Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 September	23 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VoloMedia[edit]

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

Not notable. Created and maintained by SPAs for promotion. Article not neutral, company not well known at all. Rayman60 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News only returned some trivial mentions and some blogs; Newspapers returned zero; Books also had some mentions, but nothing in depth; Scholar actually had some hits, but again nothing in-depth; Highbeam had some brief mentions and press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly trivial, borderline case. Coverage does not appear to be enough to warrant its own article. Jujutacular (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although Books, News, browser and highbeam all found links but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 28 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 Livingston Public Schools. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school, so redirect to Livingston Public Schools. Was previously a redirect, but a user changed it back saying that the sources establish notability, I have explained why they don't on the talk page. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: For the last AfD I disagreed with you. For this school, the references do not pass the coverage and audiences tests of WP:ORG. So redirect. 00:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Livingston Public Schools and semi protect.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 27 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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sliding uncus syndrome[edit]

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

This is an article about a medical neologism, paid for by the person who coined the term (see talk page). My searches show that the term has not been used by other authors raising serious WP:OR and WP:MEDRS concerns. SmartSE (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO plus serious WP:OR and WP:MEDRS concerns cited above. My knowledge of searching medical references is limited, but it's worth noting that Google Scholar shows exactly one hit for this term, and it's the paper published by the individual who paid for this article to be written [1]. — Brianhe (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, conflict of interest by paid editor and questionable RS and OR as noted by others. Citobun (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have already disclosed my WP:COI as per Wikimedia Terms of Use. I request the page to be judged on its merit. This syndrome is a unique and important one because it undermines the basic concept known to neurology and thus is an important lesson to clinicians at all specialities. Mr RD 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mr RD (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete - This page should be judged on its merits, and not the original author's conflict of interest. That being said, I fully agree with the !votes made by SmartSE and Brianhe; specifically, the fact that the only result on Google Scholar is a paper published by the guy who paid for this article to be written shows that it's a classic case of WP:NEO. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This new diagnosis is too recently described to be a useful encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi Amin[edit]

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

Fails too meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. All references are somehow connected to the person. No indication of importance of documentary films metioned. The award is not notable as well. Pahlevun (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although Books found a few links, there's nothing to suggest better unless it's mainly in Arabic & Farsi but it's unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, subject fails general notability guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has coverage... it's not in the article. Also, notabilty does not depend on 3Rd party coverage necessarily. She is notable who being an LGBT scholar. I can add more later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 22:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some sources and I'm lucky my daughter is taking Turkish, since there were several from Turkey. There are more in Farsi (?) that I won't even try messing with (and didn't add) as I don't know anyone who can help right now. I suspect there's more in German. She's written about in scholarly texts about Iran. Her documentary won an award, and how do you know that the award from IWSF is not notable? Just curious about notability standards for awards on Wiki. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent edits and adding sources. Now we need to make sure that it makes it aligned with Wikipedia:Notability (people), which needs "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". We can see multiple sources in the article, so we need to check them being secondary, independent and reliable. Coverage is also very important, as it can be read in the guideline: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".

Reviewing the first source, The Struggle for Iran (which I suppose is independent and reliable), we need to know how much the subject is covered. I couldn't find the name in google books search, however It may go wrong. Regarding that you are the editor who adds it, I ask you to quote it to see how much the subject is covered.

For the second source, Alternatif Siyaset (in Turkish), I really can't assess the coverage. I also ask about reliability.

Justice for Iran, is not independent of the subject, so it does not prove notability.

The book Islam and Democracy in Iran: Eshkevari and the Quest for Reform, is a reliable source about Hasan Yousefi Eshkevari. Since I have no access to the book and failed to search it, I ask you to quote it. From what I guess, the passage may be about Eshkevari's speech at Iran After the Elections conference, which was on 2000, not in the 1980s, as it is written in the article. Anyway if I'm true on this case, this is a mention in passing and very trivial.

The Erasing 76 Crimes, being referenced twice, mentions the subject, but does not speak "about" the subject. I also doubt reliability. It is a blog and it may violate WP:BLOGS.

Reliable Frankfurter Allgemeine Rhein-Main (in German) mentions her name 3 times and Ali Sadrzadeh 4 times. I can't assess coverage.

Hurriyet (in Turkish) seems a short interview to me.

Middle East Eye only mentions a tweet and Women's eNews Inc only mentions her name. There is nohing "about" her to prove notability.

From what I can see, she is an "active" activist, but has not done anything special to make her notable. There are sources "mentioning" the subject, but I don't see enough "in-depth content about" the subject. With this number of trivial and dependent/unreliable sources in the article, we may face masking the lack of notability. I don't wonder that the article is an Orphan since December 2013, there are maybe thousands of Iranian activists like her. Pahlevun (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know Persian and I couldn't find better sources than what you have added. Sources only mention her name, and are less reliable. If we want to prove notability with the films, there should be something to align with WP:FILMMAKER:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

---There is no source except two Youtube links and one Justice For Iran source, not independent of the subject. If the films are important, there should deep coverage in several indipendent secondary sources. Pahlevun (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that she is the subject of interviews in multiple languages and countries, that's a good indication of notability. She's mentioned in published sources, both print and digital and worked with Amnesty International. She has enough coverage for GNG, esp as academic. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 Sorry... forgot to add that the German, Swedish and Turkish coverage is all independent...not connected to her at all. The books are published by reliable sources. If you're searching in the US, they should pop up. Try WorldCat if you're stuck. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have flagged referencing problems in the article. Above, I asked you to quote two of the sources you added (The Struggle for Iran and Islam and Democracy in Iran), and I already explained that why I see the part "Amin organized a protest in the 1980s at a conference..." historically wrong, so I ask you again to please quote the part, as WP:BURDEN states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Pahlevun (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you Megalibrarygirl for your attention to the article. Notable. (By the bye Colin Stewart who operates 76 crimes is not related to subject whatsoever, he works on human rights cases throughout the world. He has coordinated press on several high profile cases in the Caribbean). In addition to the other sources cited by Mega... Amin has been a featured speaker on panel discussions with International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association has been cited by the Times of India on events against sexual minorities in Iran and she was featured in an interview Trans[ition in Iran] in World Policy Journal. Diverse sources, multiple media markets, add up to substantive coverage regardless of whether the individual articles contain information solely about her. Depth of coverage has been shown. SusunW (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for your contributions, but I still think we are hving a Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability problem. Sources like The Guardian are independent and reliable, but we need the sources to cover the subject more deep. Pahlevun (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So is ILGA, the Times of India, and World Policy Journal, or are you questioning those as well? SusunW (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am questioning the amount of coverage of the subject in the reliable, independent souces. The sources are trivial. quoting or mentioning someone is not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people): "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial". I see no such thing. Pahlevun (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Depth of coverage is not the same thing as length of coverage. One can have 1,000s of pages of trivial fluff about a person which will never make them notable. A single statement in a reliable source that they are respected in their field carries more weight. A single sentence "Barack Obama is president of the United States" carries much more weight than a 200-page book detailing a party he attended when he was in college, though the book may be longer. If you have multiple independent sources indicating that the person is noteworthy, especially if it is wide coverage throughout several different continents, as it is in this case, those mentions add up to weight. This person's reputation is "weighty" enough that they were interviewed by the Guardian, the Times of India, The World Policy Journal and deemed an expert to lead a panel by one of the leading international LGBT organizations. You don't determine their notability. The sources do. The sources determined not just any person, but *this* person, was someone worthy to interview. SusunW (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundantly notable, nominator seems to misunderstand notability criteria and seems very invested in arguing with those who have pointed out that it should be kept. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to only comment on content, not on the contributor. Pahlevun (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable: 11 (50%)

Doubtful reliability: 3 (13.63%)

Reliable: 7 (31.81%)

Other (4.56%)

Comment: Currently, there are 22 sources in the article. 7 self-published (unreliable), 2 youtube links (unreliable), 1 goodreads link (unreliable), 1 primary source (for the prize with no indicaion of importance), 2 academic sources (trivial mentions), 1 reliable interview by Hurriyet, 1 interview with doubtful reliability (Alternatif Siyaset), 1 picture slideshow (Demotix; no usage for notability proof), 4 reliable sources trivially mentioning the subject, 2 blog posts with doubtful reliability.

So, there are only 7 sources able to contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Frankfurter Allgemeine Rhein-Main, Hurriyet Kelebek, Guardian, The Struggle for Iran published by The New York Review of Books, Islam and Democracy in Iran by I.B. Tauris, Women's eNews and Sogi News. According to WP:BASIC, we need to asses the coverage. I see all trivial mentions, except the interview with Hurriyet Kelebek. Pahlevun (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more sources than your analysis cites and clearly the others here have not agreed with your evaluation of the sourcing. Since you had tagged nearly every single source cited in piece as unreliable, I have revisited each citation and added additional sourcing. The books do not require additional citations which you asked for, as anyone can access the ISBN numbers or the links I have added to her published works section. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Why all the sound and fury here, this seems like an easy call... Carrite (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SusunW has more than adequately addressed the references. I agree that there is a significant depth of coverage--or I wouldn't have bothered adding anything to the article. If she was just "another activist, one of many" (to paraphrase), there would be mountains of Lesbian Human Rights activists from Iran in the press, and I'm not finding them. You don't make it into this many publications, especially scholarly books, (in five different languages) without being important or notable. You aren't called up for commentary on issues relating to your subject area if you are not important. Please stop debating this closed issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My judgement is only based on WP:N, nothing else. Regarding th recent edits on the article, the subject may be a bare notability example.

Please stop quoting essays. They are not guidelines and carry no weight. It is you who keeps requesting more and more sources, though what is on the file shows very, very clearly that she is notable. No one is invited to contribute in a UN periodic review without credibility and years in the field. SusunW (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's close this. The article has benefited from the attention the AfD brought and it unquestionably passes GNG with all of the depth of coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:47, 28 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 without prejudice to re-creation if and when the museum is completed and open and has attracted sufficient independent comment in reliable sources to be notable in its own right. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Museo Giannino Castiglioni[edit]

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

It's hard for a museum to be non-notable, but I believe this one manages it; a gypsothèque under construction in a village on Lake Como, WP:TOOSOON. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as way WP:TOOSOON. It can be recreated once the museum is completed and open. clpo13_(talk) 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:INHERITORG. clpo13_(talk) 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. In addition to premature exposure, it appears that anything having to do with the Castiglioni family and their alleged ancestral town of Lierna is being suddenly, heavily promoted on English Wikipedia despite insufficient evidence of notability or of relevance to the articles to which they are rapidly being linked. FactStraight (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is first noted that it is important to find out who the Castiglioni family, not only the great artist Giannino, but also three of his children considered the fathers of Italian industrial design and then design in the world, who have made their own projects in this village on Lake Como. Museums should be considered for their content, for the works they contain, and not for packaging gipsosteque (sic!), Certainly conterrranno least 200 plaster casts of the works designed. The location was chosen as his land from where Castiglioni has designed much of the country, the main square, the fountains, the church, the building of the museum itself, munincipio, kindergartens. I think what is a true outdoor museum. This is the only museum of Castiglioni in Italy and is the official one being the owner of the works donated by the family. The grandson Giannino Castiglioni is one of the largest lighting designers in the world. Know exactly who the castiglioni because remove what is a mess to art and history. The museum is open now. --Alec Smithson (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I have nominated this article for deletion, a redirect to Giannino Castiglioni seems on balance to be the better alternative. All referenced content about the museum is already in that article, so there's nothing to merge. Whether this rather boring Fascist-era sculptor is notable is another question; he has a brief entry in Treccani, so I think perhaps he may be. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you do not realize the severity of defining boring one of the most important artsiti throughout Italy and across Europe, whose works are the subject of visits by governments even in cemeteries, for example in Milan. Her children, that they too are in the museum are Achille, Livio and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni fathers of Italian and world design. And really a mess and write defame Castiglioni saying it's a boring artist of the fascist and what is written by someone who art and its history does not know he appreciates. You needed to go and see if there was on the Treccani? where many artists are not present? Everyone in the world knows Castiglioni, everyone knows and loves a minimum the art world. An artist of the boring fascist period? Castiglioni? this is a statement by putting on Italian newspapers. is a shame, even the word MAYBE, and again you had to check on Treccani who was Castiglioni?!?!? I will play the home you do not even know who's Achille Castiglioni and Pier Giacomo and Livio. The Italian design is famous in your opinion? (From cars to furniture, from the lights, the clothes? Object?) It is thanks to them. --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete per Alec Smithson --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's really too soon. But Giannino Castiglioni is surely relevant. . --Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 21:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 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 redirect to Hero (2015 Hindi film). (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Pancholi[edit]

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

Recreating AfD for Scope creep, as their submission somehow appended onto the original AfD page. Their rationalie: "Minor actor of more serious parents. Only made a single film. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. I don't think the man is notable." —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hero (film) and possibly protect if needed as there's nothing to suggest better aside from being best known for this film. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: two weeks ago another AfD was raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suraj Pancholi for same subject. I had added it here. But User:Torchiest removed it for no stated reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: Sorry about that. I didn't realize that was a different AfD discussion. There were some problems with this listing, and I thought a bot had gotten confused and double added the same listing again. I didn't notice the spelling difference. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. No problem.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect All of the coverage he has received is for 1 film role and the suicide of an actress. No encyclopedic value. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER for now.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:48, 29 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Stritmatter[edit]

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

This individual does not meet the standard for WP:N based on WP:SCHOLAR. I compared his credentials against the criteria listed for WP:SCHOLAR. Criteria #2-9 do not apply, so his notability relies entirely on meeting criterion #1, “The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” Typically this criterion is satisfied by a scholar being the author of highly-cited academic works.

Professor Stritmatter’s most-cited publication, according to Google Scholar, has been cited just 21 times. Three of those are in other publications he wrote. His H-Index is 5 on Google Scholar; on Web of Science, it’s 2. Web of Science identifies only 8 articles citing his work (other than self-citations.) There is no evidence that his scholarship has had a significant impact on his discipline, broadly construed. Bomagosh (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)— Bomagosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Professor Stritmatter fails to meet the WP:SCHOLAR standard for academic notability. His research has not “made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” He is not “the author of highly-cited academic works.”

Of the 35 articles by Stritmatter listed on Google Scholar, 15 have never been cited. The remaining 20 articles have garnered 79 citations.

Of those 79 citations, three-fifths (45) do not meet the standards for Criterion 1. Nearly a third of his citations (25) are by himself or his collaborator. Eight of those 25 are self-citations by Stritmatter; twelve, by his frequent co-author, Richard Waugaman (recently deleted from Wikipedia), five of which occur in Brief Chronicles, a journal edited by Stritmatter; five more are by Stritmatter and Waugaman jointly. Another 17 are from non-academic, unrefereed websites and publications devoted to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship; one is by a Baconian; one appears to be an undergraduate paper; one link is broken.

Only 32 citations “occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books,” and are not by either Stritmatter or Waugaman. Two more are from dissertations. But of those 34, seven citations refer to two papers on handwriting recognition, co-written with technical experts in that field. These citations occur in other papers on the technical aspects of pattern recognition, far outside Stritmatter’s field of competence. They have titles like “Style-based retrieval for ancient Syriac manuscripts” and “Writer identification using oriented Basic Image Features and the Delta encoding.” Almost certainly, they do not discuss Stritmatter’s literary work on Herman Melville. These are his citations only by association. Omitting those seven, but including the two dissertations, leaves 27 valid citations out of 79 (34%). That is an average of 0.77 citations per article.

The more rigorous Web of Science site lists 14 Stritmatter articles. Of these, Stritmatter & Kositsky's "Shakespeare and the voyagers revisited (Bermuda)" has five citations; "By providence Divine: Shakespeare's awareness of some Geneva marginal notes of I-Samuel" has three; "The influence of a Genevan note from Romans-VII,19 on Shakespeare's 'Sonnet 151'" is self-cited. The other eleven articles have gone unnoticed. Average citations per item is 0.64. His h-index is 2.

As measured by his academic achievements, Roger Stritmatter is scarcely notable. Though engaged in scholarly research and teaching, he is less “known for such engagement” than as a controversialist and publicist for the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship.--Quidlibet (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)— Quidlibet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Very strong keep, as this is a very serious matter, and it is unbelievable that this AfD has been proposed and opened. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC) - User Quidlibet wrote: As measured by his academic achievements, Roger Stritmatter is scarcely notable. Though engaged in scholarly research and teaching, he is less “known for such engagement” than as a controversialist and publicist for the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. But interestingly enough, there is a special page on this very Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship on this Wikipedia, where one of the references belongs to Stritmatter´s dissertation, the first ever that is to be associated with Oxfordian theory. See Stritmatter, Roger (2001). The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence (Ph.D.). University of Massachusetts. Retrieved 1 September 2012, available online. Professor Stritmatter is by all real criteria academically notable. So what is the point of Quidlibet and the others, e.g. Tom Reedy? They simply want to eliminate everything what they can eliminate in connection with the Oxfordian theory. They cannot eliminate the theory proper. Tom Reedy himself is one of the most prominent so-called mainstream (Shakespearean) editors on Wikipedia. However, he also contributed a lot to the above article on Oxfordian theory. In my opinion, there is no logics in this AfD, it should be closed without any further discussion. - Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that the subject does not meet WP:SCHOLAR, he does meet the requirements of WP:FRINGEBLP, which states that "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs." Stritmatter is mentioned, discussed, or quoted six times in James S. Shapiro’s Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, which is a study of anti-Stratfordian fringe theories by a well-known and noted Shakespeare scholar. He calls him "one of the leading advocates of Oxford [as the true Shakespeare] at work today", and was called the world’s "first professional Oxfordian scholar" by Irvin Leigh Matus, another noted Shakespeare scholar. These reliable sources should be sufficient for inclusion of the article on Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom Reedy, though I came to the same conclusion before reading his remarks, after checking this AfD, on seeing the notification on Tom's page. Irv Matus's opinion, confirmed by Shapiro's work's citations of him, should not be taken lightly. There is a further, personal consideration. One's judgement here should not be influenced by personal views or the history of clashes with RS when he was active here. A negative vote from anyone involved in that past history would smack of vindictive enmity, which was never the question at all.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As discussed by Shapiro and Matus, Dr. Stritmatter is perhaps the most notable apologist for the Oxford-as-Shakespeare theory. He fails WP:SCHOLAR, but easily passes WP:FRINGEBLP. If his page is rewritten to reflect that status, it should be kept.Quidlibet (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 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 all. @UnofficialHFCArchiver: I applaud your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia has clear rules, explained at WP:NFOOTBALL (this link does not work reliably - you may need to scroll up to find the heading "Association football"), about which footballers should have articles. Your own website is already linked from the club's article so that readers looking for more detail can find it. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Bonella[edit]

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

A user has started creating articles for various players who play for Hereford F.C., a team playing at the ninth level of English football, way below the professional leagues. None of the nominated players have ever played professionally, and fail WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG.

In addition to Bonella, I am also nominating:

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as these players have not played internationally or in fully professional national leagues. clpo13_(talk) 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom Spiderone 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Hereford FC is a team playing at the ninth level of English football, that is a fact. It is also a fact that they current have the 7th highest attendance out of the entire non league pyramid [2] so i would argue that there is very much an appetite among the footballing community for the history of this Phoenix club to be cataloged - which was my intention.

It is also my intention to catalogue all of the players who played for Hereford United (the original club) from 1924 to 2014. This information is already on the web on a website i have created but i wanted to bring it into a wider audience and link it into what is already available through Wikipedia, and expand the information available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnofficialHFCArchiver (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none of them have played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning none of them meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete all - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.
Delete all They have not played in a fully professional game, which is the standard for soccer. I can't believe there even is a ninth division British league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out English football league system @Editorofthewiki:, you may be in for a shock ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 27 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oktopost[edit]

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

Not notable, promotional; based on press releases. The Times of Israel article is actually a write-up from their web supplement on start-ups, and just as promotional as any paid advertisement. It was accepted from AfC after removal of promotional content, which has since been restored, but even the accepted version in the history did not have reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several additional references added, including Rampton J. Effective Lead Generation Through B2B Market Research and Social Automation Tools. Forbes. 05/23/2015 [3], which appears to contain independent coverage assessment of Oktopost. Article under reconstruction, to precisely attain the same structure and level of referencing as at least 4 other similar company/software market segment articles. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) updated FeatherPluma (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The references, as noted above, are little better than press releases, and nothing better pops up in internet searches. Specific sites searches showed zero hits at Haaretz/TheMarker, and a trivial mention at Jpost. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FeatherPluma, what are the other 4 articles you have in mind as comparisons> There's a good possibility they also need to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG Since we are aware that AfD does not utilize cross-article comparisons, my comment is best taken as an intent to reconstruct the article from the ground up, by using a technique of parallelism of structure and referencing. I have compared roughly 30 articles in this category. I started with the behemoth in the category, Hootsuite. Hootsuite's Alexa rank is 128, Oktopost's Alexa is 98,295, so I went right to the very top end to look at its sourcing basis. The structural parallelism upgrade will select the best available articles in the category. I hope this answers your question head on. My point isn't to make a big deal of the cross-article issue, but to try to leverage adequate time to address the necessary upgrade process. DGG, I would very much appreciate being able to factor in your take on the newly added Rampton reference [4]. Where do you assess that citation? Unlike Times of Israel, it seems to be an both independent and reliable. However, I acknowledge that there is an annotation that, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" and I also concede that there is subjectivity as to whether the source's brevity of relevant analytic information content is adequate depth of treatment to establish notability. Where do you place the Forbes source on that continuum, please? FeatherPluma (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hootsuite article is quite promotional. Essentially every company in the area was founded because of the founder "Finding that there was no product in the market offering all the features he sought," I note the phrases "following rumors" "prominent angel investors" "plans to transfer" "an employee informed" "customers included" "Hootsuite's team continues to contact media organizations to help them manage their online brands," " over 1000 Ambassadors represent the brand all over the world." All of these are common promotional wording. Consider: " a variety of social media services, including Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Mixi. " -- all such systems support all common social media platforms. As for Forbes, Rampton often does good analyses. In this particular post , however, he just reprints the companies' own descriptions of themselves. (And the paragraph on Oktopost says exactly that at the bottom-- "Source: Oktopost" I've learned to read press stories on companies all the way to the bottom. And I do not judge promotionalism by personal impressions--I judge by objective features.

More generally, I checked the category, and I do not consider there is any fully satisfactory article on social media. Some of the shorter ones are purely factual but fail to show notability. Some where there are controversy like Klout have at least substantial npov content. Real, not manufactured controversy tends to result in good articles in the press. Good articles in the press make possible good WP articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hi DGG, I agree with you. The writing on the wall is 10 feet high: we delete this article, and move on. As you probably noticed, my initial input on this page was just to line up with a "Delete" comment, and move on. Intellectually, however, I am very interested over the long haul of experience on Wikipedia in exploring potential dissimilarities of application of core principles between different categories of article. This AfD is not the place to expound on things though. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:39, 27 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axonify[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. There is some secondary sources, but most seem to be sponsored in trade papers. Was sitting as a draft for several months at AFC, [[5]] but was rejected. Still reads like an Ad. I think it is well past borderline for delete!. scope_creep 17:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy to author as although the article is admirable for being neat and sourced, News, Books and Highbeam also found more links but maybe not enough for better improvement. Notifying past users Jodi.a.schneider, DGG and Sanskari. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are reprinted PR. We have to look what the reverences say, not ust where they are published. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination and DGG. In addition, the article fails the notability criteria for WP:ORG. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:35, 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 Elizabeth Wong (politician). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Wong[edit]

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

This is an interesting because it has hardly changed since starting in February 2009 and the best search results I found here, here and here and additional searches at Malaysian news The Star, The Sun, New Straits Times, Malay Mail, Malaysian Reserve and until Borneo Post I found a few links here. Pinging possibly interested user Download. Basically the current version suggests she was best known for the photos controversy so if she is notable this will need be changed and improved. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

She served in a legislative assembly at the state level, so she's technically an automatic keep under WP:NPOL #1 — but there's an unexpected twist here: there's actually another article about her, at Elizabeth Wong (politician), which explains her notability better than this and is much more properly formatted (although it still needs sourcing improvement). So this should probably be redirected to the other article (this one was technically created a day earlier, making that one the nominal duplicate, but that one's the much better article) — although I also wouldn't be opposed to deletion as a duplicate article if "Eli" isn't actually a name that she would be expected to be known by. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources in the article in question refer to her as "Elizabeth Wong", but I found one recent news article referring to her as "Eli Wong" in the article's title. [6] I'm OK with redirect or merge/redirect. - Location (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The articles should obviously be merged and that includes the history. Andrew D. (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear fork of another, much better, short article. Not seeing much to merge here. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 27 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graylan Hagler[edit]

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

suggested deletion for Graylan_Hagler. The page is non-compliant and unreferenced.GaryGo (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the delete category to this article. The article has been around since 2008 and is non-compliant with the policy for biographies of living persons. Most of the history is attributed to one author, the article is non-neutral, and I doubt anyone else cares. GaryGo (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the one link that is provided for reference is just a link to some sort of search engine. GaryGo (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Completing nomination for GaryGo, this rationale was posted elsewhere. I have no opinion on the article's notability at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found this on the talk page, so adding this in as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete there's really not much here. He's a pastor of a church. He ran [7] for city council as an independent and lost. Page may have been started to promote a candidacy. It has been tagged for reading like an advertisement since 2010, with no improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see very little of note in this biography. I note that the anti-apartheid organisation with which he was involved and each of his churches have not article, which again suggests he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 27 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhosh Kumar[edit]

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

Ordinary person and obviously not outstandingly notable aside from climbing Mount Everest which in that case should be added to the list of many Mount Everest climbers although this article is an orphan so no current linking articles; the best I found was this. Pinging Eeekster, Eluchil404 and DGG and also author Enidhi. SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete. the material here would do nicely on the person's facebook page, but it doesn't belong in an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional or self-promotional bit about a more or less ordinary climber. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 27 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arth Daniels[edit]

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

I found nothing to suggest better notability and improvement with my best search results being this and this. Pinging Mufka for comment. SwisterTwister talk 17:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Subject does not meet WP:BASIC, confirmed after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:40, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Jodouin[edit]

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

Minimally sourced (sole source is a non-daily community newspaper) WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that entitles a person to an article per WP:NPOL — Wikipedia is not a hosting platform for promotional campaign brochures, so if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the seat. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after October 19 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject is an unelected candidate for a seat in the upcoming federal election. To have an article, the subject would have to be notable on her own prior to becoming a candidate, and I don't see anything in the article that would support a claim of notability. If she wins a seat in the election, then like all other elected MPs would meet notability requirements and an article can be added at that time. Cmr08 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did anyone do WP:Before? She's been written about throughout Canada before her run since she is,also an activist. The sources need to be added, but just because they are not there yet doesn't mean she's not notable. In addition, non elected officials can be very important. I don't know Canadian politics, but just saying that her position is unelected doesn't take away notability. I agree with Bearcat that the article isn't well written. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She brings up no significant hits in a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search — and on Google News, the only hits she garners anywhere outside of local media in North Bay and Timiskaming are passing namechecks of her existence in the context of her candidacy. So yes, WP:BEFORE has been done. An article doesn't get kept on Wikipedia just because the existence of national coverage is asserted — I'm certainly willing to consider withdrawing this if such coverage can actually be shown, but it can't just be claimed if it isn't shown, and I sure haven't been able to find any. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I found the local media, too. But local coverage doesn't mean she's not notable. I was hoping there might be more. I found no hits on EBSCO. But there's a good profile in local news here, and some coverage before the nomination here. I'm pinging SusunW because she's good at the depth of coverage assessment. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I find additional sources. She has been a community activist over time, so her notability in her community is not fleeting and she doesn't have to have national notability to meet Wiki guidelines. (I did a google search for a custom range 01/01/2010 to 06/30/2014 to eliminate most of the political press.) Going back to 2010 I find her raising funds for the AIDS Committee of North Bay & Area, then in 2014 I find her again hosting a fundraiser [8]. She also was involved in establishing a women's clinic for high risk patients. The strike in which she is one of the local leaders for social worker pay was also carried nationally by Reuters [9]. The award she won in 2013 as a "leading women building communities award" is not just from her city, but is a provincial award. Meets GNG even if she doesn't ever get elected. She's a social worker and the fact that she is mentioned at all is evidence that in her community she is notable. Most social workers one never even hears of. SusunW (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters source is a press release, not a news article, so it doesn't count for anything toward the meeting of GNG — kindly note the "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release" disclaimer directly under the headline. Bay Today is an online-only community newspaper of the type that wouldn't even really be a reliable source for anything at all, even after GNG had already been met by stronger sources — and Kiss and The Fox are both local music radio stations, not even primarily news sources at all. And nearly all of those sources just namecheck her existence in the process of being primarily about other things, which is not the same thing as coverage in which she's substantively the subject. Local coverage is actually not out of the ordinary for a social worker who's actively involved in local issues — if she were getting into The Globe and Mail for this stuff, then there might be a case for GNG, but if all she's getting is Bay Today and the local Rogers Radio cluster, then it's just not there. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bearcat what you are hoping for is press coverage from the provincial capital which is over 4 hours away and really unlikely unless she does win that national seat. Where does this phrase namechecking come from? Certainly not in the guidelines which state specifically that if coverage is not substantial in a single source, mentions may be combined. Multiple mentions in multiple sources confirm that the source determined the subject was worthy of notice. Your claim of social workers appearing in newspapers is unsubstantiated, I have experience in the field and it is possible in a local market but rare. In the state capital, not very likely unless one has been selected for a state award or office. Why is it that you assume the local paper is unreliable? However, similar pieces appear in both the other two newspapers of North Bay, though they do not seem to come up in a Google search, see [10] [11] [12] [13] SusunW (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage extending beyond the local area is normally what it takes to prove that a person has the level of notability necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Yes, you are correct that it's relatively unlikely unless the person wins a major award on the level of the Order of Canada or gets herself elected to the provincial or federal legislature, but that's not because provincial or national coverage is an unreasonable standard to impose on a person at the purely local level of prominence — it's because the purely local level of prominence isn't a thing that normally qualifies a person for a Wikipedia article. (For just one example out of many, that's the very reason why WP:NPOL is not considered to grant notability to city councillors in most cities smaller than the narrow range of internationally famous metropolitan global cities — all city councillors in all cities always get local coverage, but most city councillors outside of the megacity range don't get any significant coverage beyond the purely local.)

And I didn't cast aspersions on all local newspapers, either — I specifically knocked Bay Today, because it's (a) a web-only publication, not the city's daily newspaper, and (b) doesn't have a large staff, and thus consists very largely of reprints of press releases and/or user-submitted content. And I'm not making random personal guesses about the publication based on appearances, either — I have preexisting personal familiarity with the publication, because I grew up in Northeastern Ontario and still actively follow the region's news on a regular basis. So I'm not guessing at what Bay Today might be; I've been personally familiar with it for over a decade, so I know exactly what it is — and what it is, is the kind of weaker source that can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after enough stronger sourcing is already there to cover off GNG, but cannot itself be the foundation of a GNG claim.

And "namechecking" is standard Wikipedia jargon for the type of article that briefly acknowledges a person's existence, such as because they provided a brief soundbite or because they're simply being briefly listed as an organizer of an event, but that person isn't a main subject of the article in a substantive enough way to count as a point toward their GNG score. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat thanks for your explanation about the paper, and you'll note that I did not accuse you of making random guesses, simply asked for clarification. I bow to your superior knowledge of the paper, but as I pointed out, the other papers confirm the information and I have added them to the article. She isn't an elected politician (yet?) thus, WP:NPOL is inapplicable. As for the "namecheck", it isn't used in notability guides either (it does appear in a pretty poorly written essay). If her name wasn't likely to be recognized, she would not be repeatedly requested to speak and give input on health, AIDS, and women's issues in news articles. It would be a one-off, which seems precisely why the guidelines *do* provide for combining mentions. She probably isn't ever going to merit international or even national recognition, but that is not Wikipedia criteria. SusunW (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources here that are seeking her out as some kind of outside expert or commentator on things she's not directly involved in; she's giving soundbite in articles about events she was directly involved in organizing (in a way that's completely WP:ROUTINE, since any remotely intelligent journalist covering any community event will always want to speak to its organizers), speaking at conferences on topics within her area of expertise (in a way that's completely routine, because any coverage of that event will always quote from some of its speakers), and on and so forth. Any person who's actively involved in their own community will always have their name show up in the local news from time to time — but nothing here demonstrates that she's gotten any media attention that goes beyond the routine level of local coverage that any person who's active in her local community can always be expected to garner. If having your name show up in local newspapers in your own hometown three or four times were all it took to satisfy GNG, we'd have to start keeping articles about heads of local PTAs, coordinators of church bake sale committees, vice-principals of junior high schools and organizers of local community fundraisers. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat you are indeed persuasive. Should she win the election, it can be revisited. SusunW (talk) 18:02, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarabal Khuiyaan[edit]

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

The article is about wells. It's not clear whether these wells have any Historical significance. The references don't give any view about notability. Action Hero Shoot! 08:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Tarabal Khuiyaan" yields zero results in books, news, maps and web searches except Wikipedia mirrors. The two types of wells described in the article exist, they are types of wells (Pakka with internal brickwork, kachha without) used in a large part of India, not any particular wells in a particular location. None of the refs mention "Tarabal Khuiyaan". Kraxler (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.112.79.36.171 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC) block evasion--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot find much of any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 00:07, 30 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 portable media player, I was actually going to comment but this seems like an obvious close. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MP4 player[edit]

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

Article does not add anything over Portable media player ï¿½ (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to portable media player. As written, the article seems half-OR. The term exists, but it needs proper defining. This may yet prove to be notable, but in needs sources that define it. Otherwise, a merger into a section in said article may be more appropriate. Or, if we decide it is OR, perhaps it should all go. Ping me if anyone has any other proposals/comments which they'd like me to look at. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portable media player Artw (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zune. — Cirt (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, on second thought ... merge to Portable media player. — Cirt (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portable media player. — Lucasstar1 (talk) 04:26, 29 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Blandin Tarleton[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E John from Idegon (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as although this is quite an experience, my searches found nothing to suggest a better separate article with my best search results here and here. At best, she would better mentioned at another article. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad affair but as per nom: WP:BLP1E. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E per nom. General Ization ^Talk 11:50, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Inconvenience Committee[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything to suggest meaningful notability and improvement with the best search results here and here. With no obvious signs of improvement or moving elsewhere, I'm not seeing anything to suggest keeping and there have been no one significant edits since starting in February 2009. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations (the one on the page redirects away from the original target) and no evidence of notability. The Nom's Google searches represent more good faith work to justify this article than the article authors put in. -Markeer 23:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable pressure group, fails WP:ORG. Apologies for the inconvenience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoverHound[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted but restored upon request of WP:SPA account Anwiley (talk · contribs); (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FCoverHound). Anwiley suggested that the existing coverage is sufficient, pointing to the following four links, which I'll discuss. 1) [14] is a Techcrunch article ""CoverHound Lands $4.5M From RRE, Bullpen & Blumberg To Become The Kayak Of Online Insurance" from 2013. While it is in-depth, TechCrunch covers such events regularly. It is in essence "business as usual"; a start-up getting few millions is nothing that unusual, but it will generate coverage at sites that specialize in chronicling this. Second is a CNET article, [15], "Google may bring auto insurance shopping service to US", which speculates that Google may have some business ties to CoverHound. Nothing worthy of encyclopedic attention here, particularly as it is a speculation. Third, the Boston Globe [16] article just mentions it in passing, this fails the in-depth requirement very clearly.Finally, [17] is an article from PropertyCasualty360 ("A Summit Professional Networks Website") titled "New CoverHound funding allows for expansion in the insurance marketplace"; the site doesn't look reliable or mainstream at all. Overall, I stand by my assessment: despite few articles in minor outlets, some of which are little different from PR / business as usual / we exist pieces, there is nothing to make this pass WP:COMPANY. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News, browser and highbeam found results, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages (WP:NOTYELLOW). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found coverage here, here, here, here and here, but it's probably not enough. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:41, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Volstad[edit]

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

Article on a commercial painter who does the covers of books on miniature figures, and is apparently well known (according the article) for a series of box covers for 1/6 scale model kits. I'm not pretending to understand what this guy is notable for. I just don't think he's notable, following several searches. All that comes up are the books he has done the covers for. Nothing in secondary sources as far as I can see. Sole link on article page is to his self-published site. Scale modelers, chime in! New Media Theorist (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he may be "one of the world's most respected military illustrators", and I do respect this guy, it's just that there's a lack of coverage as stated above [18], [19]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-neutral, mostly POV/OR article without sufficient coverage for notability (fails GNG). NOTE: sole sourcelink is Volstad's own studio's website; thus add that he also fails RS. Quis separabit? 11:30, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel-Philippe de Sudres[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, the external link citations are dubious JMHamo (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone speak French? The French-language version of the article may shed some light on whether this person meets the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The French article is thinner than ours; its only reference is a link (currently dead) to his entry as an author in the catalogue of the French national library. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and WP:TNT and start when better as although my searches found results at Books, News, browser and Scholar, there's nothing to suggest immediate better improvement so this will likely need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 00:08, 30 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayya Krishnan[edit]

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

Another article created by indef blocked editor user:BiH, many of whose paid creations have been deleted or are currently under AfD. The sources are all either dead, unreliable, primary, faculty staff listings, or very fleeting mentions. Bluntly said, the references are the result of scraping the Internet barrel. Without better sources it fails WP:PROF and BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As another editor said in a related AfD. A promotional article by a paid editor is an advertisement. Advertisements are not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 00:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the slam-dunk delete that other BiH-created articles tend to be. The subject of the article should be judged on wp:academic criteria, and I think that he fares rather well. He is the dean of a college at Carnegie-Mellon University, and holds a named chair in that college. These are generally the criteria that one looks for in an academic. There's a small amount of puffery, but I generally find the article to be factual in nature. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was laden with non-notable puffery and copyvios, but I think I've cleaned out most of it. He obviously passes WP:PROF#C5 and also #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the standards of WP:Prof. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:46, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club Loyalty Award[edit]

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

A non-notable sporting award, re-listing this as the last AfD was closed as no consensus JMHamo (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per my comments at the last AFD, non-notable. Giant Snowman 20:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Defunct non-notable award, fails WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find much on the internet to suggest that this is notable (although admittedly there might be some reliable Russian sources for this) Spiderone 20:30, 27 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. both JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novofibre[edit]

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

Two pages created by one person who admitted to running two socks (as described at COIN discussion). Nominating both for deletion here. Articles are pure WP:Promotion. One user has suggested that the best solution to this is to move a sentence or two from the articles mentioning the OSSB product into Engineered wood, and to delete the rest. I agree. New Media Theorist (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete both and handle per nom. ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I believe that both articles were created in bad faith for the purpose of promoting a business. Deli nk (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when a self-confessed socking PROMO SPA offers to allow their work to be deleted, who am I to say no? Brianhe (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've added a one-line entry on the product at Oriented strand board#Related products. Oriented strand board is normally made from wood, but any long fiber will work, so straw or bagasse are sometimes used. John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although Books, News and highbeam all instantly found links, they were few and certainly not enough for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - snow close, anyone?--ukexpat (talk) 12:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime Engineering Emmy Awards[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork, should be included in Primetime Emmy Award JMHamo (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am LIVE Guy. I am concerned that the Primetime Emmy Engineering Award Wikipedia article is being marked this way. The awards exist, and the information is utterly accurate.

Also I noticed a comment by JHamo that the article should be included simply in Prime Time Emmy. I strongly disagree. First, notice that the Creative Arts category for Primetime Emmy has its own web page already. Second, the Primetime Engineering Emmys really are a separate category. For example, they are not presented at the televised prime time emmy ceremony. They are not televised but are extremely prestigious. Like the Creative Arts Primetime Emmys, they have their own separate ceremony. The argument to delete is completely unfounded. Further, trying to fit 40 years of history of the Primetime ENGINEERING Emmy awards into the page on a page primarily devoted to the performance Emmys is a mistake.

I have added many references in the form of links to Television Academy announcements of the Primetime Emmy Engineering Awards. They show separate announcement dates than the televised Emmys, separate ceremonies, and reach different groups of people.

LIVE Guy (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a separate set of Primetime Emmy Award categories. Even if we keep the years that can be cited, it would be improper to merge this list of winners back into the main Primetime Emmy Award article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. See my reasons above. LIVE Guy (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If all the forks were at the main page, think of how huge and unwieldy it would be. WP:Size split. — Wylie pedia 08:58, 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 Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allwyn Immanuel[edit]

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

Very simple WP:A7 candidate/ apparent autobiography. CSD tag was removed by a brand new user. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Artical is not Notable and has no reliable sources Pmedema (talk) 15:04, 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 no consensus. No more discussion seems to be forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CaratLane[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Kiranbramakrishna , with no rationale (through he did leave a response on my talk (User_talk:Piotrus#Proposed_Article_for_Deletion_-_CaratLane)). Unfortunately, I do not consider the sources sufficient. The Hindu short article is half-quoted from the company's CEO statement, and the other half-reads like a PR release - no surprise, as it paraphrases him. Business Standard article just has one para about the company - it simply notes that four companies, including this one, collected some amount of funds. Nothing special, regular coverage not sufficient to make the company encyclopedic. Half of the sources, anyway, focus on the same event ("Caratlane raises $31M in Series D round from Tiger Global") and seem to be rehashes of the same original press release. As for VCCircle, I don't really see how it qualifies as a reliable source; it seems to me more like a PR-outlet. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being promotional is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Sources found: 1, 2, 3, 4. Please follow WP:BEFORE and actually look for sources first. AusLondonder (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder: Let's see. The Hindu article #1 is 90 words, 575 characters long, and seems like a reprint of a press release: "The Chennai-based startup founded in 2008, offers... The firm expects to end financial year 2015 with revenue." The second article is longer, but not better: "...will soon introduce patented ‘Magic Mirror’, which help a customer view...", most of the content is based on quotes: "Mithun Sacheti, Co-founder and CEO CaratLane, said...", "...said Calvin John, Vice-President-Offline marketing.", "Mr. Sacheti said that...". Sorry, those are a total fail in light of the requirement for independent coverage. Next you cite start-up news (ugh, I am growing to hate those) from Business Standard : "Carat lane raises $31 million". As I noted above, so what? This is business as usual, start-ups raise money from investors. It's not a source for establishing notability, just like a company doing an IPO, or its stocks going up or down, are trivial facts. Fourth is The Financial Express interview with one of the company directors. I guess it is acceptable, through I would like to ping User:DGG for another opinion here, I haven't thought about such interviews as sources much before and I'd be curious to hear his opinion. Do note, either way, that a single potentially reliable source is not sufficient for NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has acheived Wall Street Journal and Financial Times level coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, care to share the links for coverage of this company in those sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If at all weak keep for now as although I haven't closely≥ looked at all the sources, I suppose it's minimally acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: I did and I am not impressed, see my post above. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 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 11:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete waiting to see those WSJ and FT links. But experience seems to be that even newspapers like The Hindu or Times of India seem to think it appropriate to reprint press releases. Doesn't mean we have to copy their bad practices. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see about 7 pages about it in this Random House book before running into preview restrictions: [20]; part of a chapter devoted to it. There's also an article about Indian online jewelry e-commerce in The Economist [21] that focuses on this one. Three paragraphs in the The Telegraph (Calcutta) [22]. Put together with the existing sources, I think it meets GNG. Novickas (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC) P.S., as mentioned below, it was covered by Forbes India during March 2015 - four paragraphs. [23] Novickas (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Keep I see what you mean. I just believe that a company that has been covered by known newspapers such as Economic Times, Telegraph, Times of India, The Hindu, Financial Express etc (All leading newspaper dailies here) and many others is different from the rest. Maybe not enough? Then, to be recognised as the best e-commerce website from millions of sites in India – by an independent association, or to be recognised as one of the 20 hottest start-up by popular brands such as Dataquest, Sapient etc. Forbes India has included them a list of 10 sharply focused e-commerce players, without interpreting what that means – they’re being recognised is what I am saying. Then there are other bits – raising money from Tiger Global (it's not just an average round of fund-raising when they step in), their user base is growing.

All the above data put together I believe there are enough reasons for them to have their page, as they’re not just another company – but one of the biggest online diamond retailers here. I believe that this is a case for cleanup rather than an outright deletion. Thanks for hearing me out ([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|Kiranbramakrishna]]&#124[[User talk:Kiranbramakrishna|t]] )([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|COI]]) (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC) kiranbramakrishna[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three pillars of the Shia[edit]

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

This appears to be original research - the article does not cite sources to show that these clerics are referred to as "the 3 pillars of the Shia". The sources are all offline, so I'm not able to check them. This therefore appears to be a neologism or original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also available in Persian Wikipedia. There are three important figure of Shia Islam, and I wanted to introduce these people to the whole world. ..-- felestin1714 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be original research, but it may be something important about the three men mentioned. The grammar is very poor.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of these three important man endurance and resistance to oppression. ..--felestin1714 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not fully understanding this as this page now redirects to The three main Marja but FWIW my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Title changed and should be discussed under a new title. As the discussion paper should be changed. There is also this article on Wikipedia Persian. All content of the article is based on reliable sources..--felestin1714 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.170.51.124 (talk) [reply]
Comment There is no practical real difference in titles "three Pillars of the Shia" or "three main Marja", it is irrelevant. Pillars is what I have heard more used. These men however, are respected, but many kids for example do not even know them. They are dead anyway, for over hundred years all of them. The article is funny because is literal translation of word by word at least parts. I do not know if this qualifies reliable source: http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/n21028/%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B3_%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9_%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C/%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%AE/%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%AE%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C_%D9%88_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B9_%D8%AB%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AB but is a good source to translate from. Least can be done is change years to Western value, such as 1908, 1911, 1912... --TilsafBird (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not funny. It is necessary to recognize the Clergymen.It is true that they are dead. But understanding them in necessary for all human being. ..--felestin1714 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think TilsafBird means "funny" in the sense of "peculiar", not "humorous". JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The editors voting "keep" are reminded that !votes need to be based in policy, please see WP:AFD and WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT the article is completely incoherent and unreadable. The article creator does not have the WP:COMPETENCY to write in coherent English. I know people say AfD isn't cleanup and all, but there is article is completely unreadable and unless made vaguely readable has no place in an encyclopedia. Brustopher (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There article just need a little editing. Remove the Article is too much. Have you voted for on the basis of prejudice? ..-- felestin1714 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.170.51.164 (talk) [reply]

I am basing my vote on the fact that the article is impossible to read. If I could make some sense of it I would have done the editing myself. I'm sorry but you really need to improve your english writing skills before trying to write detailed encyclopedia articles like this. Also who am I meant to be prejudiced against in this situation? Brustopher (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think with a little editing of the Article reaches the desired state ..-- felestin1714 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I'm sorry, felestin1714, but I agree with Brustopher: I cannot understand the article. (Is it perhaps a machine translation?) If (but only if) there are reliable sources which refer to these three as "The three main Marja", it needs to be rewritten from a clean sheet by someone more fluent in English. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 29 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.

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felestin1714 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmologist William H. Bates - Natural Vision Improvement History[edit]

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

I declined a speedy for promotion, feeling that discussion was needed. There is already an article on Bates at William Bates (physician), but this may cover different material. Peridon (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

I am trying to create a page that covers the entire and TRUE history of Dr. Bates, his work and the many teachers he trained and teachers they trained to present date. This cannot be done on the other Bates pages due to people that control it; people that want to hide Dr. Bates method. I have a lot more history, images I would like to update; images from the 1918 book, 1920 book, public domain press photos and photos of Dr. Bates magazine. Many articles in antique print showing how he cured children's eyesight without glasses.

Would also like to add a history of how the method was and still is being corrupted by false teachers, thus giving the public a wrong impression of Dr. Bates work. And place a list of methods some honest eye doctors are using which are beneficial, derived from Dr. Bates work.

Please sign talk page and discussion page posts with ~~~~ which puts your sig and the time stamp on. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole thing looks like a cut-and-paste job, either from WP:OR or an unknown source. There is personal commentary at the end, and both that and the comments above look very POV, in fact the comment above is basically a rant. Despite

Peridon's kindness in bringing it here, it needs to go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Speedily even. POV fork of William Bates (physician) as well as being a massive copyright violation: [24]. If nobody G12's it shortly, I will prune the direct copied stuff. Crow^Caw 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed material copied from one page of the source website, which stated the content was free to distribute but not to sell, which is not compatible with our license. After that, the remaining material matched another page on the same web site, which stated it was Public Domain, so I left that content there, though we now have conflicting claims of copyright on that site. Crow^Caw 00:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We also have Bates method, which discusses Bates's ideas in excruciating detail. But this should really be speedied because it is such an extensive copyvio. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Jackson (conductor)[edit]

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

The article was nominated for deletion and the result was DELETE. While I don't doubt this young conductor is very talented, I don't believe he has enough merits to have an article on Wikipedia, plus there's information that, while it isn't technically untrue, it is seriously biased. For example: reading the internet info and GJ's website it is true that "[ he ] has conducted a range of orchestras including the London Symphony Orchestra,the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, the George Enescu Philharmonic Orchestra, Lucerne Festival Strings, the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra, and the MSM Symphony in New York". Being a person in the world of music I know that the London Symphony was conducted during a masterclass, as it was the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra (Sir Peter Maxwell Davies' summer course in Orkney), the George Enescu Philharmonic Orchestra (all students of Nicolas Pasquet in Weimar go to Romania to conduct this orchestra once each term as part of their course), the Lucerne Festival Strings is conducted by Boulez's students, and the MSM (Manhattan School of Music) is the orchestra used in the annual Kurt Masur masterclass. The Jeunesses Musicales International Conducting Competition in Bulgaria is a minor conducting competition. BTW, Ö1 (public broadcasting company in Austria) Talentbörse is not a PRIZE, is a (minor) scholarship. I have 35+ years of experience as an orchestral musician, and I can smell fake/exaggerated bios miles away, and the person who started the article was user:Jacksogh (Jackson George Henry.. so obvious!)-- Karljoos (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I closed as delete in the prior discussion, based on that particular AFD consensus. I'll choose to respectfully defer to consensus of the community upon the outcome of this discussion. Good luck everyone, — Cirt (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I voted in the previous AfD, and it doesn't appear that five years have added much to the fellow's CV. While the current iteration superficially seems sourced, they're all festival sites, promotional sites and the like. What is missing are reliable media sources providing significant coverage meeting the requirements of the GNG. Nor, as he didn't in 2010, does he meet WP:MUSICBIO, which sets a much higher bar for notability than merely appearing with this orchestra or that, or receiving minor awards from music charities. Nor is he the music director or principal conductor (not that, at his age, he's likely to be) of a major symphony orchestra -- instead, he's the assistant conductor of the Savannah Philharmonic Orchestra, which no one's mentioning in the same breath as the BSO, New York Philharmonic or the Vienna State Opera. Ravenswing 02:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two ways this could pass the criteria for inclusion. (1) the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) which requires significant in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. (2) The alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Re (1), the only reference that remotely qualifies is an interview which ORF publishes for the (many) recipients of its grants to promising young musicians. None of the rest qualify. Note that the first reference [25] looks like an article about him but it's a PR piece from "AllesKlassik-PR&Organisation- Salzburg. Excellent references for classical artists". The remainder are all minor festival notices and potted bios (not independent of the the subject). Re (2), the subject fails to pass any of the criteria, e.g. two recordings with a notable classical music label or winning a major prize (none of the ones listed fall remotely into the category) or being the permanent conductor of a major symphony orchestra (or the guest conductor of multiple major symphony orchestras). Some of the ones that the article claims he has conducted are major, but seem to have been conducted not as part of the orchestra's regular concert season but as part of master classes and conducting courses which the subject took. The fact that not a single review can be cited for the major orchestras he claims to have conducted further suggests that. The London Symphony Orchestra is referenced to a broken link and I can find no mention of him on the LSO site. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He did conduct the LSO, but in a master class with MTT ([26] and [27]).--Karljoos (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I suspected. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the cogent reasons set out above. An archived version of the LSO link shows that Jackson participated in the LSO Discovery Conducting Scheme for "aspiring professionals" in 2013. It is a bare mention of his name, there is no in-depth coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 27 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. Despite the relisting a short while ago, I am closing this now as "no consensus" per the post by Debresser on my talk page. Even though this has been relisted only 2 times before, earlier I did not appreciate enough that these relists were carried out somewhat tardively and the AfD has been open for more than 3 weeks now, with not much discussion being added in the last 2.5 weeks. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point Valid[edit]

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

Was originally CSD'd on A7 grounds, after an objection its been reinstated for community input at afd. As for a rational for deletion: No awards, no platinum albums, no credible claim of significance, no notability, and therefore no reason to have as article on the band here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article, and I asked TomStar81 to reconsider the speedy deletion, suggesting to ask for community input at Afd. I thank TomStar81 for agreeing to this.

I think we have a nice, short article here, with a few pictures, and no less than 14 references. The simple fact that there is what to write and that there are so many references, relatively speaking, already speaks for itself. Additional significance is lend to this band by the collaboration with Catherine Asaro, a notable SF&F author, as discussed in one of the sections of the article at length. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: You may have forgotten to add "keep" or "delete" to your comment here, remember this is afd, and all you have offered is a comment, not a position. ~~As a reminder, if your material is deleted her, it will be deleted with prejudice, so make it count.~~ TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, can you please clarify what "deleted with prejudice" means? I have participated in thousands of AfD debates, and do not recall hearing that phrase before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Its a "me" thing, not a Wikipedia thing, that's probably why :) To clarify, csd deletion is deletion without prejudice to me because it means that an article - once it over comes its original cad-related issue - can be recreated at will by anyone and given a fair chance to survive, while an afd deletion is deletion with prejudice since any attempt to recreate the article at or near where it was at the time of its deletion puts the article in question squarely in the cross-hairs of our csd-G8 criteria (recreation of an article deleted by afd), which makes it much harder to get the article in question back on here. And I would know this, because I've had previous WP:OWN issues with fiction articles and that was the exact problem I had when attempting to rebuild them. In this case, if the article is deleted through this process, then any attempt to rebuild it at or near its current format and layout is going to get it automatically csd-g8 tagged since we will be able to prove that such a rebuild is too close to the version originally deleted via this discussion. I should note here that under AGF there is some built in leeway for the article, its just that to me afd makes it much harder to recreate a page here than csd. Like I said, this is a "me" thing, not a Wikipedia thing, so the above is just how I look at the issue, and of course everyone looks at these things differently, so your view is probably not the same as mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, if, in the future, this band has a charting recording, or is the subject of a detailed feature article in a reliable publication like Rolling Stone or the New York Times, then the article will be recreated in a New York minute. Things can change, articles or draft articles can be improved, and there is no "with prejudice" at least with regards to this topic. I do not think that CSD G8 applies at all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I thought your name sounded familiar, and now I know why: we had words six months ago over an entirely different issue and couldn't even agree to disagree :/ Relax, I know the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I know my duty is to the encyclopedia. If the article is recreated then its recreated, if its notable its notable, and if so it will stay. Does that put your mind at ease any? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I though it was obvious from my "comment" that my opinion is "keep", but since TomStar81 asked about it, let me just state this clearly. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unusual collaboration with Catherine Asaro takes the band to the level of notability that I am looking for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:06, 5 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) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy and wait for better coverage as although it may be considered one way or another, I'm not much good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy. -Can't find enough coverage to justify it meeting notability criteria at present. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added this ref: Heaphy, Maura. 100 Most Popular Science Fiction Authors: Biographical Sketches and Bibliographies, p. 20 (Libraries Unlimited, 2010): "the indy rock group Point Valid released a CD of music that serves as a soundtrack to Asaro's novel". The articles in reliable sources SFScope, i09, and SF Site, together with the additional notoriety due to Catherine Asaro, make me comfortable with a "keep", and the book by Heaphy is merely confirmation. I also tidied the article up a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Núñez (hacker)[edit]

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

Vanity, only two facts about this person: he was jailed in the US and is the owner of an PR web enterprise. Didn't find an independent source that validate his relevance per se, only an HOWTO note regarding the cleaning of online reputation (spanish) and a bloomberg note on the data breach in NASA with an old felony of Nuñez (hacking). Oscar (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article literally includes links to interviews with and commentary from him. Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds So are you considering keeping? SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, why 'World of Hell' is not enough for a criminal case of a member of this group (the only member with an article, btw)? Maybe to me it's obvious after I saw him listed as notable people in Caracas next to Simón Bolívar.--Oscar (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people lists are just that; lists of notable people. Not lists of important people, or lists of people ranked by importance. And you just answered your own question; because he's notable. We are not in the practice of aggregating and deleting the articles of notable people. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as although there are some good news sources here, my searches found nothing to suggest better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that second search include two books and BusinessWeek? Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, as Ironholds points out, there are sources. On the other hand, the subject material suggests the quality of sources has to be super-BLP high and that it might be nicer to Señor Núñez if Wikipedia didn't give high prominence to something that's long in the past and not particularly well-remembered. The article's title sounds as unpalatable to the subject as Oscar Wilde (sodomite). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into World of Hell. Sources do not rise to the level of meeting notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person seems to have a gained notorious reputation for subverting law and order. The Bloomberg article [28] suggests that his reputation probably extends beyond his native country. RoseL2P (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was well known in the hacking scene worldwide back to then, as you can see from the many articles even in mainstream media. --ElfQrin (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only served a few months in jail, so seriousness or severity of criminal activity is not present. He hasn't done anything sufficiently notable with his life since then, unlike some hackers who go over to the good side and work with the govt (like Penelope Garcia on Criminal Minds, LOL). So, overall, deletion is appropriate. Quis separabit? 15:43, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Raval[edit]

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

Claims to be a first class cricketer but the competition he claims to plat in is not list in the cricket in India article as a domestic competition. No reliable sources given to back up claim and google searches not showing anything about him playing cricket at any recognised level. noq (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not seeing as notable to keep. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shows no signs of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention in CricketArchive database; not a first-class, List A or T20 cricketer, which is WP:CRIN notability criterion. Self-written. Johnlp (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnlp. Harrias ^talk 07:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Happened upon this article by chance, while performing grammatical corrections with AutoWikiBrowser. The subject appears to fail both Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket#CRIN and general notability guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention in CricketArchive. No notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:13, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Turner[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Single award republican strategist with little sign of having done anything. scope_creep (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; reads like a promotion CV piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: utterly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 11:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CyberTeamRox[edit]

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

Article creator removed PROD. Non-notable "organization" which has not received broad significant coverage, but only simple mentions. Existing limited coverage revolves around one event: the defacement of a single Web page. Article created by individual with declared affiliation to subject and original revision was pov/promotional in tone (certainly not encyclopaedic). Likely here for self-promotion and not to build an encyclopaedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable stub. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Should have been CSDd anyway per A7, G11, whatever. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Khoiwal[edit]

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

Fails WP:Sports, BLP. Ireneshih (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as a sports figure. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No reliable sources found to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above comments. --Bhadani (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There is some coverage in reliable sources about the subject, such as this short article from Udaipar Times, but otherwise, the subject is only receiving passing mentions (e.g. [29], [30]). Does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:SPORTCRIT at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 29 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. I'm boldly closing this as a technical no-consensus, because it's impossible to try to form a proper consensus about 5 disparate people in one nomination. Please renominate separately. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Dial[edit]

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

I found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement and the article looks less than comfortably comprehensible and has barely been touched since the subject started it himself in March 2007. *NOTE: I'm also including biography articles for other people:

Arth Daniels (the best links I found were this and this)
Eva Nazemson (hardly seems notable especially for simply being best known for the on-air event gaining attention from YouTube and my best search results this, this, this and a few results with browser
Sandhosh Kumar (ordinary person and obviously not outstandingly notable aside from climbing Mount Everest which in that case should be added to the list of many Mount Everest climbers although this article is an orphan so no current linking articles; the best I found was this
Jeffrey W. Schroeder (hardly seems notable apart from being Chief Administrative Officer at Goldman Sachs and my best results this, this, this and this) -

I'm pinging Graeme Bartlett who accepted Jeffrey W. Schroeder in October 2008 --- Bgwhite and Esprit15d for Lawrence Dial --- Mufka for Arth Daniels and finally Eeekster, Eluchil404 and DGG for Sandhosh Kumar. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why are these five WP:BUNDLEed? Is there a connection I don't see? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:58, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others[edit]

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

Content fork WP:CFORK. Article consists of copied and pasted text from existing song articles on Wikipedia. Topic is already covered within the song articles and with these lists: [31], [32]. 40 out of 71 citations are YouTube links. A further two citations are from a self-published blog Turnmeondeadman. Both sites are unreliable sources WP:NOYT, WP:USERGENERATED. PaulineLibertarian (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Terrible sourcing aside, wasn't the band pretty well-known for getting into trouble for not quite properly attributing their work to their influences? Many of the sources present are not really usuable, but I'm pretty sure the concept itself is pretty well documented. (A number resulted in lawsuits, for example.) For this band in particular, it seems like this could be a viable list (with the appropriate cleanup efforts.) Also, it looks like you forgot to notify the article creator, though I have now done that for you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is silly, "it's covered elsewhere" would eliminate every single list on Wikipedia. There is nothing at List of basil cultivars that does not come from the existing articles on various basil cultivars. There's nothing at List of Presidents of the United States that isn't in the corresponding articles, either. Obviously, the function of a list is to organize information in a specific format. Lists SHOULD NOT contain new material, per se. Anything in them surely SHOULD be in the various articles covering the things in the list. This is like Wikipedia 101. In this case, there is an obvious and unique function to a list of controversial Zeppelin songs, which produces a relatively organized, accurate summary of the various songs Zeppelin borrowed from or covered. And yes, of course it overlaps the exhaustive list of Zeppelin songs, but that list doesn't contain information on which songs were covered or "stolen". Oh, and self-published blogs are sufficient sources for non-controversial information. Unless you are challenging the factual basis of the information on the list (which I dare you to do), the sources are not even an issue, much less a cause for deletion — Kaz (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep, but your comment on sources is pretty off-base. This article definitely needs improvement in sourcing. These self-published blogs are not okay, nor are most youtube videos unless they are official accounts of reliable sources (like Loudwire) or official accounts of the band/record label. Otherwise, there are WP:COPYVIO and WP:USERG issues. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the very article you refer to regarding the standard for sourcing. This confusion is pretty common, but bad for Wikipedia in general. Too many people start confusing the recommendations for controversial content and thinking it's an absolute rule for all content. This originates with the bad editors who try to censor real info they don't like, deleting instead of fixing and then using wikilawyering to justify it. In this case, note what the sources article actually says: "The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." It requires inline citation for any material challenged, or likely to be challenged. THIS is where self-published blogs are verboten. If the list were claiming Jimmy Page killed someone, which none of us believe, it'd need high-quality secondary sources to back that up. If it said Jimmy Page's hair was brown in 1974, it would require no source at all, and a citation that simply pointed to a blog photo of Page from 1974 would be fine. Nobody's seriously going to question it anyway. ALL of the "low quality" sources here are akin to the hair question. They are, for example, blog entries that quote the two songs to compare them. The lyrics of the two songs are a matter of fact. They are non-controversial. The sources don't need to be wikilawyered, nobody's going to realistically challenge them. — Kaz (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were some sort of obscure band, then maybe I could be swayed by some sort of WP:IAR argument, but the fact of the matter is, they are one of the biggest bands of the last 50 years. Better sources are out there, there's no reason to lower our standards to these low-level blogs. And also none of that addresses the WP:COPYVIO/WP:ELNO/WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues I mention in my "Keep" !vote below. Its not appropriate for us to link to the Youtube video of every single song mentioned in the list. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a Buzzfeed/Cracked.com type article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that this isn't an Ignore All Rules argument, because you are referring to a rule that does not exist in the very WP:USERG you cite, or anywhere else. Please refer to my quotation from the start of that article ("requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."). Nobody denies anything in the list, therefore hardcore references are not imperative. If the factuality of the list were even arguable, then what you are talking about would apply. Zeppelin being the biggest band in history doesn't change the fact that nobody denies or disputes anything in the list. —Kaz (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with improving the sources. I'm saying they're not in violation of any actual rules, and the idea that weak sources are ever a cause for removal of any non-controversial facts is an ugly artifact of wikilawyered censorship, not a serious or desirable part of Wikipedia in any way.

"Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim."

— Kaz (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing that the content should necessarily be removed, I was arguing that better sources should be found to replace the weak ones. If its uncontentious statements, then surely a more reliable source covered it as well. My point is, with such a mainstream, well-documented subject, there's really no reason to settle for weak sourcing. The WP:COPYVIO/WP:NOYT stuff undeniably needs to go, and anything that is "so obvious no one would ever challenge it" probably doesn't need to be sourced at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I have been addressing this in view of the absurd justification for nominating it in the first place, that somehow repeated info and weak sourcing of non-controversial, factually unchallenged material is grounds for deleting a list. By the way, the reason I linked to the audio of the songs is that this way the user had a source for seeing that the two versions did indeed sound alike. I don't know if I'm up for the effort of making a demo clip for all of them the way the Stairway to Heaven inspiration has been done. Just setting up this list as it is was a bit of an endeavor. The sourcing may not be great, but I was careful that the facts be airtight, as exhaustive as I could reasonably manage, and as NPOV as is possible on this subject — Kaz (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As alluded to above, I see the value in this list, "For this band in particular". KConWiki (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Upon looking further, a majority of the sourcing problems stem from using Youtube links used as references to link to the versions of the songs being discussed. Next to each song discussed, there's a Youtube link to the LZ version, and the original version, of the song. That's a majority of the bad reference issues right there, which can basically just be removed because 1) It basically violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_in_lists and 2) It's unnecessary to source at all, they don't really verify anything, as the respective song and album articles are enough verify the song's existence. Remove all the YT links to the songs, and replace the blog sources with a better source, and we're all set here. The good sources that are present, along with all the blue links present, are enough to meet the notability requirements and WP:LISTN though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to the referencing issues already noted, I do not understand why songs written by and credited by non-LZ people as such are listed in this article - this is already covered in List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin. That leaves just those songs where the song is based on an older song, so a title the article along the lines of List of Bob Dylan songs based on earlier tunes would be more appropriate, unless somebody is trying to make a case against LZ relating to copyright infringement. I also note that the article is written in such a way that does not appreciate the traditional/out of copyright scenario. If a song is out of copyright, it is usual to credit as 'traditional arranged by XXX,' but often this just gets abbreviated to 'XXX.' Not quite true, but not wrong, nevertheless. Taking this all into consideration it might be best practice for the creator to take a copy of the article as it stands to work on and let this article be deleted --Richhoncho (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have bothered to read the article. The intro says "In effort to present a complete, balanced picture, it includes non-controversial ones the band correctly attributed to other writers from the outset". Because this is not a hatchet job going after Zeppelin, it lists...well, what the title (perhaps you didn't read that, either) suggests. This gives a balanced viewpoint, instead of being either pro or anti-Zeppelin. It isn't claiming they're thieves OR blameless, just listing the various songs that inspired their songs. And no, you are ALSO wrong about the expired copyright. First, "traditional" means nobody knows who wrote it. Second, the songs credited as "traditional" by Zeppelin are listed that way in the article. Did you even bother to read ANY of it, before chiming in? — Kaz (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have read what I wrote, too! "Inspired by" and "written by" have two totally different meanings - you have tried to merge two into one article and that is misleading - irrespective of any text in the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The way it's worded seems safe to the point of obscuring the notable topic. If it were simply about a subset of their music, it would likely be redundant to List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin, but there are a whole lot of sources specifically about their use (some call it inspiration, others call it plagiarism) of other people's music. This article is probably better renamed and refocused as something like Accusations of musical plagiarism by Led Zeppelin and its lead/prose expanded, but I wouldn't make my keep !vote contingent of that move. There's a question, by the way, of whether the musical plagiarism article would be better served linking to this article (and how to do so effectively) rather than partially duplicate it. I think it's notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request for help on the talk page, seeking input on how to make the wording clearer while keeping it NPoV. I definitely want the list to show a balanced view of how Zeppelin "borrowed" songs, not solely list the ones they're accused of "stealing" outright, but yes, my current wording seems to go right over the heads of some people, who then don't understand how this is different than a list of all Led Zeppelin songs. I'd love it if you offered some input there. — Kaz (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LZ started as a English blues band. How and where does anybody think they were "inspired?" I could go on about how the old blues musicians were paid a price for the song and recording and nobody cared too much about "copyright." --Richhoncho (talk) 13:17, 27 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Nazeer[edit]

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

This article was created by User:Babatundero, a sockpuppet of MehulWB, who was blocked for paid editing. This developer is known for only one game, which doesn't yet have its own article. I definitely respect his abilities in creating the game at the age of 18, and it's true that he was mentioned in the press, but his notability is inseparable from the game he wrote, and in the case of marginal notability coupled with articles-for-pay, I'd rather err on the side of deletion. Slashme (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the article is neat and sourced, the sourcing isn't entirely what it could be and my searches found nothing immediately better, so delete for now and start again when better. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:30, 14 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) 05:17, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Development Goal 3[edit]

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

Reads more like a report than an encyclopaedia article. Adam9007 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe mention somewhere appropriate and subsequently redirect as this seems recent and my searches found enough results to suggest this is known here and here so although there may not been enough for an article much less a better one, maybe this can be mentioned elsewhere for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:33, 14 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) 05:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is a place to reprint documents. A single article about the overall program would be appropriate, but we should not have articles with such absurdly narrow scope, or those that just repeat the official wording. I don't see we have a suitable article now, but one could be written--but what would be the purpose of a redirect from Sustainable Development Goal 3 to , presumably, Sustainable Develop Goal ? DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why only cover one goal, but the current structure is in no way suitable for encyclopedic discussion. No objection if interested editors start another article on the whole project [33]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:48, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana International Competition[edit]

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

This soccer tournament involved 4 matches which took place in November 2007. There are news articles such as this which confirm the event was to take place and this article which gives an alternative name of the "Zenith Bank 4-Nation International Tournament". The results of the matches appear to be correct per this page. However, the news articles all indicate that it was held as a warm-up for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations that started two months later.
The article is written as if the matches in 2007 were the first of what was to be a recurring tournament, but I can't find anything to say that the tournament was held again in later years. Given that its primary purpose was as practice matches, I believe it falls into the category of routine coverage and fails the general notability guidelines. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:16, 15 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) 05:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see the notability of a one-off four-match tournament, especially given the lack of sources available – a quick Google search only turns up the Wikipedia article. WP:GNG definitely failed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little evidence to suggest that this is any more than a 'friendly tournament' or 'warm up tournament', fails WP:GNG Spiderone 18:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one off non-notable friendly tournament, no indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 29 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MatchPoint America[edit]

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

I simply found nothing to suggest better notability and improvement and the best results I found were here (at the bottom), here (same results) and this with this also found nothing useful and it seems they're about a company. Notifying possibly interested RJFJR (who recently removed a tag). Thus with no improvement and alternative to deletion, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The wording and arrangement of the personnel section is exactly characteristic of a/ 'press releases and b/ WP articles written by those experienced in writing press releases. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 21 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) 05:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. relatively limited distribution, and not notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor TV show. Article seems to be more about its non notable anchors than anything else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagat Taran School Allahabad[edit]

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

The article cites no sources or references to verify or sustain an article. Fails WP:GNG. I could find a web page for Jagat Taran Golden Jubilee School, Allahabad [34], Jagat Taran Girls Degree College, Allahabad [35] and Jagat Taran Upper Primary School [36] the only direct reference to a 'Jagat Taran School Allahabad ' is the Wikipedia article and there is no way to know which, if any, of these this article is meant to refer to because the article is completely un-sourced. Jbh ^Talk 12:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Statement amended Jbh ^Talk 21:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment according to this there's a Jagat Taran Education Society which, I presume, runs all three schools. The Girls Degree College is affiliated with Allahabad University. Kraxler (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are de facto notable, if their existence can be proved, independent of GNG. In this case it's exactly the problem: What can one make of "Jagat Taran School Allahabad"? It may mean any of three different schools or the education society. I think it's best to delete this and wait for somebody to write an article on any one of these schools, with sources. Kraxler (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-write and re-name to be about the school that succeeded this former school, Jagat Taran Golden Jubilee School (school history). No objection to delete because what is there is basically a pico-stub and there's nothing in the history that would be useful in a well-written article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:07, 15 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) 05:04, 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 no consensus. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ad servers[edit]

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

PROD deleted by anonymous user. This is essentially an indiscriminate collection of information, and a huge magnet for spammers and SEO practitioners. Slashme (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Comparison of [topic]" articles are allowed at Wikipedia. See here, here, and here for 3 that I found fairly quickly. Other than the gawd-awful layout of the article being discussed possibly causing blindless (I jest), what is the reason this page should be deleted and the others kept?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015‎

This is basically an other stuff exists argument, but to answer your question, there are a few differences. Filesystems and archive formats don't pop into and out of existence all the time like ad servers; their features are more clearly defined; the page is a morass of external links to commercial services; and sorting out the notability of each individual server would be a heraclean task. --Slashme (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:06, 15 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) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a mess of SEO links and irrelevant ad servers, but I suggest that we leave this entry because it's one of the more useful entries in the ad-server category. Many of the ad servers presented are notable enough to have their own entry here on wikipedia, and I'm sure that all spammy SEO links can be removed from this page. I think it would make sense to remove all external links (other than references), and limit the page to only using internal wikipedia links instead. I am currently working on adding more information on ad servers to wikipedia, and I can volunteer to clean up this page. YeonJKim (talk) 07:58, 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 no consensus. Article obviously needs a lot of TLC. Each participant basically comes up with a different solution, so closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against a possible redirect (after appropriate discussion on the article's talk page) or possible relisting if no improvement is forthcoming in the next few months. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health in Tanzania[edit]

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

This appears to be a paper of some sort, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I think the topic is notable, but with the way it is presented in the article, it might be easier to just start over. My earlier PROD was removed by the article creator without explanation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Occupational safety and health? Remove all of the general content (e.g., all of the Introduction, "every individual worker needs good working environment that is safe and free from any kind of life - threatening hazards") and tighten the language and it should reasonably fit. It has relevant content to expand the other page's worldwide perspective and avoid losing the good stuff entirely. (I could probably take a pass at this but not until the weekend earliest.) Alaynestone (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:05, 15 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) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly some merge to Healthcare in Tanzania. As it is, this reads like a paper or essay (WP:OR). Sandstein 08:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite; it's a valid topic and potentially an interesting article. The genesis of that article is here, it just needs a fair bit of polish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 30 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. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Metropolitan Youth Orchestra of New York[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Coverage is limited to local interest only. Article is also excessively promotional, but that could be dealt with should the article be retained. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe as Books, News and browser found results but maybe not enough for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:04, 15 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) 05:03, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliacloud[edit]

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

Reads like an ad and makes no credible claim of significance. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. The only coverage of this seems to be press releases. And as pointed out, it currently reads like WP:G11 spam. Kolbasz (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now likely as although O found several results at Books, News, browser and highbeam, there was not anything to suggest better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ghost[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a blog or portal site. This article contains only plot of movie. It is in personal blogs reviewing movies or search engines that We can search these kind of contents. And I think this article can be a movie spoiler. There are not only plot that can stimulate audience who are curious about this movie or don't watch this movie yet but also ending of this movie although this movie contains unsuspected ending. If wikipedia permit kind of this article, wikipedia no longer encyclopedia but just a blog. Choi Hyun Hee (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not speak or read Korean, but I am finding quite a bit of coverage using Google Translate like this source. It looks like the film performed very well in Korea and other overseas countries and I'd be surprised if there were not reviews out there. As far as plot spoilers go, Wikipedia does not keep spoilers off of its sites per WP:SPOILER. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First and foremost that's not what "Wikipedia is not a blog" actually means: Wikipedia articles can use some blogs that are distinctly proven reliable as sources. The current structure, albeit lacking at places, is well on its way to be encyclopedic. Sure, a number of the nom's complaints are true (lack of critical reception, plus the not-so-articulate language in the Plot section is really getting to me), these are surmountable problems which I am encouraging anyone who has the ability (to read Korean, which I don't) to go fix it (phrase better, cut down on plot, add critical reviews, etc.). Notability is not a problem here IMO as per current cites, with similar sentiments as with Tokyogirl. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is the article in great condition? No, not really. Is the article's topic notable? Indeed it is. While the article needs fixing, that is not grounds for deletion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page, like many on here, is not perfect but it does have enough good sources to show that it is in fact notable. We don't delete notable pages just because they are currently in need of improvement. Peachywink (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even thought the movie is showed in 2010, there is many conversation and talk in Korean movie website. and 3 million people watched this movie. this article has notability so this article must keep.--Berlinuno (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)^[1][reply]
Keep. "Hollywood takes liking to Korean films" (ref: http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/culture/2013/07/135_139638.html), but Choi Hyun Hee don't. Really sorry for her. Nevertheless, a section about how ghosts were rendered in Korean litterature (from Samguk Sagi onwards) is perhaps missing in the article. Dear providers of content, seize your brush ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 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. Nomination withdrawn Drmies (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky meat shower[edit]

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

What we have is an article from the NYT which reports on reports--probably a slow news day in New York, a good occasion for a tasty little morsel from the backwoods. There is no other sourcing to speak of: just a couple of websites, and the Google Book search on the talk page delivers nothing that might be called reliable or relevant. In other words, Wikipedia is helping to perpetuate a rural legend. Delete. Please. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's likely never going to be an expansive article about this, but it's a unique story that reached national consciousness at one point, and we have no time limit on notability. Scientific American unearthing this event to try to explain it adds to the notability. The article could use some revisions to make it more precise, and some of the other sources are worthless. Overall, I don't think we can charge a veritable news organization with not conducting the necessary checks to validate a story. This NBC News story says it was reported by the NYT over two days and that one of the witnesses was a correspondent of the Louisville Commercial. This article also contains a usable reference from Royal Microscopical Society of Great Britain. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to extensive coverage soon after (I've added some details including the fact it was first reported in Scientific American, and done some work on the references), this is one of the most prominent phenomena in Charles Fort's The Book of the Damned; he analyzes it and it's mentioned repeatedly in overviews of his writings. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments and sources mentioned. More coverage here. ABF99 (talk) 15:43, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobius Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources, only press releases. Prodded a week ago; prod was removed just now with no new sources being added. McGeddon (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete best source I could find is this short article in The Hindu, which mentions them for all of one sentence. Not notable per WP:GNG.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not enough found to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Gnyp[edit]

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

News articles are about her movies, and make no mention of the producer herself. Other sources are just databases. Conifer (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate third-party sources. Barely, but enough. Article would benefit from expansion. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:32, 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 11:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: current sources are
1. IMDB (not RS)
2. "Screen Australia database". (not significant coverage - just lists her two films)
3. "Melbourne International Film Festival website". MIFF. (Coverage is one letter plus her name - " P Maya Gnyp")
4. Jake, Wilson (August 13, 2013). "Sydney Morning Herald". (does not mention her)
5. Matthieson, Craig (October 28, 2011). "The Age online". Fairfax. (does not mention her)
6. "Screen Daily". Screen Daily. Screen International. January 18, 2013. (List mention only "Maya Gnyp (GHOST Pictures – Australia)" - 1 of 74 listed)
None of these approach WP:GNG standards.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines. Rmosler | ● 05:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Rich Farmbrough has explained that the subject hasn't received significant coverage.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:55, 29 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vahco Before Horses[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Fails GNG - the article quotes lots of references but mostly from his own page or other bandcamp.com pages, which aren't reliable Gbawden (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've found nothing to show notability [37], [38], [39]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as my searches simply found nothing even in the least third-party. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding any reliable sources for this artist, not even an interview. Just a lot of MP3 links or sites where you can buy/play his songs. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:15, 29 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. There's at any rate no consensus to delete, and some of the "delete" opinions seem to be based on neutrality concerns that the current version no longer raises. Sandstein 08:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie V. Woodcock[edit]

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

This is an article on a retired professor who gained a small degree of notoriety by making some very strange remarks on climate change in a newspaper interview, for example stating that carbon dioxide has not increased over the past century and citing the Biblical flood story as an example of past severe weather. His academic career appears to have been typical for his discipline (a couple of papers per year, etc.) and I do not see evidence that he satisfies even the distressingly lax criteria of WP:PROF. Available biographical sources are quite thin -- most of the facts of his career are taken from a couple of conference blurbs. In the case of very marginally notable person such as this we should let the fellow live out his retirement in peace. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as the BLP of a professor emeritus and scientist (not a climatologist) notable for his contrarian views. Woodcock is not a prominent academic, but his opinion that "Global warming is nonsense" was reported in an interview by the local Yorkshire Evening Post and subsequently covered in the UK by The Week and in the US by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones. From there it spread throughout the blogosphere. Boris has ably described the stub and the events. I don't see how the BLP would threaten Woodstock's peaceful retirement, however. YoPienso (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or delete without prejudice to re-creating it. Lots of good, thoughtful input here. I see the article was ill-conceived. A BLP should reflect the balance of its subject's life, not one episode. YoPienso (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcock has a Google-Scholar h-index of 27 as seen here: LV Woodcock Google Scholar search results. This places him between "successful scientist" (20) and "outstanding scientist" (40). However, Google Scholar systematically and considerably underestimates h-index compared to the gold standard "Web Of Science" (which is behind a pay wall) because it is data-poor in earlier years. Give me a day or two and I will get a friend to do a proper citation study. Also, Woodstock has a single-authored Letter in the top science journal Nature, which is rare. He has a highly cited paper in THE top physics journal Physical Review Letters. According to Google Scholar, his top papers have been cited hundreds of times, and continue to be cited in top current studies, even though they were written in the 1970s. Very few physics papers written in the 1970s can claim such a distinction. His 1997 Nature paper materially contributes to the iconic and long-standing condensed matter physics problem of distinguishing the free energy of the close-packed polymorphs of hard spheres, which I used to teach in graduate condensed matter physics seminars. The man is one in a handful of leaders in condensed matter physics theory of glass formation and his work is cited by all the major books in the field. I vote that the article not be deleted. It stands on its own, irrespective of Woodcock's views on global warming that were reported in the media. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, the subject – Leslie Woodcock – could stand on its own. Unfortunately, the article we have before us isn't actually about Woodcock and his career, but rather (as I discuss below) about a minor controversy in which Woodcock was involved earlier this year. If someone actually wants to write a biography of Woodcock, that would be fine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that a pro footballer can get an article after playing one game for a pro club in a pro league, even though he may do sweet FA (pun intended) in that game, I wouldn't consider the standards for professors to be all that lax. As to someone's peaceful retirement, I don't remember that coming into any of Wikipedia's policies. I may not have read every one of them, of course - has anyone? Peridon (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless stubbed into an actual biography and rewritten from scratch). While it looks like Woodcock himself could probably clear some threshold of notability (as the term is used on Wikipedia), the present Wikipedia article completely fails to demonstrate that. Fundamentally, the problem is that the article is mistitled. The article currently located at Leslie V. Woodcock isn't actually Woodcock's biography, but rather is An exhaustive and overly-detailed analysis of some comments that Woodcock made to a regional newspaper in April 2015. The vast bulk of the article – including most of the brief lead, the two largest of the article's three body sections, and all of the See alsos – deal with climate change, his views thereon, and the (mostly-blogosphere-driven) reaction to them. Meanwhile, his entire Early life and career – from getting his PhD in 1970 through to the present – gets two sentences and no actual description of his scientific work. The article is a WP:COATRACK, not a biography, and flagrantly violates WP:WEIGHT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I poked around a bit more, and the reason why the article is so badly unbalanced is because it was created to win an edit war to include Woodcock in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Ick. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Here is a passage I removed from my original statement before saving as I was unsure whether it was appropriate to mention: By way of disclosure, I created the stub in order to fulfill the last criterion for inclusion at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Also, here is a link to a comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris that appears to show his motivation in bringing the stub to AfD. Not that he ever cared for it, but he had previously displayed no urgency about its deletion. If Denis is right, both Boris and I were unaware of Woodcock's stature as an academician. YoPienso (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a second read, you're partially correct. I didn't create the stub to win an edit war, but because I was pointed to a case immediately previous to this one in which User:Jess recommended, "just create an article if the subject is deserving of one." User:William M. Connolley reverted my restoration of Woodcock to the list after I created the stub. He reverted 3 times; I pulled back after my second revert. You can follow the conversation on the talk page. YoPienso (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify I did my homework before submitting this and was aware of the general bounds of Woodcock's stature. As I have stated elsewhere he seemed to be an entirely competent, workmanlike senior academic but not particularly remarkable (or "non-notable" in Wikispeak). As another aside, my nomination may surprise some -- given that I am known to broadly accept the findings of the scientific community regarding climate change, combined with the article's "look what nutty things those contrarians are saying" tone. But I don't think that keeping the article is the right thing to do from either the Wikipedia or the human perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your homework overlooked a lot. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, at least as a stub. I did the "Web of Science" analysis that I mentioned above. Woodcock has an h-index of 30 (H), 135 records (R), has been cited in the scientific literature 4071 times (T), and his top three papers have been cited 521, 392, and 273 times (C3). Here is a comparison with a few other UK scientists that have Wikipedia articles: -- Kevin Beurle H 13; R 24; T 954; C3 233, 157, 117 -- RW Cahn H 38; R 311; T 5159; C3 272, 231, 198 -- DJ Axon H 49; R 236; T 7446; C3 296, 246, 222. I have PDF files of all this (Citation analysis reports from Web of Science) if anyone needs proof. Like Cahn, Woodstock is a leader in his field, with well-cited influential papers. Both are in the broad area of materials science; metallurgy; condensed matter physics. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers are rather common for senior academics in the physical sciences at research-oriented institutions. If Woodcock is indeed "a leader in his field" he should have received a number of major prizes or awards. Is there any evidence of these? I'm not really dedicated to deleting the article and am willing to be convinced either way, but need more evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, I gave citation numbers for top three papers that are larger than those of many scientists with articles, and you reply to give evidence of major awards or we delete. I think citations for top papers is a good indicator of a scientist's impact. I don't have sourced data for Woodcock for memberships and awards and keynote invitations. It's a stub. I'm glad your not really dedicated to deleting the article. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that awards and the like are objective measures of notability that don't require us to do our own citation analysis, which gets us into WP:OR territory. If we can find evidence of major awards then we can all pack up and move along. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- Boris, the opposite is true. Citations in the scientific literature is one of the most objective indicators you can have (is one's work being used by other scientists). Awards are among the most political indicators (the selection process is not democratic), and there is a domino effect with awards. High recognition in a field is often not accompanied by major general awards. My comment is meant solely to temper your assertion about what is "objective" in deciding notability of a scientist. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an enormous body of precedent in AfD for using citations, precisely because they are one of the most objective indicators. I repeated Denis' analysis and found the same results (please my see !vote below). Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

keep, article at little funky but worth keeping.CSvBibra (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit down Right now it is a wondrous "straw man" article -- the big mention of "Noah's Ark" was clearly en passant as it was mainly a point that some of the great deserts were once flooded (which climatologists actually agree with) - and it is taken well out of context in the BLP. NPOV would also suggest that having 95% of a "biography" be devoted to using a sledgehammer of "he is wrong" material seems not a worthwhile effort. We do not need to have such a clear imbalance, IMO, on any BLP. We should trust the reader to note the disparity between his views and the scientific consensus. List his bona fides, mention that his position is not that of the scientific consensus, and recognize that is quite sufficient as a rule. By the way "Chemical Thermodynamics" (sometimes called "Physical Chemistry") is not a field for doddering folks ... it is directly and strongly associated with mathematical modelling of heat changes, chemical reactions and the like, and is the bane of many chemistry students. The person is notable - but the entire BLP could be whittled down to under 200 words total. Collect (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

200 words would be a very generous estimate. If we take out the fifth-rate sources that have no business in a BLP (seriously, conference blurbs?), and avoid the inherently WP:OR process of doing our own citation count, all that's left as properly-sourced material is the climate craziness. Absent the climate stuff there is no article. Zip. Nada. Not a word. We should delete the present article without prejudice to re-creating it if decent sources become available, allowing us to write a balanced overview of his career. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has highly cited works in molecular dynamics, so he may well pass WP:PROF#C1. He appears to have no particular expertise in climatology. To cover the climate change material, we need to do what we are doing now: clearly state his views and clearly describe why they are counter to the scientific consensus. But this makes our article come off as a borderline attack article on an elderly subject whose views are stuck in the past and who revealed those views once in a moment of indiscretion. And why should we even care that someone is wrong about something he has no expertise in? I would be willing to see the article kept only if the climate change material is entirely removed from it and it is reworked to describe his actual life and works. But even that would leave it open for more subtle pov-pushing by the climate deniers who will try to hint that his work in molecular thermodynamics gives him some credibility in global temperature change, and then point to the Wikipedia article as evidence of his credibility. And given what has been revealed above about the article's history and the pov-pushing that has caused it to exist, I have no faith that such a reworking is possible and I think deletion is a better option than leaving it in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Apparently, he was the person whose original Fortran program was used by MATLAB with permission. Cursory search found this. His notability on statistics and statistical analysis relating to chemical reactions etc. is pretty good. The University of Manchester still lists him simply as "Professor." He also received a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship[40] apparently. Collect (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory examination of the source you found – [41] – in your "cursory search" reveals that you have entirely misunderstood the Fortran/MATLAB situation. Woodcock apparently wrote some small Fortran programs that someone found useful enough to reuse and rewrite portions of in MATLAB code; that's all. There is no indication that Woodcock had any particular involvement in the development of the MATLAB software package. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory look would find Sandlers' books are --- used by MathWorks <g>. And the claim is that MathWorks distributed the "translations" of the Fortran programs - which is what Mathworks acknowledges. Woodcock did not write MATLAB, but others did use his works, and MathWorks just happens to also distribute those files. Woodcock does happen to be notable for his computer modeling, and the single strange "interview" with its host of strange typos is what seems discordant at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full professor at a major British University. Major record of scientific contributions, as recognized by an expert in scientific notability, though he voted !delete for other reasons. How is the comment "But even that would leave it open for more subtle pov-pushing by the climate deniers who will try to hint that his work in molecular thermodynamics gives him some credibility in global temperature change, and then point to the Wikipedia article as evidence of his credibility" compatible with making a NPOV encycopedia? We report things as they are, not electively in order to accomplish a social purpose. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on h index the use of raw h index as a notability criterion is nonsense. One has to look at the actual distribution of citation. h index ignores the significance of people with very highly cited papers, : A person with 5 papers each cited 500 times and 20 papers cited 5 times would have an h index of 5; a person with 25 papers cited 5 times each would also have an h index of 5, though the first would be highly notable and the second insignificant. People are judged by the level of their most important work. As an analogy, Harold Russell had only one significant film role, but he won an academy award for it. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, agreed, but maybe "nonsense" is too harsh. H-index is one indicator for career scientists and is reported by "Web of Science". Note my emphasis, above, on the citation numbers for the top three papers, and my comparisons of Woodcock in that regard to a few other UK scientists with articles. Look at the numbers. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment on h-index. Strictly speaking, it is nonsense to say that using h as a notability criterion is nonsense. As with many tools, proper use requires care and one must avoid misuse/misinterpretation. High h is generally a reliable indicator of notability, however, low h is not necessarily an indicator of lack of notability. A quick looks at someone like Galois confirms the latter. Moreover, fields like the humanities generally disseminate results through vehicles not yet within the h knowledgebase. In short, h is a useful tool for notability assessment, if used properly. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, per Boris. But also on the grounds mentioned by YoPienso: the basis for this article seems to solely Woodcock's GW-contrarian opinion. It appears to be a coatrack for embellishing the count of "contrarian scientists". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This discussion is only for debating notability, not content...and notability is crystal clear. Woodcock has a long string of very highly cited publications for which he is the first, sole, or corresponding author. Citations are (from WoS): 524, 392, 302, 251, 193,... numbers that far exceed the impact of "the average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The content of the article does not show that he is notable for anything but his contrarian opinion expressed in this single interview. That his achievements and impact are not notable enough to be mentioned even in his own article suggests that his notability does not warrant an article in the first place. The content shows that the notability and existence of this article arises solely from Woodcock's contrarian opinion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think TenOfAllTrades expressed all this better (above). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really should not have to explain to you the distinction between the notability of the person, as conclusively demonstrated by his citational impact, and the content of an article about the person. Woodcock is demonstrably notable, irrespective of what this or any other article on him says. Case closed. Agricola44 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Mr. Johnson, you said "That his achievements and impact are not notable enough to be mentioned even in his own article suggests that his notability does not warrant an article in the first place." With respect, that seems rather circular, in the light of the short history of this article. The proposal to delete was hasty, and apparently motivated by wanting to exclude Woodcock from the article about a list of scientists with views questioning or contrary-to the dominant views about global warming. This is a stub. It can safely be assumed that the relevant content on the instant talk page will be inserted into the Woodcock article if a positive verdict is reached. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it appears that the creation of this article was apparently motivated to include Woodcock in the list of GW-contrarian scientists. The initial formulation of this article shows that it was created solely on the basis of that single interview. That additional material could be subsequently added to enhance his notability does not change this, does not change the fact that the article is currently in violation of WP:WEIGHT, nor that the article would still amount to a coatrack. How long of a lever arm is implied when a single interview in the Yorkshire Evening Post entirely out-balances the impact of 70 peer-reviewed papers? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Remove the horrid "interview" which is clearly ill-written at best. Leave in a genial and respected scientist for what he is properly known. Collect (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the interview is the best-sourced component of the article. If we remove the interview there is no acceptably sourced material remaining -- the resulting article is blank. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion is incorrect. There is a large precedent that citations are independent and can be used to source simple statements of biographical fact, e.g. that a person worked in area X or discovered Y, etc. You can remove the interview and still write some NPOV content on his enormous scientific accomplishments and this will be perfectly acceptable, even if the article remains a stub. Agricola44 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I created the stub but since I don't own it I can't just blank it. I've reverted all the content just now with appropriate edit summaries. Sorry for causing this unnecessary trouble. YoPienso (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article reverted to an early version, minus the bit about climate. It's a simple stub with a few uncontroversial bio-facts – in good position to be expanded with his scientific accomplishments. Agricola44 (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

comment: The position stated by Boris seems absurd to me. If we can't use Web of Science to provide citation and impact data for scientists, including where the citations occur and the impacts of the citing articles, then we are truly in a sphere of utter nonsense, in my opinion. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agricola44's revision of 07:05 26 Sep seems a passable stub. (I'm not quite sure what Boris was getting at.) However, there still is a POV issue. Even if Woodcock's contrarian opinion is not mentioned, that is still the reason this article exists. Consider: to boost the visibility of scientists who have contrarian opinions without proportionately boosting the visibility of non-contrarian scientists biases the overall representation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article was created or the reason it exists is irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether Woodcock satisfies any one of a number of WP notability guidelines and it is clear that he does indeed satisfy WP:PROF c1, specifically in the context of his research work having been noted (cited) thousands of times, as documented by a standard citation database (WoS). Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Mr. Johnson, your point is difficult to follow? The only question before us is the viability of the Woodstock stub. The apparent motives of some to kill it and motives of others to keep it are not part of the keep/delete criteria, as good faith should be assumed. Likewise, any/all links to other articles should be considered an advantage, without projecting bias regarding what those links are, or will or could be. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The stub was abysmally sourced -- the only sources were conference blurbs and a predatory open-access publisher. (And anyway the latter didn't even mention the fact it was supposed to have sourced.) I removed the worst. The remainder still is poorly sourced (seriously, conference blurbs?) and thus is technically in violation of WP:BLP. But I have let it stand in order that we have a basis for discussion.

That's been my argument all along -- we just don't have enough decent sources about this guy to write a biography. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denis: Your objection to mentioning apparent motives rings hollow in that you're the one that raised the matter of motives (see 21:17, 25 Sep). While it would be naive to think we are all pure and innocent, it need not amount to a violation of AGF that ordinary biases, proclivities, and inclinatiions can lead to an unbalanced point of view. E.g., it would be quite mundane and quite understandable if a GW-denier simply and innocently wanted to fill out the roster of his/her "team". And there would be no problem if several "proponents" did so for the other "team". The problem is that the proper proportionality need to maintain a neutral balance is over 20 to one. And if those "proponents" fail to rise to the task we then have an imbalance. We normally don't worry too much about such matters as long as there is a rough balance. But as you seem to be aware, this article is an element in an on-going dispute (and occasional edit-warring) at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. So it is warranted to "look behind the veil" at why this article was created. And at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#POV-pushing? there is explicit mention of creating this article for the purpose of inclusion in that list. Quite aside from whether such a motive is good, it does lead to imbalance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please re-read why I created the article. To this watcher, the page seems to boil down to a struggle between a faction that wants to produce a long list of scientists who oppose the consensus v. a faction that wants to show hardly any oppose it. That's not how we're supposed to edit. YoPienso (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC) OK, so I've created a little stub. Now, not because I want a bigger list, but because a notable scientist has made statements against the IPCC's conclusions, should he be added to the list? YoPienso (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC) At the time I thought the coverage in the Yorkshire Evening Post, The Week, and Mother Jones made Woodcock a notable contrarian. Now I think that interview was a one-off, and I see no further ado has been made of it. Therefore, it's not as notable as I thought. Woodcock probably is, but hasn't left a cyber trail. YoPienso (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An h-index of 26 in an avergage cited field passes WP:Prof#C1 comfortably. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

That's quite ordinary for an end-career academic in the natural sciences at a research-oriented university; if anything a bit to the low side. I don't doubt your word -- but if our criteria are that loose it's disturbing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I think we should all know, the sample space of WP:PROF is not, nor ever has been limited to "the natural sciences at a research-oriented university". Rather, WP:PROF covers the entire education sector, which means that Woodcock's stats (e.g. thousands of journal citations) are far higher than the "average professor". The criteria are not loose, as evidenced by the numerous academic AfDs that end in "delete". Moreover, there is an enormous gradation within different sectors of education in terms of scholarly output, which I think is summed-up well by something DGG has said a number of times: "People unfamiliar with the academic world may not realize that even a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable". Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Do most "full professor[s] at a major university" have an article? If not, is there any bias in the subset that do? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how these questions are relevant to assessing Woodcock's notability, but my sense is that the fraction of profs from major research universities having WP articles is probably still not yet very high. Agricola44 (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The notion that "a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable" says many things about the Wikipedia community, none of them good. (And that's a mild version of what I was going to say.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but that suggests to me that you're not familiar with the intellectual impact that, as a general rule, these people tend to have, nor of the documentation thereof. Might I ask what sort of alternative notability criteria you would have us use? Agricola44 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The lack of documentation of impact is precisely the point William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the discussion above? The conclusive nature of the documentation of his impact has already been furnished: "Citations are (from WoS): 524, 392, 302, 251, 193,... numbers that far exceed the impact of 'the average professor'". These are quite a bit higher than the threshold that exists for WP:PROF. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Read the current version of his bio and weep. This is not the bio of someone who has made a mark on the world William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that, because the article does not competently list his accomplishments, you believe he does not have these accomplishments? Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you. Have a look now. I spent about 10 minutes on a quick literature check and summarized a few (of many more) of his accomplishments in which he is acknowledged by name in the referring paper. (Again, the existence of these accomplishments was already demonstrated by citations above). I'll weep all the way to the inevitable "keep" close. We've wasted a lot of time in this AfD. Please close. Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection of the cited references show that for two of the three, the author was a collaborator of Woodcock and a co-author with him on several on the papers that he cites. The prototype for this would be using commentary by Jones to support notability of Smith because Jones speaks well of the work by Smith and Jones (as well as that of Smith individually). So while it's a step in the right direction, it's hardly independent evidence. The third article is closer to the mark, since none of the authors apparently are collaborators with Woodcock.

Look -- as I've said before, I'm not against having an article in principle. But we've got to do better than saying "he must be notable, we just can't find the evidence" (or in your words, stating that because we can't list his accomplishments doesn't mean that he doesn't have them). It does seem we are moving toward discovering notability, but in my view we are not quite there yet. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have the evidence: thousands of citations, far above average professor, named theory, many firsts, many sole, first, or senior-authored high-impact papers, etc. etc. I cry Uncle. Clear case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This article will be kept by closing admin because of overwhelming evidence of notability. Have a nice day. Agricola44 (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Summation. The article, as it stands at the moment, is an NPOV stub (sans climate bit) that clearly states his scientific notability. Whether or not you all want to quibble further on the climate bit et al. is up to you. As a disinterested participant who had never heard of this person, this AfD and much of its discussion strikes me as having political overtones of trying to quash the article because of some unrelated things the subject claimed. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Commendations to Agricola44 for his correct use of the word disinterested. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, kudos for being aware of the finer nuances of language. The personalization of what should be a principled discussion -- "I'm embarrassed for you", as only the most obvious example of several -- not so much. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I !voted "delete" above (now struck), but that was when the article was a climate-change-denial-and-rebuttal coatrack. This new version, avoiding any discussion of climate change, seems much more keep-worthy to me. I worry whether it can be maintained in this state, but maybe that's not an appropriate reason to delete any more. And as I already said in the earlier part of the discussion, I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 for his actual scientific accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 30 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 08:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claycord.com[edit]

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

Local news blog with no notable awards and no coverage to prove notability. There's some mentions of the blog and the person running it, but no in-depth discussion in decent secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of mentions on news sites that say "as reported by claycord.com" but nothing in secondary sources.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local news blogs are highly unlikely to be notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is premature. Per the deletion policy there are less drastic alternatives to deletion. There has never been any mention of deletion on the Talk:Claycord.com page. The article was vetted by the Articles for Creation Project (AfC) and approved by Gtwfan52 (now known as John from Idegon and approved on 18 June 2013. The AfD nominating Editor Drmies has made no efforts to improve the page, discuss on Talk, or carefully place maintenance tags (with explanation on the article Talk page). Since 2013 the article has never received maintenance tags or negative input on the Talk page. The article has been edited since 2013 by six respected Editors and none placed tags or proposed deletion. Please withdraw the deletion nomination and proceed with normal article improvement protocols. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfC is not a perfect process. 2 years later and with more experience, I would not approve it today. If reliable secondary sources cannot be found, from diverse geographical areas, talking in detail about this organization, and not the stories they have covered, then the organization is not notable. It's notability has never been challenged. Now it has. I will refrain from actually casting a vote, but to prescribe bad faith to the nomination is a mistake. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually some pretty huge issues with AfC - especially with people accepting articles that do not pass notability guidelines. I've seen multiple articles get accepted and then get deleted in the mainspace. In the past month I had to move a few articles back to AfC because they failed notability guidelines quite spectacularly. I've had one person say that they've accepted articles knowing that they had multiple issues (notability, tone, sourcing, etc), as they hoped that the article would be improved upon acceptance to the mainspace. My point here is that there are a lot of people who accept articles that have no business passing AfC, so saying that one person accepted it at AfC is not really a point in the article's favor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most promising sources are these two interviews,[42][43] and all of the others just seem to be passing mentions. This isn't quite the level of coverage needed to pass WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is a promotional spammy mess. I'm going to see if I can clean it up. Offhand the bulk of the sources are not usable to show notability and are being used to promote the website. I've asked this on the talk page, but I need to ask again here: Checkingfax, what is your relation to this website? This article is so promotional in tone that I get the strong impression that you either work for this website or were asked (or paid) to come and edit this article - in situations like these this is almost always the case. You can still edit with a conflict of interest but you must have this information placed somewhere, preferrably on your userpage since that will make it easier for incoming editors to see your conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up dramatically. Here's a rundown of the sources, many of which I've removed.

Sources

Official website This is the official website. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot show notability. Primary sources can back up basic details but in many situations it's typically not needed.
CBS Local This is the news feed for CBS Local. This would also be considered a primary source in a way since they're reposting stories from the website. It's not really something that would count towards notability. Sites reposting or borrowing from other websites is pretty common and can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee.
CBS Local Same site, a repost/rehash of C.C's story. Like the news feed, reposts don't count towards notability on Wikipedia.
CBS Local Same thing here.
Contra Costa Times This article briefly mentions the website, but this brief mention isn't the type that would show notability. This is also a local newspaper so it might be depreciated because of that. Local sources will typically cover local things like websites, people, and the like, so these tend to be considered less notability giving than coverage by a newspaper published elsewhere. If it was a major newspaper (like New York Times) then this could help some, but it's sort of a middling newspaper.
Huffington Post. This isn't really something that's overly notable. Like the other source, the website is only briefly mentioned as a source. Either way, stuff like this is of the typical human interest "haha, people so stupid" variety. Unless the news site breaks a story that is overwhelmingly notable, it's generally assumed that a news website will be mentioned elsewhere. The thing about overwhelmingly notable stories is that the story would have to be very, very extensively covered elsewhere and the website would have to be mentioned in-depth and be explicitly mentioned as the website that broke the story. Offhand mentions that someone else reported on something isn't enough. It's very, very rare and very difficult for a news story and the reporting website to accomplish this because things of this nature are so routine.
SF Gate. This is an interview. The SF Gate is a reliable source, so I'd count this as usable. However a lot of people tend to depreciate interviews and call them a primary source if the interview is posted "as is" and is more a series of questions and answers rather than a writeup of the interview. What works against this article is that it's fairly short, so many might consider it a WP:TRIVIAL source.
Diablo Magazine. This has an editorial board, so it'd be usable, although it would still have the same issues that typically face interviews. It's longer than the other post, which is good, though. What works against this though, is that this is a local magazine.
Contra Costa Times. This would be usable, although the concerns about it being local coverage still apply.
Street Fight. This site has an editorial board and it's written by a staff member, so it's usable. However it's another interview, which proves problematic for the reasons stated above.
About the Bay series: Mayor of Claycord interview. This wasn't on the Internet so as long as it can be verified that it's in-depth it could be usable. Still, this is a local radio station and an interview, so it poses those two issues.
Claycord Alexa. I've moved this to the infobox. Alexa ratings don't really count towards notability on here since it's more a sign of popularity than anything else. Popularity cannot show notability, although it can make it more likely that something will gain coverage. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Comparing this number to other sites' rankings doesn't really count towards anything and if anything, this was something that came across as very promotional. I won't bother listing the other sites' alexa ranks in this list.
Pasadena News. Dead link. It backed up an award, but the thing to take into consideration is that most awards are considered non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I always like to say (and I've heard others say this as well) that less than 5% of the awards ever given would show notability (sports, writing, etc) and of those, less than 1% would be the type that would give enough notability to keep on that basis alone. This is a local award from what I can see and it's only really garnered local coverage, so I don't really think that this would give notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. No problem with it being listed here, though.
Oakland Tribune. Local paper for same award.
Mercury News. Ditto
CBS Local blogger. Dead link. It's also a local source and considering that this had "blogger" in the URL, it possibly could have been considered a self-published source if this was a portion of the site where users could submit their own content.
Diablo. A page about the awards, which the magazine gives out to local businesses, people, and sites. The award doesn't seem to be the type that would give notability on Wikipedia.
KRON. A repost of a story from Claycord, so this is a primary source.
Contra Costa Times. This mentions the website and says that the content was posted there, but this isn't really something that would give notability. The mention is so brief that it's a trivial source.
CNN. This doesn't really state that the material came from Claycord, but the issue is still that this would be a trivial source at best since the website wasn't the focus of the coverage.
Claycord.com. This is a screenshot of a Fox News piece. The photo was used, but I don't see any of the sites saying that Claycord broke the story. Even if they did, this isn't really the type of news story that would show notability for the website.
CBS Local. Same thing, only it's a news story instead of a screenshot. The site is briefly mentioned, but it doesn't really explicitly back up the claims. I don't doubt that Claycord broke the news on this, but this isn't really something that would show any true notability.
CBS Local. Same thing here.
CBS Local. Same thing here.

In the end all we really have here are a handful of interviews by local sources. I'll try to find more coverage, but I don't particularly see where this site has really been covered by any news site that isn't from the same area. Some of the site's news stories have been posted elsewhere, but that in and of itself isn't something that would be notability giving. It makes it more likely that there would be coverage and it means that we could very likely use the site as a reliable source, but that is also not something that would give notability. I'm leaning towards a delete on this one since all we really have to show notability are a handful of interviews through local sources and one article, also written by a local source. None of the awards are the type that Wikipedia would consider notability giving, as they're all local awards that do not appear to have received coverage outside of the local area. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search didn't bring up much, just this brief article by the SF Gate. The issue of it only having received local coverage still exists and I don't think that the coverage is heavy enough to really assert notability in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 28 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. Thank you for your comments, Obsidian Soul--let me note that the other keep votes added little of substance. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Campos[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable; fails NACTOR. Quis separabit? 14:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've dropped a note at WP:PINOY since it's likely that most sourcing may not be in English. Offhand I am seeing that his death drummed up a bit of coverage (like this one), so there's a chance that there's more coverage out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, this could probably be merged into his wife's article, perhaps into a personal life section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luz Valdez as my searches found mostly links for the Luz Valdez death connection so unless there are better non-English sources, there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR: significant roles in multiple significant films of the 1950s Philippine cinema.--RioHondo (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As obvious from the news articles on his death, he is regarded fondly as one of the "veteran actors" of the First Golden Age of Philippine Cinema. But like most Philippine actors from that era, they're mostly forgotten. He stopped making films in 1986 and very little of the Philippine print media from the 1950s to the 1980s has been digitized. Finding anything online from newspapers from those decades is next to impossible. He is listed, however, in the Directory of Actors: Mid 50's to Early 60's of the Film Academy of the Philippines, which is a Who's Who of sorts. But yeah, not much else, sadly. That said, per RioHondo, he did star in multiple notable films, and was leading man multiple times. I'd WP:IAR this if it were up to me.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR: --Jondel (talk) 02:20, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Yanow[edit]

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

Article on a Canadian painter. I came across it while working on Canadian Artist stubs. Article has not had any real work for years. Ref search comes up with a couple newspaper sources, but nothing recent and nothing close to significant coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG New Media Theorist (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)New Media Theorist (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than this and there isn't even minimal coverage to improve. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST, verified after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. Not notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:47, 28 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Reichel[edit]

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

This article, about a, artist based in St Pölten, Austria, seems to have been successfully translated and copied into various Wikipedias. However, I'm not seeing any great claims to fame or success. Her solo(?) exhibits seem to have only appeared in her home town. There's no evidence of awards, controversy or recognition. I've searched online using Google.de and not turned up any news coverage to prove she meets WP:GNG. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't come close to meeting notability guideline at WP:ARTIST. Btw, I can read the other languages (ca, de, es, fr) that the article appears in, and can comment on them if helpful. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we need someone to raise concerns about the article on these other language Wikipedias. None of them tell us anything extra about the subject, or provide any evidence of better sources. Sionk (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches return nothing particularly significant that would warrant even WP:GNG. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a listing entry on this person on the de:Kulturvernetzung_Niederösterreich site and on page 861 of a handbook of painters in Germany, Austria and Switzerland [44]. While these confirm the subject as an artist active in her local community, I am seeing nothing to indicate she meets the WP:ARTIST criteria , or broader WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Paunov[edit]

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

I can't see any indication that this meets WP:ARTIST Derek Andrews (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only secondary source I could only find was the award his town gave him. The plane pictures are cool, but everything else fails to establish WP:GNG and definitely not WP:ARTIST.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG because there are insufficient sources to establish notability. His paintings sell for a few hundred dollars at best, I can find no sources for his claimed aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 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.

^ Naver, Naver. "Hello Ghost(Movie)". Naver. Naver. Retrieved 13 May 2016.

[1] Naver, Naver. "Hello Ghost(Movie)". Naver. Naver. Retrieved 13 May 2016.

[1]