be a disambiguation page. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the already-existing El Jefe. If the proposal is accepted, I'll be happy to do the re-write. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What articles would it disambiguate? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles that are linked in the instant article (Kosciuszko, Pitsudski and Naczelnik panstwa), plus the article on the scouting organization (ZHP). NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "article on the scouting organization", I meant Naczelnik ZHP. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've placed a draft of my proposed revision on this page's Talk page. Note that I've commented out the Disambiguation template. This will need to be restored if the draft is accepted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 12:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Agarwal[edit]

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

Agarwal was a contestant in The Voice India but was eliminated in the third round. As such, she has not reached the level of notability to merit inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Agarwal cleared five stages of The Voice India TV show, which were:

The Blinds
The Battles
Live Round 1
Live Round 2
Live Round 3

And was then eliminated. Apart from being the only female in the Top-4 of Team Shaan she was also in the, the winning team of The Voice India). As per the Point 10 of the notability to merit inclusion at Wikipedia, this article should stay on Wikipedia.

Also as an information resource, the contestants of the winning team should have their information on Wikipedia. --Rish404 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice (Indian TV) or simply delete if this one is better as she's obviously kest known for The Voice and not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 04:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly... nothing notable about a contestant on a game show. No coverage outside of the show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there was some debate at the start of this AfD, there is a clear consensus to keep. I'll move the page after closing this AfD. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Fr. Dr. Jesu Pudumai Doss[edit]

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

Person not notable. No references cited and the claim of authoring books could not be found on Google search. (ISBN number also not quoted by author). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. For whether he meets WP:PROF, I'll ping User:Randykitty. It doesn't seem to me to pass that, or WP:AUTHOR, and while we have no WP:PRIEST, his position doesn't seem to be high enough (bishop or equivalent), but perhaps someone else can shed more light. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in response to Piotrus' ping): I don't see any claim in the article that would meet PROF. A (cursory) Google Scholar search does not unearth anything either. --Randykitty (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "claim of authoring books" is definitely established by Google (try searching just on the surname, "Pudumai Doss" — the first name is often abbreviated to J, and the "Rev. Fr. Dr." would skew any search). As far as I can tell, though, he doesn't meet either WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF (his appointment as dean of his faculty was widely reported, but apparently all in periodicals run by the order he's a member of). I don't know enough about canon law tribunals to gauge whether his work as a judge, defender, etc. is notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Google Scholar shows only a handful of publications (less then 10) with a total of three citations. None of those publications are indexed by a major peer-reviews academic journal or database. These numbers are not enough to corroborate WP:N. JP Doss is just a dean of an unknown Italian University, so he is not doing any research activities, therefor he fails WP:PROF too. Toffanin (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should not expect to find Catholic theology in the usual citation indices, which anyway do not handle the arts well, let alone theology. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WE normally allow articles on professors (in the European sense). Dean is a more senior academic post. I am not qualified to judge the merits of his publications and merely note that he has several books, presumably academic ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, no, we don't usually keep professors in the European sense, nor deans for that matter (see WP:PROF). And while Catholic theology may be less well covered in the usual citation indices, it is covered in Google Scholar, which turns up nothing. --Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Jesu Pudumai Doss. Per WP:LAWYERS and WP:ANYBIO 1, due to his appointment as a consultor to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life [45] and his appointment as Defender of the Bond for ratum et non consummatum cases of the Roman Rota.[46]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 04:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per Samuel J. Howard. As dean and as a canon lawyer, he's notable. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant scholar of canon law.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per Samuel J. Howard. Satisfies WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Moskowitz[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The video news release was a significant development in the Communications world and Moskowitz (and his now-defunct Medialink) played a large role in developing the technology. A quick search of the PR Week archives substantiates that claim. I'm willing to work on an article rewrite, provided that I can track down the PR Week "10 Most Influential Public Relations Executives of the 20th Century" piece mentioned here, as well as on his Bloomberg page. I've already been able to verify his Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award here and should be able to verify the rest. Strombollii (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if at all because of the Ernst & Young Award as aside from that, probably more delete for now, because there seems to be no better coverage (mostly PR related of course) and some of the best results I found were this. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 04:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Award of Korea[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources to indicate how this award meets WP:GNG notability. One of several walled-garden-ish articles created by a blocked sockpuppet apparently part of an attempt to promote a recipient of this award. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daily NK is the third-party source. It is also awarded by South Korean government. What needs to be more notable than that in order to recognize the notablity? -- Shyoon1 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TheDailyNK printed an article on it because of the person that won it that year was working on North Korean human rights. Not because the award itself is independently significant. I feel it's not because there are only 3 sources for this award that has been going on for 9 years, 2 of them referring to the same year one of them about Peter Park, who is currently suspected of making a vanity page for himself. (If he has I can see how he won all these non notable awards, he puts in a lot of effort.) But Even if he hasn't, I can dig up 9 sources for my local 4H clubs annual blue ribbon winners for the past 9 years, I feel a national award that is supposedly notable should be able to do that much. Peachywink (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 149 articles with the award's Korean name 대한민국인권상 appearing in the title at Naver News search [47]. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test, that doesn't mean much of anything. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - 149 articles from newspapers where the name of the topic appears in the title is a prima facie indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:GOOGLEHITS warns against the use of raw web search result counts and specifically mentions news search engines as a helpful alternative. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree above.--Altostratus (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 04:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be compelling evidence that there are more than sufficient Korean language sources for 대한민국인권 상 to merit a GNG pass. For what it is worth, Ko-WP has an article on the award with a lengthy list of recipients which include activists, academics, and NGOs. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Menkin[edit]

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

Many very minor roles is not the equivalent of a notable career. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere such as Thunderbirds Are Go which seems to be the best as he's quite common as a voice actor and I'm familiar with him. Searches find several results for his work but maybe not something for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the article should stay. --ACase0000 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was asked to check again, but there still are no reliable 3rd party refs. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs improvement, and definitely needs better sourcing. The nature of voice actors (those who are true voice actors and not actors who do voice over work) is such that they rarely get news. However, doing a News search turns up quite a few hits about this person. Most are mentions, but I think in their totality they meet the clause in WP:BASIC which reads "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;". There are even a few other more substantial references such as this, this, and this. According to this, his role in Man from UNCLE was a significant role, and according to this, he has a significant role in the upcoming Tom Hanks film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 04:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it is difficult for a primarily voice actor to receive the kind of significant coverage require for notability. It does not appear that David Menkin has met that standard. His role in the movie The Man from UNCLE was a credited supporting role, but I found no more than mere mention of that, including in the Italian review cited by Onel5969 above. A series of mere mentions cannot equal significant coverage, because the essence of a mere mention is that it is not substantive. On the other hand, a bunch of short substantive coverage can yield significant coverage, even if no particular article was in depth, the totality is. David Menkin has not received that kind of coverage. As to possible future success, it is WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant sources. I appreciate the efforts of Onel5969, but none of those sources are the kind of in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Talent Award of Korea. Ged UK 12:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Medal of Korea[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources to indicate how this award is notable; article was created by banned sock/promotional account. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All sources are published by ministries of South Korean government. How can you say why this is not notable? Some recipents include Yuna Kim, famous figure skater, which indicates this medal acquired a least notablity. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can give the "Ohnoitsjamie Cool Person of the Year Medal" to Vanilla Ice. That doesn't make it a notable award. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepKwangmo (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep [48] See here.--Altostratus (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Talent_Award_of_Korea. It's hard to see the difference, but they are basically the same award. Name was changed in 2014. There appear to be RS's for the Talent_Award_of_Korea. The name change is the Seoul difference.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Talent_Award_of_Korea I agree that they appear to be the same award but the name was changed. It makes more since to merge them if they are the same award that way it can be shown it is an ongoing award despite the new title.Peachywink (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no real policy argument for keeping the article, beyond a desire to explain what the awards are, which already exists in the individual article. Ged UK 12:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Basketball Player of the Year Awards[edit]

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

Delete: All awards barring the one given by Eurobasket.com would pass the notability test but they already have articles and in effect have next to never (if ever) been quoted together by a source. Note that the article creator was banned for disruptive editing. ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This same editor is running through my articles that I created and listing them for deletion out of a personal grudge. They are also not notifying me of any of them being marked for deletion.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This XfD is about the notability of this article. Any conduct issues will be dealt with at the ANI you filed.—Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No prejudice if there is consensus later for WP:IAR to repeat information already found on the individual award pages because this grouping is inherently notable, but no arguments have come forth after two weeks that WP:LISTN is met. —Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~You can vote only once. This article is needed to sort through the differences in the meanings and significance of these awards. People outside of Europe, or without a knowledge of the subject matter would not understand that. They would think any of these awards by themselves individually were the one and only such award. So the reason that this has such an article makes sense. I really don't see a reason why this particular article has basis to be deleted. I just don't. I will post this listing at the basketball project because some people that know European basketball would understand that better. I think it is perfectly reasonable and logical to have this article.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no good faith whatsoever in this vote, only article ownership, but I'll answer nonetheless. Bluesangrel still hasn't proven how this article is notable or how it's more than just his original research. I've yet to find a source that refers the awards (especially the Eurobasket.com one) as a group. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is that original research? There is no original research in any of that.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion is based mainly around whether some of the non-English language sources are reliable, and nobody can work that out as they can't read them properly. There is some indication he meets the SNG, and a reasonable possibility he meets the GNG, so a delete close would seem wrong. Closing as keep would be problematic too for the reasons above, hence a no-consensus close. Ged UK 12:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artūrs Strautiņš[edit]

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

Delete: Is not a member of the first team, has played a total of 5 minutes over his career in the first division. In effect he's a 16 year-old youth team player, maybe talented but that's not particularly relevant. Has virtually no coverage between stats on the league's page and other specialised websites, none of it in depth (and not a lot independent) ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. Only source is team's website.Jakejr (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Independent coverage and being a member of the first team are totally irrelevant. It only natters if he played a game in Italian league or not. If he did, then he meets notability. It seems a lot of editors here are not following site guidelines perhaps some people should be reported for that?Bluesangrel (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Two weeks and nobody has explained how this meets WP:GNG, which trumps any SNG, which nobody has argued it meets either. And this article is a stub no less. Per WP:WHYN guideline: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." Granted, I might not find these on English websites, and also wouldn't know which ones are reliable. This is the difficulty with dealing with potentially notable subjects covered in predominantly non-English sources. From what I can gather from Google translate, the sources are either not WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:ROUTINE game coverage with trivial mention of his name. Moreover, no persuasive arguments have been forthcoming either. No prejudice to recreate if there is later evidence that a substantial article can be written.—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking in light of new sources. I don't have time to do a full assessment to offer a keep at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This player has appeared in three Lega Basket Serie A games, a league listed at WP:NBASKETBALL, and appeared in two Latvian League games in 2013–14. I have expanded it a tad, although there is very little on this player. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Always good to WP:PRESERVE where possible, but that can be done through WP:USERFY if someone is interested. Your observation that "there is very little on this player" indicates that GNG should be considered over SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, no doubt, and I'm obviously in the minority. However, when I pass by an article such as this one where there was little to no detail, I would first research and check the player out to get a better understanding, rather than automatically flagging it for deletion. Putting articles up for deletion on the spot because they look not notable is easy – I had a quick Google search and found a few things, which was also quite simple. But again, there is not a bucket load of sources, so my "keep" vote will likely mean nothing in the end. I just hope my efforts are taken into consideration at least. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet GNG as near as I can tell. I do think the language barrier may be a slight issue, but I agree with Bagumba on that.Rikster2 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - changing vote to Keep based on new sources from Zagalego. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely can't speak for Latvian, but at least in Italian there are barely more sources than in English, haven't found one which is in depth either. The guy's sixteen really, I don't know know how good the Latvian league is but I doubt it's the same level as the Lithuanian league, in the Italian league he's only played garbage time. Maybe he has a bright future but for now he doesn't have a place on wikipedia, the article creator was just filling in the red links of Pallacanestro Reggiana (as with Pechacek and Pini). ArmstrongJulian talk (not at home so can't log in). --213.174.123.195 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The player has played in the Italian League. Top pro league of Italy in several games. From site guidelines that automatically qualifies as notable. I am having difficulty understanding the argument as to why then the article does not meet notability requirement, when Wikipedia itself states that it does. If someone, like Bagumba, an admin can explain this, then please do so. Because this is very confusing. Are you saying that if I make an article, now even though it meets site guidelines as stated by the site itself, it still can be deleted for lack of notability? I don't understand how this works. It makes no sense anymore.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are commons questions. WP:NSPORTS states that meeting the guideline means the subject "is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Some are saying that they believe this is one of the minority cases where it is not "likely" to meet WP:GNG. Note that NSPORTS also says "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind ..." It's ok if we all have different opinions, as the closer will determine WP:CONSENSUS. Hope that helps.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in other words, if I was to make an article for a player that is worthy, and I know they are worthy of an article, and they meet site criteria as outlined, then you are saying all anyone has to do is nominate it for deletion and then a few people can say they do not think it is worthy and it can be deleted? This is very hard to make someone want to keep writing new articles, because if you are making ones especially for European players, almost all editors in USA don't know anything about them, and usually will say they are not notable. I know that because I remember a discussion earlier on delete about this article Georgios Tsalmpouris. The article did not meet site guidelines, and no I did not make it either. I never make an article that does not meet the criteria as I see what it states, and yes I read it. It was not my article, but I defended some comments made that said the player was someone no one heard of and was completely of no note and etc. Was not true at all. Very well known player and of plenty of note as a young talent in Europe. Then already signed with a Eurocup club right after the article was deleted, which showed that actually deleting the article was wrong. So going by editor's feeling or sense was wrong in that case. Thought I had no issue with it, because it was right decision by site rules. But do you see what I am saying? Why make the rules and guidelines if editor's feelings and opinions can simply override them? Often they are wrong anyway, no matter what kind of discussion there is. I remember actually also a few other similar discussions of players like this, even more better examples, where the players were actually playing in Euroleague teams, and the editors in discussions wanted them deleted. I just can't remember the articles. I remember that one because it was recent. But the point is that this makes it hard for people trying to create an article for a European player. It is sending confusing info. Because for me, I always try to be very careful not to make any article in biography unless it is qualified. So these kind of delete discussions like this one here, would make me think now I might have to stop creating articles in some cases, even though they should be maybe created.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... all anyone has to do is nominate it for deletion and then a few people can say they do not think it is worthy and it can be deleted.: You are assuming bad faith that someone just goes around maliciously trying to annoy people. While some people do, the fact that Wikipedia relies on consensus keeps things honest. If any of us wants full control, this really isn't the site to be involved with, because it is inherently team based.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that editors can make and do make mistakes. Noting more than that. That is why the site has guidelines set to follow, and I think the playing games in top professional Italian League is one guideline that should be followed.Bluesangrel (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's very young, but he's played for a decent team in Italy, and appears to be one of the better prospects in a country that actually cares about basketball. I'm not the best judge of European sources, but I did find this, and this, at least. This also seems to indicate that other coverage exists somewhere. I realize I don't have an airtight argument, but overall, I wouldn't be too concerned if we kept this article. Zagalejo^^^ 08:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the refs Zagalejo provided, I have expanded the article even further. It is surely decent enough now; it has multiple secondary sources and consists of fairly detailed content. I hadn't even thought to check if Strautiņš had Sportando coverage the first time I went through, but seeing how he does [49], I think the article scrapes though GNG with the listed secondary sources and the player's Sportando coverage. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep A promising young talent, Zagalejo pulled up sources to establish that he meets GNG. He also played a couple of games in the Italian Serie A, which passes NBASKETBALL. Like I have said previously, sources don't need to be in English. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone here contended that they had to be. However, I'll caution that Google Translate can't tell an Englsh speaker if the source is reliable or not. There's already enough suspect English blogs (generally speaking, not specific to this article) that people try to push off as reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have worded that better. The sources dont strike me as being unreliable, but I'm no expert. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about Sportando, ESPN and Yahoo US regularly get their sports news from Sportando, as it relates to European basketball. So it is considered extremely reliable. One of most in all of sports world. Actually, I will be surprised if anyone does not know it, considering it has everything also in English.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following the criteria in other sports, he has played at least one game in a fully professional league, so that means the article has enough notability. And he is 16; if the article is deleted, probably it will be created again later. Asturkian (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced for all that matters, are we really putting the bar so low that a handful of articles from possibly unreliable websites is enough to confer notability? By the way, Sportando is as unreliable a source as I've seen, despite the bull stated above, they produce next to no original content just pilfer other sources (reliable or not) sometimes just a copy and paste job. It's a bit of a sham it gets used as much, the only reason is they do a slightly improved google translate of the plagiarized articles. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then ESPN and Yahoo can't be used as sources either, because as I said, they often cite it as a source, and often get their news about European basketball signings from it, for players coming and going to NBA also.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting the GNG is more important than the SNG and routine sports reporting does not meet WP:GNG. In addition, the sources mentioned above relate to him competing in under 16 and under 17 tournaments and junior events don't show notability.Jakejr (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 12:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kountz[edit]

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

Page created by a sockpuppet of User:Tobias Conradi, I would nominated for WP:G5 but I see multiple editors by now, nothing substancial as required but just in case. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to The Divine Lady as that may've been what he was best known for and my searches found better with the best results being this and some of the same ones with browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches can't find anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firdous e Bareen[edit]

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

No reference Action Hero 09:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Unsourced" is not a valid reason for deleting an article. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 11:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The intended topic of the article is fairly certainly notable, even though legendary - the earliest known western account is by Marco Polo, it standardly appears in traditional accounts of the Assassins, and is already covered on Wikipedia at Alamut. However, I can find no English-language sources that refer to this garden as Firdous e Bareen except apparently in relation either to the Urdu historical novel or to the song mentioned in the article under discussion. PWilkinson (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I really can't understand why this wasn't speedy closed sooner as it's blatantly obvious BEFORE wasn't even followed, Anyway [Google news brings up a few books] so I'd say notability's there. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep simply because this needs familiar attention and along with the Books links, there are passing mentions with News and browser. Although this isn't as much improvement as it could be because basically these mentions are through those novels and not much else, this will need better attention and it's known Middle Eastern subjects aren't always immediately subject to this. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frappé magazine[edit]

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

I found absolutely nothing good aside from this which is basically a guide listing and it appears that since existing September 2005 (started by an IP), it appears to no longer exist and the website is now closed. Although this is from overseas, there's simply no improvement and nothing to confirm its continuing existence. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article started by an IP in Greece on a holiday publication for the Crete tourist trade. No claim of notability is made, nor do searches locate anything about it. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editor. Searches turned up only a few brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel K. Elder[edit]

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

another army guy ~~with a long list of medals but nothing that bespeaks notability~~ self-published vanity page-subject is original editor Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some brief mentions on Highbeam and Books, but not enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, as my searches found nothing better than a few links at Books and browser but feel free to draft and userfy if needed (this article has existed since July 2010 without much change). SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A11. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flickout[edit]

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

Appears to be made up by page creator. No references, and I'm unable to find anything relating to 'Flickout' on google. --I am Kethrus ^{Talk to me!} 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Mathematical Sciences, Huazhong University of Science and Technology[edit]

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

Not notable. The refs are to the site, to a personal page and what looks a newsletter of the university, so neither independent nor reliable. It’s not even mentioned at Huazhong University of Science and Technology which you would expect if it were a notable (prestigious, award winning, etc. ) part of the university. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to denote notability. There's an employment listing on Books, nothing on the other search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing specifically for these (instead for the university itself) aside from some of the same links listed here. Pinging DGG and David Eppstein for comment even though this is an obvious delete. SwisterTwister talk
Delete. Not yet notable. Our practice for separate articles for these institutes is especially restrictive. The reason there is no evidence for prestige is that it was just founded in May 2015. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Universities are generally notable but department and center level subunits of them generally are not, unless they have been the subject of an unusual amount of attention from independent sources. This does not seem to be an exception to that heuristic. BTW, SwisterTwister: thanks for the pings, but I regularly check the academics/educators and mathematics deletion sorting lists so as long as an AfD is included in those lists there's no need to ping me to make sure I see it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Johnston[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards. Charlie the Pig (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, source, and re-write. Obviously the article needs a complete re-write and sourcing. However, this artist is notable. She was featured in this magazine article. She has sung leading roles at a major opera house, the Queen of the Night in The Magic Flute and Adele in Die Fledermaus at the Prague State Opera ([see here) in addition to performing leading roles at the Estates Theatre and the Kazan Opera House in Russia. In June of this year she made a recording with the Prague Symphony Orchestra. In August 2012 she was a soloist with the Berlin Philharmonic. 4meter4 (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Keep, she seems sufficiently notable, but rewrite is needed as suggested above.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the sources 4meter4 provided, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm keep only if it can actually be improved (if not, then 'delete) because I'm not seeing much aside from this and this but I would have to see how the minimal improvement is. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- I think it would not be too bad if wikified. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better now I have wikified it, but it still needs more categories.

I don't think her achievements merit an article on Wikipedia; there are enough sources for some of her accomplishments, but they are still very minor ones. One thing: I can't find anywhere that she was a soloist with the Berlin Philharmonic; that is, if true a major achievement, but there's nothing in the Berlin Phil's archive. I played, before retiring, with major orchestras in Europe and the States and I can smell an exaggeration in a musician's bio in a second! Delete. --88.12.77.21 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her website has pictures of her performance with the Berlin Philharmonic. Obviously not an acceptable reference for wikipedia, but promising that something better might be found. I'll dig when I get some time for an acceptable reference. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could also speedy this as A9 Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Lights(Album)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability standards. Charlie the Pig (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When it's not even clear if the album exists, let alone that it's notable, then the page about it really needs to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only two brief mentions on News. Nothing else on any of the other search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable album by no notable band created by likely COI editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also voted delete for the band as there's no better coverage there. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinaki Chattopadhyay[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject meets wikipedia notability standards for notability as a academic, author, or elocutionist. Most of the sources cited in the article are unreliable websites or self-published sources, and I couldn't verify the few citations to mainstream newspapers mentioned, or find any reliable secondary sources searching through google news, dedicated India-news search tools, or Proquest. Abecedare (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NPROF (his most cited work has 6 cites), WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. He received no hits in News, Highbeam or JSTOR. Books returned a few hits, but they appear to be for a biochemist of the same name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I found nothing better than this and this (this last one seems to have one link for a P. Chattopadhyay, not sure if it's him). Pinging DGG for comment. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable under WP:PROF--low citations --most cited article is 20; being a reviewer for journals is nota notability. I can't as easily judge the rest, but the oral recitation material seems trivial, with the references essentially mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sur Plaza Boulevard[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest the improvement with the best results here, here and here and the current version is unacceptable and basically this and that website is more of a guide. Some of the last editors are not very active but I'll notify Nyttend and Arpingstone. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like your run-of-the-mill shopping center without evidence of notability. There might be Spanish-language sources, but the lack of a parallel es:wp article means that we can't mine it for sources. Note that there was an es:Sur Plaza Boulevard article, but it was deleted in 2006. Because es:wp seems generally to have lower standards for inclusion than we do, the fact that they deleted an article about this place seems to suggest that it shouldn't exist here, either. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears to be a large open air mall, but its true that the current version of the article doesn't have sufficient sourcing to show notability. A redirect to Asia District, Peru (which does mention the mall) is also an option.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't even appear to be an open air mall, but rather a section of a street, with numerous shops and clubs. Search engines show some hits, but most are just mentions, except for this on News. Highbeam and Newspapers returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are trivial and do not establish notability. A guide book, a passing mention and an article about a go-cart course. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mullen Lowe Group[edit]

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

Ironically, this article on an advertising agency seems largely to have been written by an advertising agency. All the sources are churnalism apart from the ones that aren't even that, they are the original press releases. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's worth mentioning this has existed since APril 2005 when Heyz started it but I found nothing else to suggest better improvement aside from this and this. Notifying past users Hamiltonstone and Ukexpat. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning delete. This article has a host of problems, including COI authorship. I had thought that, ins spite of that, it may be a notable subject. But when I checked four of the references cited in the current version, one was a dead link, and none of the others actually mention "Mullen Lowe Group". They make reference to various related / parent / whatever firms, but not Mullen Group at all - it raises the question of whether this is even accurate, let alone notable. Probably we should delete and if someone can build from scratch properly, let them do that. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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