Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 September	27 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Brustopher (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Brianna Wu[edit]

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

~~Nothing to suggest importance other than own podcast and some tweets. Seems unnotable to me. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 23:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. See previous AFD - the article weakly goes with policy. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 23:29, 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. Tone 19:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NACER.org[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in WP:RS. Refs are dead links, Way back has one: [1], not an RS. Can't get to the other. PROD removed without comment by an SPA. Vrac (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this fails WP:ORG. Also agree that reliable sourcing is not out there. Furthermore, the official web site indicates that its (US) tax exemption expired at the end of 2008, with no indication of renewal. If this organization has stopped its activities, then the few things mentioned in the article constitute the only things it ever did or will do. And, those few things are not enough to confer notability, regardless of how well-sourced they were. The Talk page for the article mentions a NPOV discussion that took place between the article's creator and another editor. That discussion took place on the other editor's Talk page, but that editor has since departed Wikipedia. I found the discussions (there were more than one) in the archives here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the best I found was this and here and this lasted since May 2007 so there was more than enough time for improvement. Pinfinf tagger HaeB. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 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. Tone 19:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Zając[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up a Sochi Winter Olympics competitor with the same name, born 1990, and social media Kraxler (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Świątek[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats Kraxler (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Urban[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media Kraxler (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Dzióbek[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches fail to turn up any significant coverage Kraxler (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrycja Petrus[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats and dead links, web searches turn up social media Kraxler (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Dzióbek[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media Kraxler (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Lofek[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media and youtube videos Kraxler (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Siwkowski[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats and dead links, web searches turn up social media and youtube videos Kraxler (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iwona Sadowska[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up a Polish professor at Georgetown University of the same name Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Chluba[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media Kraxler (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Szczerbowska[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media and a candidate in the Polish parliamentary election, 2015 of the same name which may or may not be this subject Kraxler (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agata Srokowska[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media and youtube videos Kraxler (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Matz[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media and youtube videos and a few people of the same name in different countries Kraxler (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Zetzsche[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. Results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs_cr_00012414.htm Hergilei (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats and dead links, web searches turn up this in December 2014, she was 3rd place (senior level) at the Open Berlin Figure Skating Championship (a national event) Kraxler (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Turkowska[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NSKATE and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media and youtube videos Kraxler (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Sky[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, does not meet WP:PORNBIO as no awards, no genre contributions. Cowlibob (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately looks don't count towards notability ... Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG, all sources in the article are in-trade, web searches turn up porn outlets and social media Kraxler (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Creek Cave[edit]

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

Not sure if it meeets notability standards for a public place. Charlie the Pig (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My interpretation of WP:GEOLAND is that the threshold of notability for natural features is somewhat lower than the GNG's "significant coverage", since features that have information beyond statistics and coordinates are deemed notable. I added a source [2] and additional information to the article, and the Texas Almanac also has an entry for the cave [3]. Altamel (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. I have added three {{cite book}}s. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Baba[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, [as he] Has yet to play a professional football game. this remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The statistics page cited as an external reference has no match data for this player, and no other evidence is found supporting notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. At best WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article can always be recreated when he plays a professional game. Fails WP:GNG too. Spiderone 08:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Meckler[edit]

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

Not notable. A web search of Mecklemedia says the company puts together trade shows. Alan Meckler's claim to fame seems to be creating the trade show company and a mutual fund. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Meckler's notability primarily stems from the early part of his career where he was pretty widely known as one of the first internet entrepreneurs and publishers. See particularly, this extensive coverage in Web 2.0 Heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers (Bradley Jones, John Wiley & Sons, 2008). Also this entry in Digital Hustlers (Kait and Weiss, Harper Collins, 2009). See also the articles in the "Further reading" section of the article from Bloomberg Businessweek, The Economist, and CBS News. His work in the 1970s–1980s on microform publishing was also fairly influential. This and this are reviews of his 1982 book, Micropublishing: a history of scholarly micropublishing in America, 1938-1980. See also the convoluted company history of Mecklermedia, which in its day was a fairly big business, unlike its current incarnation as an organizer of trade shows. The problem is that the current WP article is basically written as an advertisement for his latest business ventures with inline citations which are almost exclusively to press releases or press release-based pieces. Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The shape of the article is terrible, and there are a lot of dead links, but Voceditenore found good coverage, and my own searches turned up lots of good sources and lots of interesting info passes easily WP:GNG, nominator failed to observe WP:BEFORE Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to pass WP:BASIC. Due diligence is not optional. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to NTV (Kenya). Mkdw ^talk 22:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NTV Kenya[edit]

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

Duplicates NTV (Kenya) Fuddle (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NTV (Kenya). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Townhall.com[edit]

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

Tagged with WP:Notability (web) issues, unaddressed, since 2014. — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Salem Media Group website/magazine is a reasonably significant outlet for conservative opinion and news stories. Not a reliable source itself for most purposes, but notable as a partisan publication. I added articles from Newsweek[4] and The Plain Dealer[5] that verify this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is notable and well known in its field. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expanded. Passes WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually came across this entry because I was looking up the page. Noteworthy enough to have an entry for those with similar inquiries as me. MavsFan28 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and others. Satisfies WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Siris[edit]

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

Besides the Notability tag that has been on the article since it's December 2013 creation, this article was created by the subject's husband. No one seems to have questioned the WP:COI, but I don't see anything in this article that makes her notable enough for an article. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can be improved as although I found links at News, Books, browser, Scholar and Highbeam, there wasn't anything to suggest better from what I see. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim to notability, that she is a "nationally recognized expert on bullying prevention" sources to a zoominfo web page and it is a dead link at that. Holdings of her book are only double digits, probably because it seems to be self-published (From WorldCat: "Publisher: [United States] : Roth & Siris, ©2012."). Most sources are web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duel Poker (Indonesian game show)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject AussieLegend (✉) 19:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - doesn't even have an article about it in Indonesian Wikipedia Davidelit (Talk) 03:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attila Osváth[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 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 redirect to The Seven Sins: The Tyrant Ascending. Consensus is to redirect, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tiranno[edit]

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

Contested redirect. Does this need its' own article? I dream of horses (T) @ 19:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect On the one hand, Tiranno is the main character of The Seven Sins: The Tyrant Ascending and Black Scorpion the Tyrant Reborn, so he's arguably more deserving of his own page than any other character in a book. But even so, the only references on the page are from The Seven Sins: The Tyrant Ascending. Maybe if there were outside sources discussing the character, such as a character study or book review, I'd be more willing to consider a standalone article appropriate. As it is, it should be redirected to the book page, or a possibly a new page on the book series. Maybe character info could be added there if non-primary references are found. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as searches at Books, News, browser and Highbeam all found links for this so there's not much for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will move to draft space upon request if someone will commit to improving this text. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Velazquez[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to allow time for better sourcing. This seems to be by a well-intentioned newbie. I can't tell if the subject is notable or not, yet. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy only if necessary as the common name was not easy to help search and there's simply nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for ""Mark Velazquez" musician" doesn't return much that would help to establish notability, but the "M." alter ego complicates matters. I have removed unsourced material about his sexuality from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or userfy - i have found nothing about a musician / producer of the name Mark Velazquez. if there is stuff under the name M., there is no sourcing that connects it to Mark Velazquez and so the article would be M. (musician). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 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 merge to Super Mario Maker. Consensus that this should not be a separate article. Sandstein 08:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of developers that have created levels in Super Mario Maker[edit]

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

This is just a textbook example of a trivial page. Not at all needed for this website. While there are reliable sources used, there is no real need for this. GamerPro64 19:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above reason Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. @GamerPro64: and @Heyyouoverthere:, I have to point out that saying "Not at all needed for this website. While there are reliable sources used, there is no real need for this" is not an argument for deleting an article. That reliable sources have reported on it would be the very reason to keep it. --Soetermans. T / C 11:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have worded it better or just not have included that in. But I think some other peoples comments in this AfD have put it better than I. GamerPro64 20:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as creator, I think that the game design of these well known developers is very notable, and the sources prove this. If anything, it is interesting rather than trivial. ~Mable (chat) 22:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it warrants a page. What value does a page about developers making levels in Super Mario Maker have here? We wouldn't do that if developer made levels in LittleBigPlanet. GamerPro64 22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that's a relevant example though? Did LBP have levels created by notable developers? And if so, did they receive coverage from third party sources? And even if you answer yes to both, that still doesn't prove precedent unless you've got some deletion or redirect discussions to point to. If there's no consensus on that, then that could just be another notable list that no one got around to making... Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just listing of developers that happen to have created levels using this tool; this page actually gives encyclopedic information on said levels such as the inspiration of the developer. That's a big reason why I think this article is useful for an encyclopedia. ~Mable (chat) 10:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING. — Scott • talk 16:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It passes the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Every entry is sourced to reliable sources per WP:VG/S, and cover it significantly. List of levels made in Texas is trivial. List of levels made by someone named Steve is trivial. One made by notable developers, sourced to tbird party sources that dedicate whole articles to it? Definitely not trivial. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a commercial game and the link to "Polygon‍ 's "Devs Make Mario" series", Twitch, and the one made under Nintendo's purview makes it read as if it's a built-in WP:ADVERT. Anyone who has a level on Mario Maker is a developer of a level for the game, and just because they're a developer in the industry doesn't give them extra notability to stand out in a separate article. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One item on the list may have been promoted by Nintendo, sure, but its content in this list has zero ADVERT/PROMOTION issues. Nintendo is not cited, third party reliable sources are, and there are no promotional details present. The rest of your concerns miss the point of the list entirely. Its inclusion criteria clearly state that its only listing notable developers, as in, ones that have their own article. The Wikipedia definition of notable. Items in a list having their own article is commonly used as inclusion criteria on whether or not something should be added to a list article, and whether or not a list should exist at all. Every single item on the list so far is a blue link, not a redlink. That's a good sign towards list notability. Please see WP:NLIST. (Which I note, is different from the WP:LISTN I cited above, but still relevant.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was wondering if Polygon's coverage of Mario Maker through its "Devs Make Mario" series would be considered primary sources in this article. After all, they basically "made" these developers make a level under their supervision (or something along those lines). Even then, however, that would only mean three of the eleven sources do not count for the topic's notability and everything is still covered by secondary sources. ~Mable (chat) 08:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think first party, in this situation, would be citing Nintendo, the game itself, or the developers themselves. But, as you said, either way, other sources cover Polygon's articles about it, so either way the third party coverage is there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of WP:VG/RSes. Notable video game developers making levels for a notable game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite reliable sources, each is a standalone entry. Pre-established game developers creating Mario levels has not been considered as a list anywhere outside of Wikipedia. WP:NLIST states, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is not the case here, with two levels being Nintendo PR and the other three being an original Polygon series. No one else has put these together as a topic. - hahnch e n 12:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you're citing is a way to positively confirm notability, but the lack of it does not confirm lack of notability. It operates the same as things like WP:NSONGS or WP:NALBUMS, where subjects may not meet them, but still meet the WP:GNG, so they are kept. Case in point, we have a List of Nintendo DS games, but you'd be hard pressed to find a WP:RS that literally documents every DS game. Yet it's notability is also not challenged, because so many of the items on the list are covered by reliable sources and have their own articles. The same applies here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your example isn't entirely valid, as there are probably plenty of reliable sources talking about the "best DS games" or "the DS has an interesting game library" or whatever. The guideline says that the items in the list could be commonly grouped by RSes, but not that all items in the list should be present in such RSes. But I'm sure this is still the case with other lists, such as List of Electronic Arts games where the games themselves really don't have to have any common ground other than being published by EA. I'd argue this list of Mario Maker levels has more "groupness" than EA games, honestly. ~Mable (chat) 15:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe your example is better. Same concept though - there's still many notable lists of things on Wikipedia that aren't really listed anywhere else. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article. The levels developed by them are covered by reliable sources, but it does not mean that a full article is needed for them. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing stand-alone WP:GNG criteria for WP:LISTN -- significant and lasting coverage of the topic of the list. In other words, the topics "SMM level designers" or "notable persons designing SMM levels" are not notable. This is a list of trivia with very narrow inclusion criteria. While the article has WP:VG/RS, they focus on a known person as they happen to be engaged in a design activity, which happens to be SMM. As for lasting notability, the short articles are one-time news events with little in-depth information. As for the typical WP:SPLIT reason for lists (like the ones mentioned above), the amount of content is very small and most information is trivia. If the levels are notable, then this can be mentioned there. A quick mention in the game's development section is sufficient. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Mario Maker - although notable, the page consists of little more than a table and there is no real reason why it needs to be a standalone article. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. --143.105.12.138 (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Super Mario Maker - This obviously cannot work as a stand-alone list because then it would end up being indiscriminate. I think it can work if it was merged with the main article about the game but only if the most notable devs are covered. Of course, given the sources, it's enough for almost the entire list to be merged. --TL22 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToonLucas22 - Please look a little closer, what you're describing is already the current scope of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Super Mario Maker (for now): As was said above, this is simply a table with a brief introduction. However, taking a look at the references shows some potential for prose about each stage, so if someone were able to make that work, I would be all for Keeping this article. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 00:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: Digging further into the sources says that the entries can definitely be expanded into prose. I should have time this weekend to create a userspace subpage that does this. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Super Mario Maker or delete: Not noteworthy outside of a very narrow segment of video game enthusiasts. Modern game titles involve hundreds or thousands of personnel in all aspects of production. Among the listed developers are journalists not established in game development and redirects from articles about people who apparently did not warrant their own article. It is interesting to read, as has been stated, but not noteworthy in a general sense. A handful of electronic articles on gaming sites does not constitute significant coverage. 192.107.155.5 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects? Who was redirected? Last time I checked, each of these persons had an article of their own. ~Mable (chat) 04:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it might not be interesting to you, doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. These handful of electronic articles is exactly the reason why it does constitute significant coverage. We're not disputing that a game like Assassin's Creed Unity has several hundred people working on the game. This list (which, again, is based upon sources) mentions other developers who have made a level in SMM. --Soetermans. T / C 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, electronic articles aren't to be looked down upon simply because they're electronic. IGN, Nintendo Life, Eurogamer, and Polygon are notable per WP:VG/RS, and Siliconera and Gamnesia are questionable, but not necessarily bad. The others that aren't listed there seem okay at a glance except Nintenderos, and that's because I don't know Spanish well enough to tell one way or the other. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering too if the "electronic" was meant as a jab at their notability. --Soetermans. T / C 08:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, per the various arguments above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Mario Maker; it's actually quite useful for those interested in the discipline of game design, but not so interesting and useful as to justify a standalone list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southam Chambers[edit]

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

Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholars, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing to establish notability. Books did have a few mentions of the building, but they were of the list type, simply showing the existence of the building. Nothing to really show the notability of this particular building. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply not much for an article even if we wanted one, aside from some Books and browser links. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. Being an old building doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 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 Consensus to keep The community is of the opinion that notability has been established. HighInBC 15:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Beverly Hillz[edit]

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

Article about drag queen who's notability doesn't satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:GNG. On top of that article was created today, between 18:34 and 18:50, a dump of some 13224 bytes. Created somewhere else I think, by deleted user CasinoTYME. Don't think the girl is notable. Original article was a redirect. scope_creep (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article passes both BIO and GNG. The subject is well known, has been featured on television, won the WCT award, and has continued getting coverage since she appeared on RuPaul's Drag Race. The sources cover her in specific, rather than just mentioning her in passing, and there are a wide variety of them. --CasinoTYME (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find the coverage significant and aside from coverage of her on the reality show it's in small or regional sources, and the reality show part is sufficiently addressed by the show article. She has not received a well-known award or made enduring historical contributions to entertainment, and going beyond WP:GNG, I don't find any of the criteria of WP:ENT covered by this article or elsewhere. Hekerui (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find Huffington Post, The Advocate, The Windy City Times, and many others small sources? Besides that, she is notable for being the first ever contestant to come out as trans* during the show (as opposed to Carmen Carrera, who came out after), has been given an award by the WCT, and has received continued coverage each year since being on the show. --CasinoTYME (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffpo and Advocate articles are about the show, and Windy City Times is regional. Hekerui (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of which invalidates whether the source backs up the article or not. Regional sources are not invalid sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hekerui, now that there are sources added that she is the first person who has come out as transgender on network television, would you reconsider your 'delete' vote, in that there is considerable historical significance there? --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there are some major issues with this deletion nomination. First of all, my account is not a deleted account, nor has it ever been. Second, it is totally fine to write an article for a redirect if someone gains notability. That's a very common WP practice. Third, you say "dump", I say "well written article". Not really sure what scope_creep's motivation is here. --CasinoTYME (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CasinoTYME (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CasinoTYME (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and article is easy to read with plenty of good sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Monica Beverly Hillz is a professional transgender entertainer who has appeared on national television and received coverage in major news outlets. She is the subject of academic research. I believe the description of her as a "drag queen" and "the girl" in comments above is inappropriate.--Lawrlafo (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fairly unpopular in comparison to many other drag queens that have appeared on Rupaul's Drag Race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:8001:3F89:495:24DD:2276:5691 (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — 2601:206:8001:3F89:495:24DD:2276:5691 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Luckily we don't rate subjects of articles on "popularity". We rate them on coverage, the depth of sources, and other valid criteria. The fact is the subject has a wide range of sources solely covering her (as opposed to only mentioning her) since she appeared on the show. She has been the subject of academic research, popular media, and has been covered by legitimate sources. It doesn't matter if you think she's "unpopular." --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:POPULARITY or lack thereof are not valid arguments for neither Keep nor Delete. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CasinoTYME Your user page was created on the 20:15, 26 September 2015 and your talk page was created on the 20:12, 26 September 2015 which is after the time I created the AFD, which suggested your account was either blocked or deleted somehow. Either way, there is something really dodgy going on here. What we really need is an admin to determine what is going om.scope_creep (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...I just started and this is a new account. How is that in any way "dodgy"? Why wouldn't you have checked my user name before saying it was a deleted/blocked account? Have you not heard of a new user writing an article on a topic that used to have a redirect? Are you new to WP? --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it might not be dodgy, but it does seem odd, that you create an account, and 2 hours later there is a beautiful polished non notable article created. scope_creep (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2015

The point of accounts is to create articles, scope_creep. That's why I have an account. Why would you have an account if not to add to WP? Your argument doesn't even make sense. It's odd that someone creates an account to add to WP? Why would anyone have a WP account if not to add to the project? How about sticking to the article at hand instead of making unfounded claims against editors, especially when your claims are completely bogus (ie: that my account was ever blocked/deleted)? --CasinoTYME (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The comments towards CasinoTYME are pretty much ad hominem. It doesn't have anything to do with the article which several individuals in this discussion have found passes GNG.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Megalibrarygirl, the comments made by nom re CasinoTYME has little or nothing to do here, and I don't share the concern. Believe me, we get plenty of nice looking drafts at AFC. If there are genuine concerns, file a case at AN/I. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Transwoman I find that this individual has made the Trans Community more mainstream, and to delete this page would constitute transphobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.136.223 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's definitely notable and the article reflects that. Fuzchia (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes BIO and GNG. Azealia911 _talk 10:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We're up to almost 4 dozen sources, and I've now found out that she was the first person to reveal they are transgender on network television (I added a source to the article for that), as well as being the first on RuPaul's Drag Race. Along with both those historic facts, she has won the WCT award, kept in the public eye since the show, has been a part of academic research, and has lots of varied media sources covering her. I don't see how this can be anything but keep at this point. --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Ruimy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. JMHamo (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is slanted noticeably in the direction of a public relations profile rather than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced entirely to content where the topic was not the subject of the reference, but its author. That does not constitute reliable source coverage of him. In addition, there's a conflict of interest here as the article was created by User:Ruimjo1986. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than some News and browser links. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: found no coverage on this individual, just content by him. Vrac (talk) 23:17, 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 speedy delete G12. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Deli[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, other than her reported romance with Justin Bieber, which does not make her notable. JMHamo (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation[edit]

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

Unsourced article that I stumbled upon via STiKi. Totally unencyclopedic and of unknown notability. Really unsalvageable in present form. Actually warrants speedy deletion but am nominating for deletion in recognition of its age and number of contributors, even though none of the contributors has apparently expended much effort into making this a Wikipedia article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I'm persuaded by the references provided by other editors. The article does still need work, obviously. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable subject. There are numerous books written about, or based on, the system;
- Together with Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) in Social Science, Sagar
- Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) in English Communicative, Ravi, Gulati
- Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation: Teachers' Handbook for Primary Stage, National Council of Educational Research and Training
- Academic Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in Social Science X, Singhal
- Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in Present Education System
- Solutions to Academic Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in Hindi X B, Banga

and many academic papers;

- "Feasibility study of continuous comprehensive assessment of primary students", Rajput, Tewari, Kumar
- "Continuous and comprehensive evaluation: A study of teachers’ perception", Pooja
- "Continuous and comprehensive evaluation: Redefining the role of teachers", Aggarwal, Bhalla
- "A study implementation of continuous and comprehensive evaluation in upper primary schools of Kerala", Kothari, Thomas
- "Towards Positing a Paradigm for Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in Social Sciences", Mandal
- "Continuously and Comprehensively Evaluating Children", Nawani
- "Attitude of Student Teachers towards Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation With Reference To Gender, Caste and Habitat", Singh, Patel, Desai
- "A philosophical study: continuous and comprehensive evaluation", Parkash et al
- Practices of teachers' in implemeting continuous and comprehensive evaluation - an exploratory study", Chopra, Bhatia

There are many more. Not to mention all the news items; [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. SpinningSpark 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely if there is good coverage about this. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and per WP:SNOW: certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion since no CSD criteria fit. Subject gets overwhelmingly significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and notability to pass WP:GNG is unquestioned. Below I add just ~10 {{cite book}}s. A book search is mandatory WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD. Pinging Coretheapple for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Training of Trainers in Science and Technology Education: Asian edition. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1 January 1996. pp. 52–. ISBN 978-0-85092-480-0.
Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation: Teachers' Handbook for Primary Stage. National Council of Educational Research and Training. 2003. ISBN 978-81-7450-246-9.
J. P. Singhal (1 June 2010). Academic Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in Social Science X. Laxmi Publications Pvt Limited. ISBN 978-93-80644-19-6.
Dr. N. K. Sharma (1 June 2010). Academic Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in Science X. Laxmi Publications Pvt Limited. ISBN 978-93-80644-18-9.
Poonam Banga (1 August 2010). Solutions to Academic Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in Hindi X B. Laxmi Publications Pvt Limited. ISBN 978-93-80644-27-1.
J. B. Dixit (1 February 2010). Comprehensive Mathematics Activities and Projects X. Laxmi Publications. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-81-318-0806-1.
The Indian Journal of Social Work. Vol. 59. Department of Publications, Tata Institute of Social Sciences. 1998. pp. 625–.
Rewa Bhasin (14 February 2014). Dynamic Memory Modern Paragraph Writing-Secondary Level. Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-93-5083-345-2.
Publisher's Monthly. Vol. 38. 1996. pp. 80–.
J. S. Rajput; National Council of Educational Research and Training (India) (2004). Encyclopaedia of Indian Education: A-K. NCERT. pp. 365–. ISBN 978-81-7450-303-9.
Journal of Indian Education. Vol. 18. National Council of Educational Research and Training. 1992. pp. 11–.

Comment Sure, I'm OK with withdrawing it, given that references have been supplied. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival 2002 Official Competition Selection[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced, non-notable list of films presented during a film festival one year. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. - Mr X 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft. List of non-notable films in a minor festival. Nothing to indicate why this list meets WP:STANDALONE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as any notable films should be listed at the festival's page. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Title too long to be a useful redirect. Vrac (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Even if sourcable, as it is not appropriate to list ALL the films selected to screen at a specific film festival in 2002 simply because they were chosen to screen. IF any of the films is notable enough for an article the festival might be mentioned therein or, if winning a prize in the festival, might merit a mention in the festival article as a winner. Simply put, inclusion herein is based upon notability, not existence.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:16, 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 Speedy keep due to nominator withdrawal. clpo13_(talk) 05:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Washington (1659–1698)[edit]

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

~~No indication of any encyclopedic notability independent of his famous grandson. Subject fails WP:BASIC. Article fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY.~~ Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom based on RS evidence of elected membership in the House of Burgesses. Per WP:NPOL the subject is notable. The article remains in need of some very serious work, however I do not believe any remaining issues are fatal. Suggest speedy close per WP:SK by any uninvolved editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if he were not notable for being George Washington's paternal grandfather, he was still the owner of the future Mount Vernon estate, and for that reason alone would merit mention in, oh, about 2,000 Washington biographies. I realize you are trying to make a point about Frederick Trump, slapping an AfD on it while on DYK, but this extra hatchet work borders on vandalism and is truly offensive to me. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of WP:AGF to be regrettable. I think it worth noting that I was not the one who linked this article as part of an OTHERSTUFF argument. If we are going to cite other articles in a debate then they are fully subject to critical review. That said, the only (2) sources cited are genealogical. And no, we don't extend notability purely on the basis that you once owned land, even famous land. As far as I can tell your interpretation of the guidelines does not seem to include WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, the latter of which I should note, is policy and trumps (no pun intended) any contrary interpretation of guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly—as I read it, another user brought up Lawrence Washington as an example of someone whose notability is conferred, in part, by his relationship to a famous historic individual )as WP:NOTINHERITED is not so absolutely cut-and-dried, as you surely know) and here you took a hatchet to THIS orchard!! Surely this article could be improved with additional sources, but Lawrence Washington is quite notable for his historic landowning and familial role. Sorry about AGF but I'm just a bit aghast at this. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTINHERITED and NOTGENEALOGY are not especially complicated, unless you are trying to get around them. Subjects of biographical articles need to demonstrate sufficient notability to justify a stand alone article without relying on their relationship to other notable figures. In the rare cases where a direct connection contributes to a claim of notability, the importance of that relationship (as in the case of Alois Hitler) must be obvious and extensively covered in RS sources. There is nothing in this article that suggests any independent claim to notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Setting the NOTINHERITED issue aside, this is not a particularly well-sourced article. p b p 20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Have been looking online for better sources. Lots of good material on historical sites that aren't rock solid RS. Someone with a brick-and-mortar library could really help us out. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being George Washington's grandfather, Lawrence Washington was a Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses and Sheriff of Westmoreland County, as well as an officer in the Virginia militia and a significant landowner. Seems to me that being a member of a legislative body, or sheriff of a county, would support a claim to independent notability. Certainly any member of a modern legislature or county sheriff would be entitled to an article, and it is difficult to see on what basis we would decide differently here just because Lawrence's service was some centuries ago. While I agree the article could use some updating and additions, I don't think deletion is warranted. Jrt989 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

County Sheriff would not IMHO qualify barring a very unusual level of non-local news coverage (see WP:NPOL). However being an elected member of the House of Burgeses, which I looked for and did not see in the article before sending it to AfD, would almost certainly establish a level of notability justifying his own article. If this can be verified with an RS source that would at least resolve the question of WP:N. The article is still in need of serious work, but the remaining issues are not fatal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the Membership in the House of Burgesses is not currently in the article, but I have seen it mentioned elsewhere, including at List of members of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I will see if I can find a good source for his membership. As to the position of county sheriff, I personally think that it is not an immaterial factor in determining Lawrence's notability -- I note, for instance, that several county sheriffs in my home state have articles on Wikipedia. That said, I cannot say whether that is a local peculiarity or whether sheriffs from other parts of the country receive the same treatment. Best, Jrt989 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Ad Orientem's criterion of verifying being a member of the House of Burgesses. "Lawrence Washington...won election to the Virginia House of Burgesses" from George Washington's Mount Vernon: At Home in Revolutionary America, Robert F. Dalzell, Lee Baldwin Dalzell. SpinningSpark 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article to include a line about Lawrence's service as a Sheriff and as a member of the House of Burgesses, along with accompanying citations. I'll keep updating as/if I find more info. Thanks for the "push" to dig a little deeper on this topic! Jrt989 (talk) 02:14, 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 Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2. –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally closed by Kicking222 but the closure was all screwed up so had to reclose. –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Aldana[edit]

Cannot satisfy WP:BIO. Sourced and may pass notability but not that much. Only a local personality who achieved awards. Cannot stand to have it's own page and some section contains "personal information" which is not encyclopedic. BritandBeyonce 08:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My first thought was delete, but she may have sufficient notability in her home country to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberon (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her achievements are not enough to suffice notability. BritandBeyonce 09:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2. Everything mentioned here is there already. --Howard the Duck 10:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2; per HtD's comment. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 10:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Howard. Transwiki to WikiPilipinas if possible.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless, after PBB Celeb. Edition Season 2, she becomes more notable than the other housemates herself. --- 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titopao (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Consulate General, Los Angeles[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. all this article does is confirm the consulate exists. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. Similar AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian Consulate General, San Francisco LibStar (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brazilian diplomatic missions or simply delete as there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. When one source is the tenant list of the building it is in I can not help to think a new low has been reached for 'third party' sources. It is not even worth a redirect. Jbh ^Talk 18:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, it exists, so what? Kraxler (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mile Wide Project[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 14:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement and the best links I found were Evenbrite and Kickstarter. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the term seems to lack significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick michael reid[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable person. I am unable to find reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. - Mr X 14:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Autobiographical, no coverage in reliable sources. The assertion that he's running for President probably tips this out of A7, and it's no such an overt campaign flyer that it's G11. So, it can't be speedied, but I don't see how it will stand up to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The presidency of the United States is that rare campaign that's so extensively covered by so many reliable sources that even though non-winning candidates don't pass WP:NPOL in principle, a political party's nominee for president has a very good chance of getting past WP:GNG anyway — so he might certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article if he wins the Libertarian Party nomination. But a person definitely doesn't get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in the party's internal primary race, if you can't make a credible and properly sourced claim of preexisting notability independently of that fact. And that definitely hasn't been shown here, as this contains nothing of substance and is parked entirely on primary sourced verification of his existence rather than reliable source coverage of anything about him. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if the Libertarians choose him as their official presidential candidate next year and the reliable source coverage shoots up because of that. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he wins the nomination, he would merit a page, but absent that there seems to be little coverage of him to meet guidelines, as already stated. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. Article has been moved to Derrick Michael Reid. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. While becoming the Libertarian nominee would undoubtedly cause him to merit a Wikipedia page, he doesn't need to accomplish that to merit a Wikipedia page. He could potentially pass the general notability guideline by getting significant media coverage in reliable, independent sources, well before the nominee is determined. However, no such media coverage has been identified yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, the candidate/article creator wrote on his campaign site, "I created a simple wikipedia page. Lets see how long it takes them to delete it." [13] The answer should be "7 days"; a snow or speedy deletion is unnecessary given that the article is true and asserts notability -- it just doesn't establish notability yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than browser links and there is simply nothing to suggest improvement or even noticeable attention. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DANIEL ONI[edit]

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

– Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 14:41, 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 speedy keep. nom {{Withdraw}}n (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleck Bovick[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable "actress" best known for Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition. Quis separabit? 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reluctantly upon review and updating the article (myself). Quis separabit? 05:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the articles and realized I was wrong and changed my vote to keep because it seems the right think to do in case anyone is curious. I didn't do it because I was afraid "to lose" an AFD. Since the voting is well underway, I believe it is too late to withdrawn the nom. I have "lost" (as some put it) other AFDs by SNOW and I didn't change my votes nor have have I changed my votes on other recent AFD nominations I made which were a source of controversy in some circles. Quis separabit? 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really now? You do understand that WP:BLP is pretty strict, right?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Sources attest to notability.--Jondel (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV show or simply delete as I simply nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No actually. She is not "best known for Pinoy Big Brother". If you didn't notice, it's a CELEBRITY edition. She was a well-known sexy star long before reality TV was even a thing. She's had multiple significant roles in notable films and TV shows, including winning a FAMAS Best Actress award for her first film Tampisaw in 2002 (to put that in context, the FAMAS Awards are the Philippine equivalent to the Oscars of the US). It caused a huge controversy back then, as people thought that another nominee deserved it more. But that's beside the point and only actually serves to reinforce her notability. She's well-known enough that Philippine senators can joke about her. She's been the subject of widespread significant coverage in secondary sources (aside from those already linked, here's another one, for example), award-winning, and played significant roles in multiple notable films/TV shows. WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. This is an easy keep. And don't rely on the results in Google News search for Philippine sources (which shows merely 9 results for me). They've only started archiving it from very recently. You can find more sources in a regular Google web search. Notice as well that none of the links I gave is even related to the Big Brother show. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Sexy star" is a Philippine English colloquialism referring to actors/actresses primarily noted for being sexually attractive. The closest equivalent American English term is "sex symbol".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't know why this text, copied from a reliable source -- philstar-- was removed. Any ideas?? Quis separabit? 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summary. Or you could ask User:Ponyo who protected it afterwards. I think in the belief that you were a socking vandal. That should give you a hint. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected because it is a target for socks, of the last 13 editors (not including my sock reversions) on that article five of them are confirmed block sock accounts. Clearly [email protected] is not a socking vandal or they would have been blocked as well. The protection of the article was unrelated to any edits they made.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Absolutely no valid keep argument was presented. Courcelles (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Falcon College Head Boys[edit]

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

I cannot believe that this list is of any notability whatsoever. Or even passing interest to anybody who did not go to the school in question. Pure cruft. TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I'm also not seeing much to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's of significance to people in Matabeleland. Kuda188 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not a valid argument, cf. WP:VALUABLE. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete schoolcruft and utterly non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is useful, interesting and insightful. 217.15.117.125 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not a valid argument, cf. WP:ITSUSEFUL. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously not something to put into Falcon College per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, but it is utterly unsourceable and thus non-notable for a standalone list-article. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete irrelevant WP:LISTCRUFT, there's a source (from the college's alumni association), but what would make a college head boy notable? No sources discussing the subject fails WP:SALAT Kraxler (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stonebridge Condos[edit]

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

Unremarkable block of flats. TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no move target and no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOFEAT. A building is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them. Here the significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources required to establish notability is not present. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spireon[edit]

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

The sources here don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH as they are either press releases or primary sources. The award they won at CES 2014 is a possible claim to notability but I can't find any sources that are not press releases from the company and so I'm not sure it is a notable award (even though the event is notable).

External links to the company have been spammed to other Wikipedia articles recently[14], which is always a bit of a red flag as well. bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure PR blather unskillfully written. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest buidngs in stockport[edit]

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

I can't believe that a list of tower blocks in a suburb of Manchester is passes any kind of notability test; I am, however, doubtful as to whether I can slap a speedy on this mis-spelt nonsense. TheLongTone (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gbawden (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply not much here. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 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) Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahim Dard[edit]

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

I do not see and find any cited sources that pass: per notability- "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject does not pass the criteria to be considered notable. Justice007 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Seriously? I am staggered In ictu oculi (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in "Political Awakening in Kashmir" by Ravinderjit Kaur; Journal:Social and Cultural Geography, "The mosque in the suburbs: Negotiating religion and ethnicity in South London" by Simon Naylor & James R. Ryan; "Encyclopaedia on Jinnah" Vol 3, by Prakash K. Singh (which incidentally discusses the interaction between Dard and Jinnah in London); "Connivance by Silence" by Arif Humayun; and a number of international publications of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Besides, he was an early Muslim missionary in Britian, without the mention of which a history of Islam in Britain cannot be completed. Clearly a notable individual.--Peace world 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources in which the subject has received significant coverage, but I do not see if you have any of that provide and cite to the content, just telling he is notable does not work here, it is only voting, we should avoid that.Justice007 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and which sources are not reliable?--Peace world 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All eight cited sources are not reliable sources, you are not a newbie, you should know the basic rules. All sources are the websites or books written by the subject even not significant coverage in that sources. Please read thoroughly reliable sources what say, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was asking about the sources I mentioned above, but you are responding for the current sources cited in the article. Nevertheless, the claim "All sources are the websites or books" is not even true.--Peace world 14:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there is likely coverage but not easily accessible therefore familiar attention is needed (as with most articles of this subject) and my searches found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No matter whatever the consensus is, I am respecting and describing the rules. I do not demonstrate my personal rules. I do not see and find the significant coverage of the subject except trivial mentioning name of the subject even not that you suggested in your keep comment. If you have that, please provide and cite.Justice007 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. And I was born yesterday. What we have here is a textbook example of an orthdox muslim attacking an Ahmadi muslim's bio. When sources are added to the article User Justice 007 deletes them In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In ictu oculi, please mind your language and read civility and personal attacks. I deleted no any sources, and nor you added there any. You should discuss the policies and prove, and cite reliable sources rather blaming and accusing other editors. It is not the way to contribute the WIkipedia.Justice007 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?. You removed some sources, then you put up the article for deletion? Sunday Times is considered a reliable source, which you removed.--Peace world 14:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not see that, I thought that was a just citation and same sources are also elsewhere cited that's why we cite sources per link rot. It was not deliberately removed even one cannot access the sources reliability. the Quote needs authentic sources, not just the news because there are doubts.Justice007 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justice007 I call it as I see it - you clearly deleted sources in more than one edit. And then repeatedly added a sources tag? The only reason to go after this bio is because the subject is not the same sort of Islam. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, your thoughts are very poor and awkward, and second, we should discuss the deletion, you cannot see the heart and mind of anyone. I will be happy to save the article, and improve if the reliable sources are there. Just for your information, I created the article Haider Qureshi that rejects your wrong illusions about others.Justice007 (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reference to your doubt?--Peace world 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you discuss other dispute on the article talk page if you want that. It is not the place to discuss other issues here except the deletion.Justice007 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting reliable sources in the course of trying to get an article AFDed is clearly not acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readded mistakenly removed sources that do not establish the notability too. That were only the support to the Quote.Justice007 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No matter what the outcome of this deletion discussion is, but in my view what the rules say subject does not pass the notability, I see only the voting rather proving, and providing reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. I see none of those.Justice007 (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Seriously? I copy pasted these from the first comment. I find that snowballs have a BETTER chance of enjoying hell than this being deleted lol. One of the most laughable AFD discussions I have ever seen, what a joke!. I hope this is speedy kept as soon as possible. All that aside, there is considerable notability here so what was the reason for AFD? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources establish notability, would you mind to indicate if there is significant coverage of the subject, just tell me one. Justice007 (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just copy and past peaceworlds comment since you seem to have overlooked that. He said "Mentioned in "Political Awakening in Kashmir" by Ravinderjit Kaur; Journal:Social and Cultural Geography, "The mosque in the suburbs: Negotiating religion and ethnicity in South London" by Simon Naylor & James R. Ryan; "Encyclopaedia on Jinnah" Vol 3, by Prakash K. Singh (which incidentally discusses the interaction between Dard and Jinnah in London); "Connivance by Silence" by Arif Humayun; and a number of international publications of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Besides, he was an early Muslim missionary in Britian, without the mention of which a history of Islam in Britain cannot be completed. Clearly a notable individual.". See there are more than enough sources here to establish a high degree of notability. Furthermore, even if there are not a thousand sources, even then the sources in the article are enough to establish notability. YES, it is not a GA but that doesn't mean that you go around deleting every article that isnt a GA. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an event or mentioning the name and few lines does not establish the notability, nor trivial sources. I want to see significant coverage of the subject that how and why he is notable.Justice007 (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage. If you can just drop the shtick you will be able to see it. Anyway, seeing that this is a snowball keep there is no reason for me to debate any further with you as you seem unable to grasp the meaning of notable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. (Note: brought here from another discussion.) First of all, let's be respectful and refrain from personal attacks. Secondly, I see a lot of personal opinions here but not much actual data presented by those defending the article. It would be helpful if the detailed coverage from reliable scholarly sources (with quotes and all) can be posted here so that we can analyze the material and judge notability based on the data, rather than relying on subjective personal opinions alone.

I'll help the defending side by following my own advice, and start by citing some coverage on Dard I found: https://books.google.ca/books?id=fLCCbohBKzcC&pg=PA156&dq=Abdul+Rahim+Dard&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Abdul%20Rahim%20Dard&f=false). In this source, Dard is cited as the secretary of the All India Kashmir Committee. He is mentioned as trying to encourage the maharaja to accept his request for mediation in the kashmir situation (pre partition), and the maharaja did not accept his request. I couldn't really find much else on this guy, but I urge other participants here to take the lead (the burden is on those defending the article) and post relevant 3rd party coverage, while keeping in mind the following requirements in the notability 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.
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

This will also help the article because if said sources can be collected, they can easily and quickly be integrated into the article to improve it (or perhaps spawn a sister article on A.R. Dard which details his accomplishments and/or ideas etc.) I think we can all agree that would be a good thing, as it will solve this current problem defacto, and also expand the content. cӨde1+6^LogicBomb! 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking them that since nomination for deletion, but they are imposing what they like. If there are sources even one that significantly covers the subject, I will be happy to improve the article.Justice007 (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW, sources are certainly not difficult to find, I have added some ~10-15 {{cite book}}s, and notability well above WP:BASIC is unquestionable. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. on nom's request, discussion has been WP:BUNDLEd with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 VFL Grand Final (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 VFL Grand Final[edit]

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

This particular Grand Final is a Grand Final for a second-tier non-fully-professional league. The match had no particular distinguishing features or lasting notoriety and all coverage of it was Wikipedia:ROUTINE; this makes it not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. (The lack of distinguishing features makes this case different to the two other Grand Finals from the same league which do have articles: 1967 VFA Grand Final and 1971 VFA Grand Final, both of which have lasting notoriety in the context of Australian rules football history and are the subject of non-routine coverage). Additionally, all information contained within this spin-out article it is either replicated directly from or paraphrased from 2014 VFL season, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Recommended redirect to 2014 VFL season#Grand Final. Aspirex (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment another article with the same issues, 2015 VFL Grand Final, has been created since this AfD began. A different editor has opened a new AfD for the 2015 article (and copied my above justification into it) instead of bundling into this one, so now we have two near-identical AfDs. Since the other one already has one response and this one doesn't, I suggest any future conversation continue at the other AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_VFL_Grand_Final. Aspirex (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to admin could someone who knows the correct administrative way to do so please bundle the 2014 VFL Grand Final and 2015 VFL Grand Final AfDs together? Aspirex (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British International School Duhok[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a business school which may not even exist. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a school, including a secondary school, (not a business school) which makes it default notable, unless, indeed it does not exist. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- There is no default notability for schools. Please see WP:ORGSIG.- Mr X 12:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely if this can't be improved. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the sentiments expressed above. Neutrality^talk 00:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

go to the facebook page and see it is an international school. https://www.facebook.com/DuhokBIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.193.238.168 (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources present to suggest either the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline is met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British international school zakho[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a business school which may not even exist. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as unless it can be improved, there's nothing to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

go to the facebook page and see it is an international school. https://www.facebook.com/ZakhoBIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.193.238.168 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources present to suggest either the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline is met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to draft at Draft:Lucas the Game by Czar as not ready for mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas the game[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable video game. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the product in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The game appears to have picked up a muted reaction, and I feel inclined to just delete the article as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G4, the article was already deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas the Game. The only thing that has been added here is a IGN user review which is not a reliable source. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Search hits either comes as primary sources and routinal reports, or that it is split as "Lucas/the game". This is notwithstanding 1337's rationale to G4. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--DCRichHistory (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC) This article should not be deleted, which I will attempt to justify. Several key points need to be made, regarding this issue. The1337gamer is listed on Valve/Steam editor list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Valve - Valve is abusing their resources/power to monopolize the game industry, which can be seen repeatedly if you study wiki logs. The1337gamer is the primary user behind the previous deletion and the attempt to delete this article, which has been greatly improved upon. Further, this article has a substantial percentage of new and notable information, which can be read (and viewed in bytes) from the previously deleted version. Further, it has several new reliable external sources in the game industry, which is all this article actually needs to suffice. IGN coverage is very much a credible source in the game industry. Also, Groupees is another notable and reliable instance of coverage of Lucas the Game. A test came up with a great deal of backlinks leading to the official site of this game, as well. The game also has a dedicated soundtrack by a professional musician/media company, along with official announcements surrounding its development and release. It has been proven, Lucas the Game is notable, and well enough sourced, including reliable external sourcing, to be elgible to exist. It should be given no less than leniency, as it has clearly met the minimum of criteria, and will likely further be enhanced by users.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the COI issue, the issue that participants seem to have a consensus on is that there are not enough reliable third-party sources to write an impartial article on this individual (ie: notability). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NYMZ[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable DJ. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 12:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found; it should also be noted that the creator of the page is employed by an agency who likely is affiliated with this person. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete reliable sources are found on the page and are being updated constantly. I am the creator of this page and I am his girlfriend and not employed by an agency who is affiliated with NYMZ. CVMusicMgmt (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you said here; which is it? 331dot (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the language in the article is growing more promotional and may be approaching the point where it could be speedy deleted on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide an example of how the page is too promotional? I help out with the company but I am not an employee. I said I would update my page to say that so that I didn't violate any rules. I was unable to figure out how to update my page though. Sorry, I am new here CVMusicMgmt (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "NYMZ is among the next wave of young artists pioneering a new frontier of party rocking destroyers with his perfect blend.." and "The next generation of bass music can be perfectly summed up by NYMZ and his dynamic, face-melting tracks" is just promotional fluff that is impossible to cite as that is just an opinion.

Whether you are his girlfriend, an employee, or "helping out", it doesn't matter. There seems to be a clear conflict of interest here; please review that link for more information. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page and taken that language out. Can you please let me know if the page looks better CVMusicMgmt (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is better, but doesn't change the other issues stated on this page. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have educated myself on COI while on Wikipedia and I don't feel like there will be an issue here. This page is strictly for facts and the NYMZ discography. The language before was biased because I put his biography on here which had bias. I have since deleted it though and have heavily cited the page. CVMusicMgmt (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and I suggest the next author to carefully look at the guidelines as I see nothing aside from some links at News, to suggest better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete As I mentioned before, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I thank you all for letting me know what needs to be edited on this page and I hope to continue to improve the page. I have educated myself on COI, read countless good and featured articles and I hope that you will not delete this page due to my inexperience with Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be done to improve the page Christina at CVMusicMgmt (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing how the subject meets any of the notability criteria under WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches show it fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Morales[edit]

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

Delete: does not reach threshold for notability as an actor Quis separabit? 11:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry here is one source--Jondel (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be sorry -- only source is a glossy profile from his management agency. Quis separabit? 13:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can see he's only been in minor roles. He should also not be confused with the possibly notable Filipino-American writer-director Ron Morales of Graceland (2012) and Santa Mesa (2008). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal. There is clear consensus not to keep this as a standalone article. There is not really a consensus on whether to redirect or just delete outright, but in close cases, my inclination is to always go with the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Hindu Awareness Campaign Nepal[edit]

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

Event is not notable. Google news does not give any result. Even the reference cited is a blog. No proof of notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly important campaign run by former Parliamentarian Shankar Pandey. Campaign leaders have met with Prime Minister. Obviously, English language sources will be harder to find. However, "blog" cited by nom is on Nepali Times website, so is a WP:RS. Another source here. I am sure a large number of non-English sources can be found. This is a major political campaign in a non-English speaking country. WP:GEOBIAS applies to this nom. Nom initially nominated for speedy deletion (!) per WP:A7, which states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines" and "If the claim of significance is credible the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines". I'm pretty sure it is a credible claim to significance for former parliamentarian to start a campaign gaining national coverage AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the nom has literally voted keep (as a lone voice) at Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 on the back of Vice News coverage (the people that brought us the ground-breaking story of the London Piss Dungeon). They also consistently nominated articles for speedy that are not suitable, eg a peer reviewed journal Electronic Book Review and the Roman Catholic Church in Turkmenistan. Both with actual claims to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whilst AusLondonder has accused me of WP:GEOBIAS in comment above and here also, I am inclined to feel (after reading his comment above) that this might be a case of WP:COI since he is using strong words like "Highly important campaign" and mentions the Parliamentarian name when the article itself did not mention his name or the fact that "Campaign leaders have met with Prime Minister". What we must understand is that an event does not become notable just because a Parliamentarian started it OR the leaders met the Prime Minister. That's no claim to notability. Unfortunately, in absence of credible sources, this article cannot be termed as notable enough. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What has my vote here got anything to do with the AfD discussion here (which by the way was not a lone voice but that's not the point)? I don't see this discussion going anywhere as AusLondonder appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. I am stopping my replies to AusLondonder on all pages / TalkPages as this is a big waste of time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can this possibly be a Conflict of Interest? I have never been to Nepal, can't speak Nepalese and am not a Hindu. What a bizarre comment. Re WP:NOTHERE, I have created hundreds of pages, categories and more. Plain abuse now. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you ok? You have written "I am inclined to feel (after reading his comment above) that this might be a case of WP:COI since he is using strong words like "Highly important campaign" and mentions the Parliamentarian name when the article itself did not mention his name or the fact that "Campaign leaders have met with Prime Minister"." - but the source I provided does just that! Please strike your comments. AusLondonder (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is just one of event or initiative started by Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal. This thing should be written in article of that party. We can't make separate article for their each initiative when parent article Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal itself needs very much improvement. Also it needs more references, it is not like that millions of people involved in this initiative, it is just one of political stunt and one of follower of that political party made this article, those followers should improve parent article Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal first. This event can be easily added to Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal. I think no need of AFD discussion, just be bold and merge it to parent article and leave a redirect. Main thing is that article name is "National Hindu Awareness Campaign Nepal" and given blog source no where mentions such name, article name itself a big original research. Thank you. --Human3015^TALK 17:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal, notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated by nominator. Because the article's sole source states that the Rastriya party denies any involvement, a redirect is inappropriate (and might be seen as POV-ish). NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source exists, as stated above. AusLondonder (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and NewYorkActuary. Nothing in searches shows this meets the notability criteria. I also agree with NY's assessment regarding a redirect, as I feel that would not be appropriate either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect over to the Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal article, given that the notability of this campaign (it has gotten some coverage, but not much) is a part of the larger framework of that party's general bunch of activities that they've been doing CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a redirect to Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal, but probably not a lasting search term. There is no independent notability. Good for a sentence or two, max. --Bejnar (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IFrame in video games[edit]

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

This was a PROD, contested by an IP without any explanation, so unfortunately we need to have an AfD over a pointless two sentence article which I do not see as being a worthwhile stub for a valid encyclopaedic subject. The original rationale was "Non-notable neologism. If worthy of mention at all it should be in an existing article (very briefly!) and not in an article of its own." and I stand by that. It is more or less orphaned. There is nothing but a link on this disambiguation page: IFrame. This suggests that nobody has a use/need for it. DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title should have been "Invincibility frame (video game)". Anyway I don't really recall/find any name actually widely recognized by RS for that "flashy instance just after respawn", and this name is only very sparingly used in some reliable publications but none more than passing mentions. Delete and oppose to listing in Glossary of video game terms if still without good sources. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If by some chance this is kept it should be Invincibility Frame since there is no other article with that tilte making (video game) unnecessary.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google results appear to be mostly user-generated content, such as TV Tropes and other open wikis. While it does get scattered trivial mentions in reliable sources, nobody makes the effort to discuss or define it. Part of the problem is that there's really nothing to say. It's a self-explanatory term that describes a very minor aspect of gameplay – and, as a term, is not even all that common. It's already mentioned in the glossary, so there's no need to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage to warrant an article. May be worth a mention at the video game term glossary if a reliable source has covered it appropriately. – czar 06:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Surprisingly, there wasn't anything reliable about invincibility frames that I could find. I agree with Hisashiyarouin about the move, should it survive. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have ignored the lengthy discussions about the validity (or lack thereof) of this theory, as this is absolutely not relevant to whether this theory is notable or not. From the rest of the discussion it appears that at this point in time, this theory has not garnered enough independent coverage to meet our notability guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MiHsC[edit]

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

This theory has not received the third-party independent notice we require for coverage. jps (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Main points:

MiHsC seems to have a plausible explanation for the EmDrive anomaly which is both self consistent and explains the existing observations within error bounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.26 (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:Fringe theories, many papers about MiHsC have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
As for the variability of impact factors of peer-review journals, several papers about MiHsC have been published in the prestigious MNRAS.
As for WP:Notability, MiHsC is quite new and has still not many third-party independent researchers working on similar ideas, but some exist, see the peer-reviewed publications by Dr Jaume Giné from the University of Lleida who links MiHsC to the holographic theory.

One researcher is not many. It's one. Who is a mathematician. No one else in the field of dark matter or cosmology cares. Look at the 2013 Snowmass summary report, or in the journals Classical and Quantum Gravity, and Foundations of Physics. You will find no mention of MiHsC in the several years it's been since M.E. McCulloch proposed it. WaywardAMOp (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say that those who have invested a great deal of time and effort in looking for "dark matter" would not be particularly incentivised to investigate a theory purporting to show it doesn't exist, at least not in anything like the quantities being hunted for? To me it makes perfect sense that the first professional scholars to investigate MiHsC would be from departments other than those most fervently dedicated to the search for 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' ... it also makes perfect sense that one or more of said departments will eventually realize that there is something actually worth refuting there, and assuming it's refutable, they will do that. But to my knowledge, for some reason, this still hasn't happened? Smells like institutional silo effects might well be an issue here? I mean, maybe a bunch of them have looked at it, but as yet they cannot easily refute it, and for whatever reason they don't feel comfortable telling their colleagues that they've even had a look at it, for fear of being told off for encouraging crackpots, or just for fear of looking dumb? -- Sethop (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be fair. If dark matter could be shown not to exist, literally every scientist I know who studies the subject would be thrilled. This is irrelevant to the question at hand, though, which is whether this particular topic is notable enough for its own article. jps (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well that's good to know. On the other hand, perhaps you could explain why none of those scientists have apparently never bothered to even *look* at MiHsC long enough to tell the rest of us *why* this theory doesn't, as the author claims, show us that dark matter could be shown not to exist? --Sethop (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to tell whether people have looked at it or not. The fact is that obscure theoretical proposals only get considered if they are evaluated to be worthy of consideration. Otherwise, it's considered a waste of time trying to evaluate them because of the sheer number of proposals. jps (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to ignore the ones that have not passed peer review. Ignoring the ones that have seems both arrogant and lazy, and speaks to an unhealthy institutional culture. It makes physics look bad, at a time when it's probably important that it looks good. But this is, as you keep saying, irrelevant to the question of whether this page falls within the wikipedia policy criteria for deletion. --Sethop (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you think of the situation is irrelevant. jps (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:Notability also and and WP:Secondary sources, independent second sources refer MiHsC in the media, including the January 2013 edition of the New Scientist and the serious science news website Phys.org.

This calls into question the credibility of those publications, which are popular publications (who have been criticized for inaccuracy before). WaywardAMOp (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

phys.org is not a "serious science news website", it's literally reprints of press releases with the occasional blog post - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-dark-effect-inertial-mass.html is not a press release. If phys.org and New Scientist do not meet your standard of "serious science news" could you provide some examples that do pass muster? --Sethop (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a user-generated article that is simply a breathless summary of a paper. More than possible that the article was submitted on the behest of the author. New Scientist, on the other hand, is a periodical that has been known in the past for allowing for pseudoscience and fringe science to be published on its pages. It got so bad about 10 years ago that there was actually a petition that went around asking them to shape up. They've improved somewhat, but these kinds of uncritical pieces continue to show up from time to time. jps (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:NOR, the wikipedia article and the published papers about MiHsC reference other work in the field, including peer-reviewed third-party independent work.
The MiHsC theory is based on known established physics. It is based on (general relativity including Mach's principle and quantum mechanics through ZPF, the Hawking radiation of the Hubble horizon and the Unruh radiation of the Rindler horizon.
The main competitor of MiHsC theory, MOND (way older), has its own article on Wikipedia, although it uses ad hoc parameters to try to fit observations while MiHsC naturally fits observations without modifying any parameter (which doesn't prove MiHsC is real of course, but that the theory is simply more falsifiable than modified models of gravity).

— Tokamac (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) User:Tokamac is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Unless someone can link to some proof that the calculations predicting the rotation speed of galaxies, and especially globular clusters are wrong, it seems to be pretty powerful theory. Remember what Richard Feynman said: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. ... so it doesn't matter how many peer reviewed journals publish it, in this case, it really matters if the observed galaxy and globular cluster rotation speed is correctly and precisely predicted by this theory (without need of introducing Dark matter, which seem to me even more fringe, although it is more popular among general public). On the other hand, link to such observations and calculations should be included (even if it is published outside official channels). And I also believe that even incorrect theories of the past deserve their Wikipedia articles (So we may very well end with future, where MiHsC is mainstream theory, at least until replaced by something even more powerful, and Dark matter is just archived as massively popularized physical misconception of early 21st century). XChaos (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant to whether there should be a Wikipedia article. jps (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - Tokamac's points are either directly contradictory of Wikipedia policies and practice or hopeful of RSes coming up in future. The sourcing on the article as it stands is almost entirely primary sources and the rest are passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which Wikipedia policies are being violated here? Is there really no distinction between a 'primary source' that happens to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and other forms of 'primary source'? --Sethop (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start with WP:PSTS. It's better when primary sources are peer-reviewed, but when establishing the notability of an obscure ides, just because a few papers were published in respected journals even doesn't mean the topic deserves an article. I can point to thousands of ideas that have been published in extremely prominent journals which are not included in Wikipedia because that's how science works. Good ideas and bad ideas get mixed in and eventually the correct idea works its way to the consensus. Wikipedia acknowledges this state of affairs by demanding independent notice for ideas so that we won't fall into traps of promoting ideas that aren't noticed not debunking ideas at Wikipedia when that's not what Wikipedia is set-up to be able to do. If you want this topic to be in Wikipedia, the best thing to do is encourage independent experts to review, critique, and comment on the idea external to Wikipedia to comply with our sourcing requirements. jps (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the problem I have with WP:PSTS as it is currently written, is that in the particular case of scientific ideas the policy itself would seem not to distinguish between self-publications of new ideas, of which there must be bazillions, and ideas published in peer-reviewed journals, of which there are probably a thousand times fewer? So that policy probably needs looking at. WP:SOAP would seem not to apply, as Mike is not Tokamac, who wrote the original article (and FWIW I have never corresponded with Mike *myself* in any way shape or form, but am certainly considering doing so in in future *if* nobody can persuade me that this theory has actually been debunked, as opposed to just somewhat inexplicably ignored!), WP:NOR doesn't apply *either*, as almost everything on that page references the peer reviewed literature. Now, if you and I can in good faith disagree on what the policies are actually saying in cases such as this, that would seem to be a problem. I think I am relying on a *literal* interpretation of said policies while you are perhaps drawing on what has been the common practice with similar cases in the past? In which case I really cannot see how a consensus for deletion can be reached without first updating the relevant wikipedia policies such that they better account for edge cases such as this one. Would you agree?

WP:FRINGE continues on from where WP:PSTS leaves off. Note that just because something has received attention in the peer-reviewed journals in the past does not mean that it is not fringe now. There are two papers published in MNRAS and then after that, basically, the rest of the publications are in fringe journals which should be taken with a grain of salt. Since secondary sources which discuss the topic simply don't exist, it's pretty obvious that policy is that the theory is simply not notable. jps (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EPL_(journal) is a "fringe" journal? Again I feel this may be pushing the semantics of that word a bit too far. --Sethop (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many obscure out-of-the-way journals that people publish in when they're shut out of the main ones. MNRAS, ApJ, A&A, and the associated journals are the ones that people who are writing about astrophysics and cosmology publish in. When they stop doing that, that's the indication they're being ignored. EPL has an editorial board for astronomy which is questionable at best. jps (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While peer reviewed literature has been published beginning in 2008 (see ^[1] and ^[2] for list of publications by authors publishing MiHsC related articles), it lacks interest from independent researchers as of this time and should not be considered notable. Furthermore, many of the articles are not in fact peer reviewed, such as those hosted on the arXiv or recent work published by Progress in Physics^[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiname321 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Wikiname321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- All of the ones on arXiv have been peer reviewed, so far as I know. Can you provide an example of one that hasn't been? --Sethop (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/mike-mcculloch
^ http://web.udl.es/usuaris/t4088454/ssd/
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_in_Physics

Delete per David Gerard. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete McCulloch gets much of the physics incorrect ^{[citation needed]}, and makes a couple of basic mathematics mistakes ^{[citation needed]}. He has never provided a rigorous derivation of his Hubble-scale effect, and what he has written down contradicts physics as it's currently known (quantum electrodynamics, Einstein's relativity) ^{[citation needed]} without providing any reasons to believe they should be overturned. It has been published a couple of reputable peer-reviewed journals, however this does not necessarily mean they good ideas. He has also published in Progress in Physics, a fringe physics journal, known for publishing authors who can no long publish on arXiv. This seems also to be a promotional article for what's considered a fringe theory. The author is a professor of oceanography in Plymouth, UK (not physics), and a couple edits come from an IP: 81.156.121.132, which is in Plymouth, UK and cite no other authors. McCulloch has also self-published a book (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Edge-Cosmological-Model-Inertia/dp/9814596256) on his idea, before it has any acceptance, and it is used as a citation in this article. WaywardAMOp (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC) — WaywardAMOp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

7 papers (2 in MNRAS, 5 in EPL) are not just "a couple of reputable peer-reviewed journals" as you try to pretend.

That is actually a couple of journals, and it doesn't speak kindly to their system of peer-review.WaywardAMOp (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McCulloch's book was not "self-published" since he was invited to write it by World Scientific, which is of good reputation.

Very well, still not the most relevant point. If one with advanced physics training reads his papers (especially his Progress in Physics papers), it becomes clear McCulloch does not understand even BSc-level physics (which is surprising considering that is his degree). He is trying to gain support for his idea by strapping it to Wikipedia articles, when no one other professional physicists talk about it, like an advertisement. He also seems to have a quarrel with MOND, which is not currently the most popular idea about dark matter. This is another demonstration of how he does not understand physics or the current state of research. WaywardAMOp (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Tokamac (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Professor of Geomatics, the science of positioning in space (in general terms, not necessarily outer space) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.55.235 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep jps initiated this debate by saying that '3rd party independent notice' had not been satisfied. This is incorrect: MiHsC has been discussed at length in the well known 3rd party magazines New Scientist and phys.org and the first paper on MiHsC has been cited 32 times (MM). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.122.231 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — 81.156.122.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Back before the Pioneer Anomaly was solved, there were lots of speculative ideas floating around that attempted to resolve it. This particular idea was one of hundreds, many which received far more notice than this idea yet have no Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, novel ideas such as this when they are cited 32 times (this is more than what I find in a cursory search of citation counts, but anyway....) do not indicate serious notice by the expert evaluators. That is what we would require if it were to be included at Wikipedia. WP:REDFLAG is the name of the game. In the future, maybe people will find cause to investigate this particular idea more thoroughly. Until then, it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have an article on the subject because it is simply not possible to write a neutral analysis of the possibilities, problems, or promise of such a novel and avante garde proposal. jps (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would concur that WP:REDFLAG is an issue here, however the Pioneer Anomaly is but one of many intriguing anomalies potentially resolvable by way of MiHsC, which to my mind makes MiHsC rather notable even if it's wrong ... I think how it has been largely ignored despite its amazing implications, impressive elegance and the rather clear instructions provided by the author for how to go about falsifying it will one day make for a fascinating discussion in the philosophy of science, but yes, it would seem that it's potential importance rather ironically counts against it for the purpose of Wikipedia inclusion, unless I am missing something here? -- Sethop (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only reason this idea is claiming to resolve many "intriguing" anomalies is because its author crowbars ad hoc explanations into each of his later papers (more and more failing to get into high-quality journals) each time he hears about a new unsolved problem in physics. This is classic fringe bait and may be descending into crankish-ness. It's not a good thing. Monumental importance of an idea absolutely counts against an idea. There are just not a lot of people interested in entertaining this out-of-the-way proposal. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting it just because the author finds it a convenient outlet (which is indeed where some of the keep !votes are coming from). jps (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, MiHsC has no adjustability at all, so by definition cannot be 'ad hoc'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.122.231 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Then it is already falsified because the explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly rules out the explanation provided by the author. jps (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Does it? Please explain how. That sounds like the sort of assertion that deserves to be backed up by a peer reviewed paper, or at least a lengthy blog post from a sufficiently qualified physicist. I don't think it's as black and white as you imply, but if it is, then excellent, why not point one of your friends at this most excellent opportunity to put the whole thing to bed? Maybe you should have a go at it yourself, if it really is as black and white as you imply. --Sethop (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The Pioneer Anomaly has been explained by radiation pressure. If MiHsC claims to explain it through some other means, then it would cause extra acceleration on top of the ones already measured. Thus, it is falsified. Doesn't need detailed analysis at all. Either it is amenable to tweaking so that the Pioneer Anomaly acceleration is no longer generated by the theory (since we know it is caused by radiation pressure) or it continues to generate the anomalous acceleration which is not seen and thus the theory is falsified. No one is going to bother publishing that. It's sufficient to debunk it in comments on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        My understanding is that radiation pressure has been used to explain part of the anomaly but not all of it, and the same is true of MiHsC. Nobody would seem to have examined in detail if they could both be in play, and it would seem that although it has been shown how radiation pressure *could* explain *part* of the anomaly, that is a long way from *proving* that it was the primary, let alone *only* cause. This should be examined in more depth, and not be me. Here is Mike's critique: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/comment-on-thermal-model-of-pioneer.html --Sethop (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Your understanding is wrong. Thanks for showing us his blogspot site. It clearly indicates he has gone out into the deep end of fringe physics. He's basically a crank. jps (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Shrug. This is irrelevant to the question of deletion. Explain how your opinions are backed up by wikipedia policy. Is there a wikipedia policy on exactly which physics journals count as "reliable"? If not, then maybe it is time to start one, because you certainly aren't going to convince me by simply asserting what I'm sure what must be your heartfelt beliefs on such matters. --Sethop (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all things considered I feel there are probably enough Reliable Independent Sources to justify keeping this, so long as it's made obvious that it is very far from a well accepted theory, it nevertheless remains a highly notable one, at least IMHO. I would be curious to know whether it would be more or less keep-worthy if one or more, er, notable Physicists would do Mike the courtesy of refuting his theories in a peer reviewed journal, on the arXiv, or even in their personal blog, as opposed to simply ignoring him outright, or blithely commenting on Reddit (or here, or wherever a member of the public might stumble across it) that he is 'clearly' wrong, without bothering to explain how, thus strongly implying that peer review is a more or less meaningless concept, and we should really just pick and choose which 'scientists' to pay attention to, based on our personal perceptions of intellectual authority. Which is not an entirely unreasonable position to adopt for genuine experts in the relevant field, but one that seems entirely unworkable for the average citizen or at a systemic level, and as such, probably not an attitude that deserves to be encouraged, even by those arguably well positioned to adopt it for themselves. BTW, I have added some 'citations needed' above, and if the citations provided were sufficiently conclusive, then I could certainly change my mind on this particular case, but my wider points on the matter would stand. -- Sethop (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A lack of people bothering to refute your work, when they're not talking about it at all or citing it, is not evidence of correctness. If the work isn't being cited it isn't noteworthy in physics, basically. It may be notable if there's sufficient RS coverage as a fringe theory per se, but I still don't think there is - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, and nor did I say it was evidence of correctness. However, these papers have been peer reviewed, and Mike is still employed as a lecturer, and this alone seems sufficient evidence that the theory is not obviously wrong. In which case, given the significance of the anomalies being addressed, it definitely seems notable, at least until it has been convincingly shot down, preferably in a peer reviewed paper, but at least in a public blog post or some such, as opposed to via half-hearted accusations of crankiness or unworthiness in an obscure wikipedia keep/delete discussion like this. I expand on these points further below. -- Sethop (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Peer review is not good enough because basically it involved only a few evaluators who have considerable leeway in allowing novelty to be published until such time as crankiness is assumed by the publishers or the community. There is evidence that this has happened here because the papers have not been published in the same level of high quality journals in the last year or two as they were back before the Pioneer Anomaly was solved. What we are doing is unduly promoting this idea by pretending it's received notice of the community when really it's just dying a death from neglect. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to change that state of affairs. jps (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Every single sub-point of WP:SOAP and a lot of WP:RGW currently indicates Keep to me on this one, so again, maybe you'll need to elucidate further per my comments below. Are you saying that because a lot of the physics community has yet to comment, that those who *have* don't count? Because that isn't what that rule says. Right now the weight of popular, expert, journalistic and amateur opinion would appear to be in MiHsC's favour, given that the only people who really seem to *object* to the theory are some pseudonymous critics on Reddit and Wikipedia, who have yet to present much in the way of *evidence* for their various assertions of ineptitude and/or narcissism on Mike's part, let alone some valid critiques of the actual *theory*, so I'm really not sure that their objections should be taken particularly seriously at this stage. Even if they *were* taken overly seriously, despite my pointing out their structural flaws, I'm not sure this would *remotely* approach the level of a "Great Wrong". I mean, nobody has died, Mike is still getting published in peer review journals, he still has his job as a lecturer, the deletion of this page despite a lack of genuine consensus to do so would simply mean that it would take a bit longer for more of the physics community to get around to properly examining a theory that *could* turn out to be quite important for them. As "Great Wrongs" go, this doesn't really strike me as a contender. So I personally feel we are not there yet, and if the page gets deleted on those grounds, then I wouldn't want this to be used as evidence the next time this argument occurs that an even *greater wrong* is somehow being righted... --Sethop (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Name one physicist who has commented. jps (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        http://web.udl.es/usuaris/t4088454/ssd/ - Jaune Giné, primarily a mathematician, but also well published in (astro-)physics. --Sethop (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see any comment there. jps (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        By "comment" in this case, I mean "reference MiHsC from a peer reviewed paper" which is clearly a lot more important than making some random comment on reddit or whatever. --Sethop (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You know, I've been thinking about this again, and should it turn out that the MiHsC theory is *correct* then there's almost certainly going to be some papers written on exactly what "wrongs" (eg: institutional silo effects) led to it being ignored for so long, and also some uninformed speculation, perhaps even condemnation from the popular press as regards how long they ignored it. Should that turn out to be the case, however, the existence of a wikipedia page would seem to be neither here nor there, so to claim that this is about "righting" that "wrong" of currently unknown size (and I mean, are we talking deontology or utilitarianism here? It gets complicated...) would be on shaky ground. My point remains that a *literal* interpretation of the rules currently favours Keep and I would prefer to see one or more of those rules updated before a consensus on Delete is reached. --Sethop (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        This comment makes no sense. The rightness or wrongness of the theory is irrelevant to the point that people who are convinced it might be right are somehow convinced it is worth including in Wikipedia. Why do you keep calling the theory's author by his first name? Do you know him personally? Did you know of this idea before coming to this AfD? If so, how? jps (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I was referring to the WP:RGW policy you linked. You were using it as a justification for deletion, I was musing on whether it actually applied, given that it's one of the very few places I can see that you've referenced something I might actually be able to find some agreement with you on. So long as you stick to brandishing your personal opinions about which journals should be ignored and which should not, and calling Mike a "crank", we are never going to get there, so if that's all you've got, let's just call this WP:NOCON and go home. I confess to using his first name largely because I couldn't be bothered to type "Dr. McCulloch". I'm from New Zealand and we don't exactly give a crap about titles and such over here. Ok, I am probably overgeneralising there, but I think our country actually scored dead last on some international "citizens' respect for authority" scale - which I suspect makes us natural Wikipedians in a way. I came across his theory by way of that utterly bizarre EM-drive thing, which I'm sure you also regard as terribly terribly "fringe" if you've ever even heard of it, but this is of course irrelevant to the question of whether you can back up your personal opinions with wikipedia policies that *unambiguously* justify your assertions. --Sethop (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandstein relisted this before I could do it. I would encourage the participants in this debate to try to reformulate their !votes to make them based in policy, as most of them are currently just opinions. Whether or not a theory is correct has no bearing on notability, for example (some theories are not notable because they were incorrect and abandoned early on, others are notable because they were incorrect but generated a lot of coverage because of that fact). Most other arguments are not policy-based either. As a reminder, what is needed to show notability are independent, in-depth reliable sources discussing the subject. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over two thirds of the sources cited are to the author of the term itself, thus the article functions primarily as self promotion. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My Keep stands, at least for the moment. I am no wikipedia expert, but all of the points Tokamac made at the top of the page, most of which reference a wikipedia policy in at least some fashion, seem at least somewhat valid, and I await clear explanations as to why they are not. Furthermore, it seems like MiHsC is significantly less ad-hoc - and significantly more falsifiable - than at least one of the alternative theories that may or may not resolve the rather notable anomalies MiHsC is purported to have some degree of explanatory effectiveness in regards to.

These MiHsC based explanations of anomalies have been published in peer reviewed journals by a lecturer employed at Plymouth University, which has almost 3000 staff, all of whom would bear at least some reputational damage were said university to make a habit of employing cranks, as would any scholar published in any of the journals Mike has been published in, as would those scholars who have written books published by World Scientific, were they to become known for publishing the works of cranks. So to dismiss Mike as a crank without clearly explaining why seems absurd, lazy, and in some sense at least, unethical.

If he is clearly wrong then it really should not be hard to show where and how his theory is theoretically incoherent, empirically invalidated, entirely ad-hoc and/or unfalsifiable. If his mistakes are trivially obvious to any sufficiently qualified physicist, then both his university and his publishers should be asked why exactly they employed him and/or published his work, and if they cannot explain their decision and how they will adjust their hiring and/or peer review processes to avoid making the same mistakes again, then their own reputation should suffer accordingly.

On the other hand, if his papers contain no obvious mistakes, then given the quite considerable mystery around some of the anomalies being addressed, it seems as though refuting MiHsC should be a worthwhile and interesting task for someone qualified, if not a professional physicist then at least one of their grad students, who would probably enjoy the chance to refute such a paper and maybe get to publish a paper of their own in the process.

Either of those outcomes would seem better than a qualified scientist with multiple peer reviewed papers being completely ignored by the establishment ... possibly because he is not deeply embedded within one of the big physics departments and projects that are working full time on such matters? I wouldn't know. But it seems weird.

To be frank, it seems highly inappropriate for those of us who are unqualified and/or anonymous to be calling professional lecturers from respectable universities "cranks", or claiming that their peer reviewed papers are "wrong", without at the same time specifying where and how they are wrong ... because ignoring peer reviewed science and engaging in pseudonymous character assassination is pretty much exactly what cranks do. -- Sethop (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the WP:TLDR, but from my skim of its contents it seems you may not be familiar with how many WP:FRINGE theories work in practice. This particular idea is obscure, make no mistake about that. Typically, we do not include obscure or novel proposals in Wikipedia because of WP:CRYSTAL. It may be that this lecturer has come up with a brilliant idea that solves all problems. That's not for us to judge, that's for the community of astrophysicists to judge. Now, I happen to be a member of that community, at least broadly, but that's neither here-nor-there. The larger question is, has there been independent notice of these ideas? I have seen no third-party sources of high quality offered to that effect. Until this peculiar idea is actually noticed (and note that even negative notice would count for this in terms of WP:NFRINGE), it is highly irresponsible for Wikipedia to have an article on the subject. The reason for this is plain: we cannot write a neutral article on an idea that hasn't been properly evaluated. One might get excited about the peer-review that has accompanied a couple of the referenced sources in the article, but that is simply not enough. Peer review is an indicator, not an ends. When a theory is proposing extraordinary solutions to an extraordinary array of problems, strict scrutiny on the part of independent sources is what we need to establish its worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially at the level of an article. This particular topic fails in every way to do that. That is not an indictment of the science nor the researchers involved. It is simply a fact of the situation as it currently exists. If tomorrow amazing observational results come back confirming that this is the only possible explanation for the vast array of problems that exist, then I'm sure we'll be flooded with excellent third-party sources and the article can be recreated without prejudice. We should not have an article about this until other people notice. That's just the way Wikipedia works. jps (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been quality independent notice. 35 lines in a New Scientist article (Issue 2900, Jan 2013) and two articles in Phys Org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.122.231 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Those are News of the Weird mentions of way out-there ideas. There is no critical evaluation of the ideas, it's just sensationalism. That is not what we use to establish article notability. jps (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It seems as though the key points we are arguing over are the definitions of "high quality" and "multiple". Right now a literal interpretation of the rules would say keep, because there *have* been multiple independent high quality sources referencing the theory ... but you are saying that in this case those references are insufficient to justify notability. I think until the policy is further updated to better reflect what is 'sufficient' notability in such cases, consensus probably cannot be reached.

Right now, as I say, a literal interpretation of the rules would certainly seem to fall on the side of Keep. As to how WP:FRINGE theories work in practice, my experience is that 99.99% of said theories are not published in multiple respected peer-reviewed journals by actively employed lecturers from major universities, and thus allowing this particular page to remain undeleted is not exactly setting a precedent allowing the floodgates to open ... but if it somehow *does*, that would certainly validate my hunch that the relevant wikipedia policies need to be updated, which is not something I feel capable of taking on myself, but I would be an interested observer to the process.

Furthermore with reference to WP:REDFLAG it seems to me that MiHsC is considerably less 'strange' and 'exceptional' than many other theories purporting to explain the same anomalies ... and the number of such alternative theories should not really be indicative of a "scientific consensus" that MiHsC is somehow attempting to overthrow, on the grounds that many of said theories are mutually exclusive and/or unfalsifiable - as opposed to mutually reinforcing and evidence based, as one would expect when a true "scientific consensus" was in place ... all things considered, this still feels like a corner case, and if you really want to reach beyond what the rules *literally* say, then more wikipedia editors (preferably including a few that are not astrophysicists) are probably going to need to weigh in, and maybe in the process, actually update the rules/guidelines. The best place to do so, IMO, would be WP:REDFLAG.

The thing about WP:CRYSTAL (and specifically, point 4) is that, as I say, I don't get the impression MiHsC is necessarily in opposition to anything on which a true scientific consensus actually exists. Maybe you can explain how it does, or maybe you are implying that until a greater consensus *does* exist, *none* of the relevant theories deserve their own wikipedia page. Your point about WP:NPOV is well made, but it really does hinge on the definition of "properly evaluated", and if you want to claim the evaluation it has had so far is insufficient, then that should probably be addressed by updating WP:REDFLAG in order to bring policy in line with practice, and perhaps this case can be referenced from there as an example to inform editor intuitions around similar such decisions in the future.

FWIW, if you are wanting to get me to the point where I would concur that a consensus for Delete has been reached, then referencing rules like WP:NOR and WP:SOAP that clearly favour Keep while saying they favour Delete, implying that Mike is a crank as opposed to a scientist, and saying that my thoughtful contributions constitute WP:TLDR for you ... is probably not the best way to go about it. --Sethop (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're making this personal. The fact is that the idea has not been evaluated by third-parties. That is where the crux of notability lies. Find a third-party source that evaluates it -- not some third-rate journalism or clickbait. jps (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, I have read the various policies you have linked in favour of Delete, and to my mind they mostly favour Keep. That you might think the opposite is intriguing, and what I am waiting for is for you to explain where and how my interpretations are wrong, or figure out which of your interpretations were wrong, either of which which might help to suggest how the rules can be made less ambiguous, rather than simply assuming I am wrong, and more or less ignoring the points I'm trying to make. If we have discovered an edge case that helps to illuminate one or more necessary improvements to the rules or guidelines, then that is a good thing, and once that has happened, consensus can no doubt be reached. Until then, perhaps this should be closed as WP:NOCON. --Sethop (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you could point to one serious independent source written by an expert not connected with the theory's author, you would do your argument a lot of favors. So far, you've done nothing of the sort. jps (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the article? There are links to such at the bottom. You keep asserting that for some reason they don't count. I admit that it would be *nice* if there were a few more, but what is there would appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion as they are written. If those standards need to be written *better*, then as I say, now would be a good time to make that happen. --Sethop (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fringe stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with labelling this 'fringe' is that it gives way too much credit to the *real* fringe. Those of us who would like to be able to tell *actual* crackpots to shut up until they can get a paper into a peer-reviewed journal are shorn of credibility when it is made to appear that this supposed "red line" is in fact meaningless, and suggesting that what actually matters is "being part of the club". The fact that it could be described as "outside of mainstream physics", or at least "on the edge", and yet still pass peer review, that actually makes it significantly *more* notable, in the "everyday" sense of that word, and there is arguably some cause for concern when the semantics of a word in a particular context begin to depart significantly from the everyday and common understanding of the word. Another cause for concern I have is the use of "Primary Source" to describe a theoretical paper. This is not usually done, and I think the wikipedia guidelines should be updated in order to avoid future confusion and unnecessary consternation. --Sethop (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is obviously not a bright line rule. Do you know how much crankiness appears in the peer-reviewed literature? Peer-review tends to involve an editor and a reviewer only. It isn't magic. It works very well as an initial winnower, but it isn't magic. jps (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess our definition of "cranky" differs. I have actually glanced at many of Mikes papers, and they seem a *lot* less cranky than a great many others I have seen. Such remarkable clarity! If only all physics was like that... in any case, since we clearly cannot reach agreement on that point or perhaps any other point, I am favouring WP:NOCON over continuing a conversation that appears to be becoming something of a broken record. --Sethop (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It just occurred to me that maybe we could get around our lack of consensus regarding what the rules say on this case via WP:IAR, which I had temporarily forgotten about due to jps insisting we focus exclusively on what the rules say - which is what I have been doing - but I see that WP:IAR-abg specifies (a) don't use it to get around a lack of consensus (it probably means unilaterally, but if so, *that* page should be updated), and (b) don't use it to be lazy. Now, I have been by *far* the least lazy contributor to this discussion, in that I have explained my opinions in some depth as to which rules I believe do and do not apply, and which ones are margin calls, so what I would want in order to invoke WP:IAR in favour of Delete is (a) the word 'unilaterally' to be added to WP:IAR-abg and (b) all the Deletionists in this conversation to stop being lazy, admit where they have made false, unjustifiable or unverifiable assertions (there have been *plenty*) and specify exactly which rules probably *should* apply in favour of deletion, except for the fact that as they are *literally* written, they (arguably, in some cases, as I explained above) do not, and thus we are forced to *ignore* them, at least partially, in this particular case, for the moment, because we can neither agree on exactly what they mean, nor agree on an appropriate way to change them in order to get to a consensus *that* way, an option I am certainly leaving open, but one I don't currently feel up to undertaking myself. If you are for some reason incapable of recognizing where you have made mistakes, or incapable of reading what the rules actually say, as opposed to what you think they say, or of using anything other than your own personal intuitions in calling for this deletion, then I'm not going to go on trying to paper over the gulf in our understanding anymore, as I think everyone would agree that I have written quite enough already. And if none of this sounds terribly appealing, then there is always the WP:NOCON option. --Sethop (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although yeah, I obviously cannot coerce the *other* Keepers into consensus, but if you were to do as I suggest, to my satisfaction, then I would change *my* vote, and you might well find that by doing so you have managed to overcome the others' objections as well. --Sethop (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a (hopefully) final thought on this: In order to invoke WP:IAR we'd probably have to agree that by doing so we've "made wikipedia a better encyclopedia" which is to my mind not a completely trivial question to answer, but I'm sure more experienced editors could inform our intuitions on that one, which would be a lot easier for them if everyone first did as I suggest and walked back all the erroneous or unjust points they'd made, meaning we had boiled our points of disagreement, uncertainty and/or confusion down to what actually matters, rather than forcing them to read this whole thing. --Sethop (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, so in my relatively brief skim of Mike's papers and blog posts on and off over the last few months, I, er, guess I missed that bit where he rejects GR :-) It sorta seems like that should be stated front and center of each and every paper, rather than implicitly introduced by reference to previous papers, or whatever. *Despite* this arguably questionable approach to slipping subversive thoughts into the peer review literature, it *still* looks to me like he's actually *not* a crackpot, but I am certainly no longer as indignant as I was with the folks who were claiming that he *was*, as if I had a more complete understanding of the relevant physics, and didn't really have a *lot* of time to think about it, I might well have done pretty much the same thing.

FWIW, I was relying on my very rough understanding of the physics, the fact that he seems like a nice guy who works for a respectable university and publishes in peer reviewed journals, and my opinion that "Dark Matter" really is way too arbitrary as an explanation for various anomalies, so radical alternatives deserve to be looked for. However, as I say, I missed that Mike was *also* throwing out GR, which is going beyond "radical" to yes, I admit it's not *totally* stupid to say "fringe", but given the people that lumps him in with, I'm just going to go with *impressively radical* for now :-)

Regardless, I would now concur with jps and friends that *even if Mike is right*, we absolutely do need a great many more secondary sources to say so before we give MiHsC wikipedia's imprimatur, and that yes, under the circumstances it would be really quite difficult to get some wording in there that actually managed to achieve NPOV. And NPOV is not really something we're allowed to fudge, even if we all agreed that it was worth doing, which I very much doubt is going to happen. Does that all sound about right? --Sethop (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of all the arguments, Cirt's is probably the one that cuts through most for me; the only person talking about this theory at any length seems to be McCulloch, the originator of the theory. It might be crankery or it might not be (I don't understand the physics enough to make my own judgement), but our standard is based on notability, not correctness, and the attention that this theory seems to have received has been fleeting and shallow, as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faizzudin Abidin[edit]

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

@Fenix down: PRODed this article and it was removed without providing a reason. The player has no significant coverage from reliable sources and has not played in a pro league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Spiderone 10:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presently fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Subject may be called up to the national futsal team at some point, but this is definitely too soon. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:03, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Maxwell[edit]

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

Fails notability. Has not made an active roster, not currently on an NFL roster Edday1051 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage.Jakejr (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't qualify under WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH, and I'm not finding significant coverage (i.e., more than routine coverage) in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Urban[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a writer which makes no credible claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR — as far as I can surmise, to date he's been published only on Wattpad and Smashwords (making him the ebook equivalent of a self-published writer). A writer does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because he exists, if reliable source coverage supporting a proper claim of notability isn't present. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever becomes more properly sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and lack of notability. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than a few brief mentions on News, other engines turned up zero. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found no third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a search brings up nothing notable so does not meet WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Grogan (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. All of the four sources here are either raw tables of election results, or news articles about the elections themselves which merely namecheck his existence, so none of them are substantive coverage of him — and the staggering amount of completely unsourced personal detail here suggests a possible conflict of interest. This was created in 2005, so admittedly our inclusion rules for politicians were different at the time than they are now — under WP:NPOL mk. 2015, a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for running for the leadership of a political party anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. While I feel that the biographies of elected party leaders should be auto-keeps and would advise accordingly at AfD, this individual finished second in a national leadership election, not first. Carrite (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleesa Cohene[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, resting almost entirely on primary source documentation of her existence rather than reliable source coverage — of the seven citations here, two are to her own website and three are to the descriptions of her work on the websites of galleries where her work has been exhibited. And of the two remaining sources, one is a compilation of interviews, and the last one is a blurb. Any of these sources would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after enough reliable source coverage was present to satisfy GNG — but none of them can carry GNG. Delete unless the sourcing can be massively improved. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as although I found links at News, Books , browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Given the number of mentions in recent art books, as displayed in Google books, I was surprised not to find magazine articles just about her. It just may be that editor SwisterTwister is correct and it is just WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw and keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenText[edit]

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

Company's page is full of spam and self promotion. It has been suggested several times in the talk page that it be deleted. Cmurphey80 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:COMPANY. If someone feels that the article looks like an advertisement, then he should delete the advertising content from the article. Bharatiya29 (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CORP just fine with existing material, there appear to be many others available. Clean up is no reason for deletion. This also appears to be a bad faith nomination by a COI editor. Kuru (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ It really doesn't meet anything for notability right now. The company talk page say says it all. I am not a bad faith editor and have no interest in any new pages as of now. I've also nominated my own page for a speedy deletion. I think Kuru has an interest in keeping this page up for whatever reason. If the page is updated with decent references I'd be ok with keeping it. However, it looks terrible right now with a bunch of information of the companies acquisitions. What value does it show? How are they notable? I know nothing of them and had never heard of them before seeing them on wikipedia.--Cmurphey80 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is sufficient; you need not "vote" twice. Just add comments like this. Establishing notability is as simple as a few significant coverages in reliable sources. Are you unable to locate those on the page; have you looked yourself for any others? I'm afraid that your personal knowledge of the firm's existence is not a workable yardstick for notability. My interest in the page is clearly noted in the article's edit history - de-spamming after someone overlinked the article someplace else, and then bookmarking the page in case they came back. I likely have thousands of firms watchlisted like this. Kuru (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article is far from ideal, but notability is established by the sources. I think the real reason here is that Cmurphey80's own article Draft:DiCentral Corporation (which appears to be a competitor of OpenText) was rejected due to notability, so (s)he's on a WP:POINT spree. First (s)he PRODed the article, then (s)he added the speedy deletion template and now we're here with AfD. -- intgr [talk] 07:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That article was not mine. You can't tell because I also put it up for deletion and you'll note DiCentral is already gone. I went to each of the sources for OpenText and they don't meet the WP:COMPANY guidelines. Lets go through the cites and sources: 1. Annual Report - made by the company for the company - FAIL 2. Meets the requirements 3. Passing Mention - FAIL 4. Broken Link - FAIL 5. no mention of opentext at all - FAIL 6. Broken Link - FAIL 7. Passes. So, you are are saying that a company with only TWO good sites would pass the notable guildlines? I'll also note that on the pages talk there have been several suggestions for deletion. So, It's not personal and I'm not on a delete spree. I did it this way so that I could follow the proper deletion route instead of speedy delete. --Cmurphey80 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Cmurphey80: Ok, I'm really sorry that I rushed to conclusions based on your edit history without checking in depth. As far as notability goes, the guidelines require "multiple" qualifying sources. "Multiple" generally means more than one, and deletion discussions tend to agree that two qualifying sources are sufficient. In addition to the 2 qualifying sources in the article, it's easy to find more news stories by just searching for "OpenText" on Google, for example [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] — I believe all of these qualify for WP:GNG. -- intgr [talk] 15:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is very straightforward to find acceptable sources for this corporation's notability, including the "Canada's largest software company" claim (I added this to the article). mrdaikatana [talk] 12:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:CORP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote. The resources have been updated and it looks good. Since I nominated it, can I somehow undo it? I'm looking into it but if someone wants to speed it along I'd be happy for advise.--Cmurphey80 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmurphey80: See WP:WDAFD. -- intgr [talk] 15:32, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VHS to DVD[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article, edging perilously close to the line dividing "encyclopedia article" from "advertisement", about a piece of software. This first came to my attention because an anonymous IP keeps trying to overwrite it with a how-to guide about all possible methods of VHS-to-DVD conversion, but while that's also inappropriate content it's not the core of the problem — the core of the problem is the lack of sourcing to demonstrate that this particular software package is notable at all. Not every piece of software that exists gets an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia if proper sourcing isn't there to support it. Delete, preferably with salt so that the how-to guide doesn't come back again either. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete current form as blatant advertisement, masked by a general title. N Optional addition proposal to Redirect VHS#Decline after deletion ridding the promotionalism. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see reviews in the usual places, such as PC World, PC Magazine, CNET, etc. Most of the Google hits are just online stores or download sites. Since the how-to guide is equally unsuitable, deletion seems like the only real choice. These kinds of how-to guides are more suitable to wikiHow or whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, redirect to VHS#Decline I've searched for a natural target for this, but there doesn't seem to be a real good one outside of the mention above. VHS-to-DVD services and software are a dime a dozen, and as NRP said, there are other places this can go easily rather than here. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and redirect as I simply found nothing better for this. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional page for a commercial software product. Lacks sourcing, failing GNG. Carrite (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per consensus following article improvements. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Cameron (artist)[edit]

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

The existence of this person and their work has been verified. However, there is no indication as to how this Artist is notable. If this article is to be kept it needs some serious style and structure edits to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 04:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I am the creator of the article.) Meaning no offense, I believe that Olowe2011 is using a different definition of notability than Wikipedia uses when they say Sheila Cameron's notability has not been established. Wikipedia's standard for articles about people is that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis in original) Olowe2011 concedes that such sources are referenced in the Sheila Cameron (artist) article, but is refusing the preumption of notability that the guideline says should be granted. Their objection, based on our conversation on my talk page, seems to be that they personally do not consider Sheila Cameron's work to be important. There are lots of things on Wikipedia that I don't consider important (especially a lot of sports- and reality-TV-related articles) but I acknowledge that Wikipedia's standard for notability, and not my personal feelings about whether the subject of an article is interesting, should be the standard by which an article's notability should be judged. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - That would depend on what you claim significant coverage means. Simply because the article has a lot of references does not satisfy the general common sense definition of significant coverage. Like I said, anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery and then find themselves in articles related to that expedition. That does not alone qualify an article to be notable. In order to be notable it needs to show notability within the article regardless of coverage. As it stands there are no claims in the article that would suggest this Artist is notable. Just to add I have never seen or heard of this artist or her work in my life. The judgement is based on a quick skim read of the article and nothing content wise suggests that she is anything notable above any other typical artist. Olowe2011 ^Talk 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response. — I do not think the meaning of "significant coverage" in the notability standard is as ambiguous as you make it out to be, Olowe2011; it means that the article (or book chapter or television segment or whatever) must be entirely or substantially about the subject of the Wikipedia article, and not merely make passing mention of them. There are three sources cited in the article that meet that standard:

• Bentley, Brett (13 June 2013). "To hell and back: The tale of an artist". The Union.

• Kellar, Tom (25 March 2012). "Artist, blogger and mom finds voice, opportunity to share it in Nevada County". The Union.

• "Website hopes to 'free Katie'". The Guardian. 14 June 2005.

I'm also concerned by your repeated statements (here and on my talk page) that "anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery" as a basis for questioning the notability of this article. You have offered no evidence of such a practice anywhere, much less in this case, and the fact that Ms. Cameron's gallery showings have mostly been curated and/or themed group shows tends to indicate such a pay-for-display scheme has not been involved here. Please remember to assume good faith about other users. And please also consider that whether you have heard of someone, or think they are intreresting, are not valid bases for deleting a Wikipedia article that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello again User:GrammarFascist. I find it fitting that I do indeed yield to the fact that you feel this article is verified by sources. As a matter of fact I completely agree with you that you have done the correct thing by including evidence to verify the existence of this artist and her work. However, what I do question is why this article is notable. In layman's term why is this artist defined from other artists and what makes her deserving of an article in this encyclopaedia. During this discussion you may have decided to take a tone which pushes policy but in this I will appeal to your better of common senses. Let us think for a moment of the reader. It would be prudent to suggest that as an outsider to this topic, subject area and article my views on how the article reads may hold truer and proper on the scale of impartiality than yourself therefore resulting in my views being less swayed towards one side or the other. By reading this article and how it is written, currently I get the distinct impression that you have certainly provided for the fact this artist exists and that she might have attention from the few sources you have given. But in the very same reading it is my consideration that not one single sentence indicates true and common sense based notability. The simple question is does any statement in this article suggest notability - the honest and truthful answer is as it stands - No. Of course this opinion is open to change based on such statements making their way into the article and I am in no way set on retaining this deletion request if such notability can be indicated for the benefit of our readers. In the kindest regard Olowe2011 ^Talk 19:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I still do not agree that what you are calling a "common sense based notability" standard is appropriate for evaluating Wikipedia articles. It is entirely subjective, and thus difficult for different people to reach agreement about. The fact that you have never heard of someone does not mean that they are therefore not notable; you probably have never heard of the most popular actors in Venezuela or the Philippines, or the world record-holders for highest scores in curling or cricket — I know I haven't — yet those people are notable for those very reasons. In this case, Sheila Cameron's work, in particular her creation of "Free Katie" and her being personally challenged by a notable art critic, has been notable enough to be covered by multiple independent sources. The fact that the articles were written is itself proof of notability, because if Sheila Cameron's work were not notable, it would not have been written about.

As a side note, while she has a Wikipedia account at SheilaCameronArtist, the artist herself has chosen to recuse herself from this discussion, just as she has refrained from editing the article about her directly. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:GrammarFascist So basically she created an article for herself? Okay then. At no point have I said that the reason I do not deem this notable is due to the fact I have not heard of her. As very clearly stated its due to the fact there are no statements in the article that do in fact suggest notability. Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:GrammarFascist I smell a rat here due to the fact this is clearly an autobiography which has been requested to be made by the person who is subject to it. The worrisome component to this is those who clearly knew this before creating the article on her behalf. I will stand to make one thing clear now and that is if anything funny is going on it should end now and it would be a good idea to request deletion yourself because I do not have any issues with bringing this up with administrators or escalating it further than them if needed. It is completely unacceptable that anyone would get a request to create an article by someone who is clearly subject to the article then dispute notability to such a degree when absolutely no statement of notability or even significance has been made. I am a no tolerance editor. This will be my final word on this discussion. Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action - I am going to escalate this to speedy deletion per new evidence. Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - I agree with Olowe2011 on this, and join him in being a bit twitchy as you did work very closely with SheilaCameronArtist as per the lengthy discussion on her talk page. Keeping on track with the point of this AfC (discussion on article, not editor), I believe that although the article is well written, it struggles to assert notability however could be improved. samtar ^(msg) 23:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GrammarFascist I have recently learnt that my edits which involved replacing the template with speedy deletion are wrong so I am sorry for those. However, I do think its troubling that you created an article someone who is clearly the subject of the article. The issue of notability is still an issue here. Please note that I have deeply considered your effort when editing this article and it does cause me problems to propose getting rid of it but we should look to a bigger picture and that is keeping Wikipedia an encyclopaedia rather than a directory. Many people are artists but that alone does not make them notable on Wikipedia. Olowe2011 ^Talk 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Borderline notability, just edged over the line by the "Free Katie" stuff, but I could be convinced otherwise. BMK (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I maintain that I have done nothing wrong in creating the article under discussion at the request of the subject. Wikipedia:Requested articles exists in part so that people who have a conflict of interest, particularly people who would themselves be the subject of an article or who are members of the company or organization that would be the subject of the requested article, can avoid the problems inherent to creating such articles themselves. SheilaCameronArtist made her request at the Teahouse, but that was not judged an inappropriate venue by any other Teahouse volunteers. As for her having pointed me to some of the sources used in the article, I don't see how that is a problem provided that I evaluated each source for reliability and for its appropriateness for inclusion in the article — which I did. I did not simply write an article "to order" without considering Wikipedia standards and policies. Indeed, all the artist contributed were possible sources and a couple of factual corrections; she did not draft the article, as the conversation on her talk page shows. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Folks, let's get back to the issue of WP:GNG and drop the issues of the subject requesting an article about herself and GrammarFascist creating the article. Some of the accusations, both against GrammarFascist and the subject herself, are unsupported and border on WP:BLP violations or personal attacks. In any event, it's a distraction to the appropriate discussion of the subject's notability and will not assist the closing administrator in assessing consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Sorry to disrupt you but oversight here is a good idea due to bias and a few other issues which are mentioned elsewhere Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As requested, "some serious style and structure edits to comply with Wikipedia guidelines" are now done. w.carter-Talk 13:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment And just for the record, this is hardly the first (or the last) article to have been created after someone with COI has been at the Teahouse asking for help. Editors there do an independent check (which can be rather ruthless) to see if the subject is notable, and if it is hey why not. I specifically remember the request for Andrea Nye that went from help-cry to article in a matter of hours. w.carter-Talk 09:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the issue here is notability. And in terms of notability, the sources appear to be there, even within the existing article, to show in-depth coverage, from a variety of sources, and not simply local coverage (although there's quite a bit of that). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been neutral so far, just fixing up the article in case it was kept, but I did a search to check how far her fame had reached, and when I found her name in an article in one of the major Swedish newspapers, I think that points to some notablility. Article is now included as a ref. w.carter-Talk 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems acceptable and has enough sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence at first (refs weren't great), but W.carter's edits have pushed me over towards keep. Notability clearly and resoundingly established. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to recent improvements to the article that establish notability. clpo13_(talk) 09:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've struck my previous comment. With new additions (thank you W.carter), the article is definitely notable. samtar ^(msg) 10:04, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman Pictures[edit]

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

Notability? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Many of the films this company has distributed have some notability, but does that make the distribution company itself notable? I did find some small articles about the company here and here, but they seem like standard press release stuff. If a kept decision is made, I would suggest a disambiguation page to differentiate this Uk based distribution company from Paul Mezey's NY based Journeyman Pictures, a production company that was responsible for the award winning Beasts of the Southern Wild.ABF99 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but maybe delete for now - I found several results for the films (see here) but I'm not entirely sure if this company article can be improved and I found more results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Delete for now -Not finding enough reliable sources to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 16:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TeleCAD-GIS[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources to establish notability of this product. Kelly ^hi! 14:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as the best I found were some of the same browser links but feel free to draft & userfy or even restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Srikanta Sastri[edit]

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

Promotional article on borderline notable academic. It is unclear why the article contains such a lengthy "Academician" section when it has no direct bearing on the notability of the subject. Almost all references are to the works of the subject himself. Google Scholar shows no work getting 10+ citation i.e. a likely failure of WP:PROF. If kept someone needs to volunteer to stubify this article to 5% of its present length Solomon 7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 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 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have deleted a major part of the Academician section as it was completely off-topic. Bharatiya29 (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails the notability criteria for WP:PROF. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should note that Google Scholar is not going to be great for academics who (1) write in non-English languages and (2) died before the preeminence of the Internet, as their work is likely not digitized and cannot be easily counted. However, this article is too promotional and packed with primary sources to make heads or tails of the subject's actual impact/importance and would need to be rewritten from scratch. czar 15:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Morning (A-ha song)[edit]

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

As much as I truly love this group, this particular single of theirs only seems to have attracted a little bit of attention. It's not really that notable. This particular track seems to have only peaked at #78 in the U.K., for example. I wouldn't be averse to a redirect in some form, but I think this particular page should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose unless others would favor redirecting to the album as I see nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't think a redirect is warranted in this case, but wouldn't lose sleep over it. Not enough coverage to show the song's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the top ranking countries of the OGAE Video Contest[edit]

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

The article is a content fork of winners information already contained at OGAE Video Contest#Winners. Also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 14#On Notability of OGAE Contests (which an editor pointed out WP:WHYN) noted that OGAE events are not notable enough to warrant individual articles per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:N. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable enough. Kiwifist (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The underlying article regarding OGAE has a notability tag, and looking at its current references, not sure it meets notability guidelines. Regardless, this is absolutely one of the clearest examples of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT I've seen. Perhaps we should use this "list" as an example for those terms in the future? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can we also please keep tetchy discussion of unrelated current events out of AFD, please? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Cope[edit]

May not meet the notability criteria for artists. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure what the definition of "notable" is however he is notable enough that people are willing to pay for his workshops and pay for his artwork and pay for commissions and for there to be articles written about him in magazines such as International Artist. He has had a number of exhibits with a number of awards. And since I am just starting on the article, it seems kind of quick to mark the article for deletion within an hour of it's initial posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardelainechambers (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Definition easily found at WP:ARTIST. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see lots of links, although nothing particularly significant. As User:richardelainechambers says, let's give it a chance to grow. Note: last edit was to fix the formatting of the AfD, which was somehow reversed. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how AfD works. Either there is evidence for notability or there isn't. At present there is no evidence in independent and reliable sources that he passes WP:ARTIST, nor is there extensive coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG, ergo this article need to be deleted per this AfD nomination. The draft can be userfied so that if he becomes notable the creator can work on it and move it anew. It can also be undeleted by requesting the deleting admin to do so if new coverage is available, but I don't think that's likely anytime soon. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to waste my time working on an article that is slated for deletion. This kind of thing is why I stopped with Wikipedia changes several years ago. Reminds me of the kid who built a clock and ended up being arrested for a hoax bomb. Richardelainechambers (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- [Redacted WP:BLP violation by FoCuS]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments--two keep votes aren't very enlightening. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I found no extensive coverage, only minor mentions in local websites about co-exhibitions. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam , there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some coverage, but not enough in-depth to show that they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting that while there are a lot of SPAs involved in this discussion, there are also "Keep" opinions from a lot of regulars that appear grounded in policy, and nobody apart from the nominator has concurred about deletion. This is not an endorsement of the practice of canvassing, and there should be no prejudice against a further relisting in due course to try and get an opinion that hasn't been tainted by puppetry and canvassing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Euthanasia[edit]

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

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

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

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

Hoaxish shock-value website "church" whose claim to notability hinged on "mentions" by other media rather than in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could probably be merged into the article for Chris Korda. I am finding some mention for the site here and there, but there's not a huge-huge amount. Given that Korda's own article is pretty slim, I don't see why this wouldn't make for a good merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Since Korda's article is also sourced only to a short blurb in Wired column of short blurbs and a glancing mention in the New York Times, it's probably a better candidate for deletion than merging. - Dravecky (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (relocated from talk page) It's my understanding that the question of whether the CoE is sufficiently notable to merit a WP article was settled in 2008, by the following comment: "This article should not be deleted. It has been the subject of serious scholarly attention, as indicated by the fact the Editor in Chief of the recently published (in 2005) academic encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, included an entry in the Encyclopedia dedicated to the Church of Euthanasia. I have edited the references to include this academic reference. The COE is provocative, but not satire or parody. They represent a serious strain within streams of radical environmentalism. The same goes for Chris Korda. As the founder of this stream of radical environmentalism, he/she is noteworthy. BZ, Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Religion. 6 Feb 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBradleyBayhorse (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)"

The alleged lack of references is another matter. Tokyogirl79's claim that "I am finding some mention for the site here and there, but there's not a huge-huge amount" misses the point. It doesn't matter how many sources reference the CoE *now*, what matters is how many sources have referenced it *in the past*, and whether those sources are considered sufficiently reliable. -- Victimofleisure (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The last AfD was in 2005 and Wikipedia's notability standards have tightened a bit since then. It's not enough to be mentioned in reliable sources. It's not enough for an organization to be listed in a directory of similar organizations. Notability must be proven by in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. (That Wired blurb on the Korda article is useful but on its own it's insufficient.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 30 seconds with Google Books reveals that the entry of Church of Euthanasia in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Satire is far more than a mere listing; it's a full page-long entry. --Dylan Thurston (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Church of Euthanasia has been published in many periodicals of note, mostly European in origin. The Church also published its own zine in the 90's.Bombaybunny (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victimofleisure (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment: The Church of Euthanasia was very active in the Boston area in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I (Boston-based artist and arts educator Mark Hänser) will attest that it was a very active enterprise. Maria da Luz Fernandes, an arts scholar from Portugal, has provided me with the following information:

"The Church of Euthanasia article should not be deleted. I am an artist and academic with a published master thesis called “Tabula Rasa – Revolution, Subversion and Transgression”, published in January 2015 by the Faculty of Fine-Arts of Lisbon, the thesis is available for the public in its physical form in any faculty in Lisbon and in digital form anywhere around the world, through the faculty website: http://www.belasartes.ulisboa.pt/. This thesis includes an interview with the artist Chris Korda, the founder of the non-profit educational foundation Church of Euthanasia, which was one of the main topics of my thesis.

Regarding the question if the Church of Euthanasia is sufficiently notable, I believe there it is not necessary to present proof that it is active now, because most of Wikipedia articles are about people or events that have occurred in the past." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephos9 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are two elements to an article's existence on Wikipedia: verifiability and notability. This nomination doesn't question whether the organization existed or that it did things, only that this activity did not draw sufficient in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources to prove notability. It's not a measure of worthiness or currency, only in-depth coverage. Mentions are not enough. Appearances are not enough. It's not a judgment of any sort, other that whether the subject meet's Wikipedia's notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the tightening of standards Dravecky refers to: user Bombaybunny correctly points out on the talk page that "The Church of Euthanasia has been published in many periodicals of note, mostly European in origin." The following in-depth coverage from major European newspapers should be quite sufficient to establish notability:

Macht Liebe, nicht Babies, Der Spiegel, 12/1/1996, Henryk M. Broder (translation here)
Du sollst dich nicht vermehren, Berliner Zeitung, 7/24/1999, Harald Peters
Was haben Sie Gegen die Menschheit?, Berliner Zeitung, 7/5/2002, Harald Peters
Kip aan het kruis, Het Parool, 11/12/2002, Karin Spaink
Bag livsstilsfængslets tremmer, Dagbladet Information, 8/20/2002, Lotte Folke Kaarsholm (translation here)
Thorkild Bjørnvig - Chris Korda, Dagbladet Information, 8/23/2002, Ejvind Larsen
Danke, dass Sie hier nicht atmen, Die Wochenzeitung, 7/15/1999, Ted Gaier and Suzanne Zahnd

And we shouldn't overlook the far-right perspective: Prince Philip’s Malthusians launch New Age killer cults, Executive Intelligence Review, 7/18/1997, Mark Burdman and Roger Moore. -Victimofleisure (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My name is Maddy Weaver and I am a producer of a documentary in progress of the Church of Euthanasia. Deleting the Wikipedia page would be a detriment to this artistic endeavor because if it is difficult for a potential viewer to research the subject because Wikipedia believes the subject is unimportant, it would be difficult to make the case to that potential viewer that my work, which is to be solely based on the achievements of the Church of Euthanasia, would be worthy of their time. I would like to give you whatever sources you need to decide the Church of Euthanasia is a subject worthy of a Wikipedia page, but there have been many reputable sources already cited, so I am unclear about exactly what is needed. The problem could be that the Church was active mainly in a time where articles would have been recorded in physical newspapers, therefore the only online links to the reputable sources would be to articles that had been transcribed on the Church of Euthanasia website. If this is a problem, I have been using the original articles for research and could scan them and post them to the page. If this will not work, I would like an example of exactly what you need, I am sure I could furnish it.

What we would need would be in-depth coverage of the CoE in reliable sources like newspapers. If you can provide these, what we'd need would be things like the name of the article, the person who wrote it, the paper's name, and the date it was published. If you can do that, this would be incredibly helpful. These don't have to be on the Internet but we do have to be able to verify it, ie, that you can show a clipping if requested. As long as we have that, it's golden. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, The sources given in my previous comment are all in-depth coverage from major European newspapers and available online; the links point to newspaper archives, not to copies on the CoE website. There's also lots more in-depth coverage that isn't online anymore, or never was online. Most of the in-depth coverage isn't in English, but there are exceptions, e.g. the Dan Burrows Boston Magazine profile (1997), the Icon (magazine) profile by the late Shari Roman (1999), and David Grad's extended profile, originally published in New York Press as "Eat Me: Rev. Chris Korda Dines For Our Sins" (1996) and subsequently republished as a cover story in The Phoenix (newspaper) ("The Four Pillars of Euthanism").

There are also patterns of sustained coverage over time, for example in the Dutch and German press in 2002 after outrage over the "I Like To Watch" video caused the CoE to be temporarily banned in the Netherlands. Here are some sources on that are still available online:

Chris Korda ziet mensen het liefst dood, Dagblad van het Noorden, 7/15/2002, Henk Willem Smits
Lowlands schrapt zelfmoordprediker, Dagblad van het Noorden, 7/16/2002, Henk Willem Smits
Chris Korda teleurgesteld in Nederland, Dagblad van het Noorden, 7/19/2002, Henk Willem Smits.
Immer Ärger mit Chrissy, Debug (magazine), 8/27/2002 -Victimofleisure (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Church of Euthanasia article should not be deleted.

Regarding the question of whether or not the Church of Euthanasia is sufficiently notable, I do not consider it necessary to present proof as to whether it is active now, since most Wikipedia articles refer to people or events from the past. But I will try to provide information and sources to fill any gaps that might exist in the present article.

I, Maria da Luz Fernandes, am an artist and academic with a published master thesis called “Tabula Rasa – Revolution, Subversion and Transgression” (published in the 13th of April of 2015, on the “FBA- Dissertações de Mestrado” in the Collection by the Faculty of Fine-Arts of Lisbon, available for the public in its physical form in any faculty in Lisbon and in digital form anywhere around the world, in the following website: http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/18155. This thesis includes an interview with Chris Korda. This topic was and is essential for the development of my academic work, as I continue my studies in a Doctorate of Arts. I can only logically assume that other academics studying the Church of Euthanasia and their cellular topics (euthanasia, abortion, antinatalism) would need a platform to follow their research, and the most common platform is, as we all know, Wikipedia. Therefore I believe deleting the page would disfavor of the academics and general public.

On August 8, 1997, an episode of The Jerry Springer Show aired about the Church. In this episode, “I want to join a suicide cult”, Springer interviews some of the most famous members of this organization: Chris Korda; Vermin Supreme, a well-known activist, the main subject of a released documentary, by Steve Onderick and Nina Paley, a world-wide famous cartoon artist. In 2002, Nina Paley also released a short-film entitled “Thank you for not breeding”, available in this link, wherein she explores the issue of overpopulation by interviewing Chris Korda, and includes footage of art performances by the same organization.

There is also a documentary currently being filmed about Chris Korda and the CoE, to be released in 2017, titled “Save the Planet, Kill Yourself”, directed by Steve Onderick. Quoting Onderick on the official facebook page of the documentary, they “will launch the Kickstarter on October first complete with a trailer, and travel with it from Portland Maine to Minneapolis, MN.” (9/19/2015, at 18:13). The fact that there is a documentary being filmed in this moment about the CoE should be more than sufficient proof of the notability of this organization, and their right to be represented in a Wikipedia article.

Sources (compiled with the previously suggested by Wikipedia user Victimofleisure)

Macht Liebe, nicht Babies, Der Spiegel, 12/1/1996, Henryk M. Broder (translation here)
Du sollst dich nicht vermehren, Berliner Zeitung, 7/24/1999, Harald Peters.
Was haben Sie Gegen die Menschheit?, Berliner Zeitung, 7/5/2002, Harald Peters.
Kip aan het kruis, Het Parool, 11/12/2002, Karin Spaink
Bag livsstilsfængslets tremmer, Dagbladet Information, 8/20/2002, Lotte Folke Kaarsholm (translation here)
Thorkild Bjørnvig - Chris Korda, Dagbladet Information, 8/23/2002, Ejvind Larsen
Danke, dass Sie hier nicht atmen, Die Wochenzeitung, 7/15/1999, Ted Gaier and Suzanne Zahnd.
Prince Philip’s Malthusians launch New Age killer cults, Executive Intelligence Review, 7/18/1997, Mark Burdman and Roger Moore.
Chris Korda ziet mensen het liefst dood, Dagblad van het Noorden, 7/15/2002, Henk Willem Smits.
Lowlands schrapt zelfmoordprediker, Dagblad van het Noorden, 7/16/2002, Henk Willem Smits.
Chris Korda teleurgesteld in Nederland, Dagblad van het Noorden, 7/19/2002, Henk Willem Smits.
Immer Ärger mit Chrissy, Debug (magazine), 8/27/2002
Satanists: Pro-Life Laws Violate Our Religious Beliefs, Right Wing News, 14/07/2015, Dave Blount.
¿Terraformación o extinción?, Jot Down Contemporary Culture Mag, Feb 2015, Javier S. Burgos.
Chris Korda y la Iglesia de la Eutanasia: save the planet, kill yourself, Vanishing Point, 22/11/2013, Jark Prongo.
For the ‘anti-humanist’ group Church of Euthanasia, abortion is a sacrament, Life Site News, 02/10/2013, Kristen Walker Hatten.

Also

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature Continuun, 2005, edited by Bron Taylor.
Church Of Euthanasia, Oxford Reference.

Cffmariadaluz (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a Wikipedia editor who, as previously noted, has known Chris Korda personally, witnessed the media phenomenon that was/is The Church of Euthanasia, and will vouch for the authenticity of Maria da Luz Fernandes's links and contributions, I think -- with all the additional material presented here -- deleting "Church of Euthanasia" as an article would be ridiculous and a negation of what Wikipedia's mission is all about. What's needed NOW is for a NEW article to be written that incorporates all the "new" source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephos9 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do not delete.

(Sorry, this Wikipedia editor can't currently remember her login password.) I'm bemused at this tempest in a teacup. Seems like the question of deletion has been raised by only one person, and the efforts of someone else to do a major overhaul/update on the page are actively prevented by the "flagged for deletion" status etc. Two things come to my mind when reviewing the situation: 1: the Church in question has had a significant impact and is cited in various types of texts [religion, sociology, social phenomena, environmentalism], both online and off, not least of which are cited in the post above by Cffmariadaluz. Saying that the phenomenon is no longer currently written about is like saying that Jonestown or the Tylenol Scare is no longer written about; it is still a phenomenon that calls for a reference, an explanation, a source of information. For example: every fall, according to City of Boston, about 250,000 new college students arrive in the Boston area alone, and they're going to see / hear reference to the Church. They would quite reasonably jump on Wikipedia to wonder "what's this 'save the planet, kill yourself' slogan from?" and that answer - among other reasons - is what Wikipedia is for. A reference. So citation and continued relevance: check. 2. Merging with the page of the individual who founded the church: that would actively cause ambiguity, rather than disambiguate. I vote against, as it would cause confusion. The founder seems to have a career in several fields (an inventor, a DJ, a musical technologist) and recently presented at a music technology conference. [20] Merging the pages would further confound rather than clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.114.11 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:71.192.114.11 is absolutely correct. It IS a tempest in a teacup, and merging pages WOULD further compound rather than clarify. There seems to be an agenda on the part of User:Dravecky here that conflicts with the mission of Wikipedia and, as User:71.192.114.11 notes, deletion would do a disservice to many curious new college students in the Greater Boston area. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Remember to assume good faith and rest assured that my "agenda" (what little of it there is) is purely policy driven. In fact, I'm very much an inclusionist when a topic can be shown to cross the basic thresholds of verifiability and notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a freshman orientation guide for Boston college students nor is it a way to publicize upcoming documentaries. I don't care when the coverage is from, just that it's in-depth about the subject and from reliable third-party sources. Also, the article must be factual. If this is an art project, it needs to be called an art project. - Dravecky (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No one ever said the Church of Euthanasia was/is "an art project". It is an entity that has influenced artists. And no one ever said that Wikipedia was an orientation guide for Boston college students and i specifically did NOT use the word "freshmen". My words are being twisted into some kind of syntactic pretzel. MY point remains that 1) The Church of Euthanasia exists, 2) It has existed for many years, and 3) Deleting the article serves no purpose whatsoever. Just because one might find the tenets of the CoE distasteful or shocking does not mean the CoE does not exist, nor that it does not have adherents. Someone on this thread mentioned "Jonestown as an antecedent. As a former writer for the Boston Phoenix, I can attest to the coverage the CoE was given as a serious enterprise. One can question the "good taste" of the content of this piece in the Boston Phoenix by Chris Wright from the December 20-27 piece issue [[21]], but the fact that it warranted inclusion in a publication available to the over 4,000,000 people in the Greater Boston area is testament to media, and by extension, popular, interest in the Church of Euthanasia. As a Wikipedia editor of 9 years standing, I will continue to vote AGAINST deletion. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I, too, vote against deletion. Dravecky slightly misstates the notability criterion by repeatedly using the phrase "in depth" rather than "significant." The notability guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And "Significant coverage" "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It seems indisputable to me from the number and variety of sources mentioned in comments above that the Church of Euthanasia has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, "it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." Zenomax (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let’s recap. This AfD begins with “Hoaxish shock-value website ‘church’” yet no sources are provided for the allegations that the CoE is 1) a hoax, 2) lacking in value other than shock, 3) confined to the internet, and 4) not truly a religion. Even if these allegations were proved they wouldn’t necessarily preclude notability. The existence of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” has been proved, but this coverage isn't discussed or even acknowledged; instead new allegations are made that the CoE is “an art project,” publicity, etc. This begins to suggest bias however inadvertent. And regarding the exhortation to assume good faith: “The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF often reflects such a rush to judgment, namely the judgment that bad faith is being assumed.” (AAGF) Victimofleisure (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a Wiki-editor and someone who has written about the press hysteria in The Netherlands about the Church of Euthanasia, I agree wholeheartedly with Victimofleisure, and I vote against deletion.Karin Spaink (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though the organization is apparently not as active now it was clearly notable in its time. I don't need to repost the research already listed above which shows in-depth coverage, and it seems like this is a good case of Notability is not temporary. Though it may indeed be a "Hoaxish shock-value website 'church.'" it appears to be a notable one. Slamorte (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do not delete, do not merge pages. Michelle Glaros PhD is a Fulbright grant recipient, published author, and scholar. While teaching at the University of Florida, Dr. Glaros assigned her students to practice persuasive writing and analysis of arguments.

She offered a small number of places where her students could find people to hone their skills with, including the Church of Euthanasia. As you can imagine, university students found something at CoE to object to, and proceeded to make, and then invariably lose, arguments against CoE members and their logic and daring and imagination. The use of CoE by a scholar of good repute, in an official academic setting, is notable, as is the ability of her students to find and contextualize the Church of Euthanasia and its website and members via online sources like Wikipedia. Even if no professor is using the Church in this way at this time, the past use and attention within academia suggests retaining access to the basic information about this phenomenon. As a phenomenon, the students contacted Church members other than the Rev. Chris Korda, suggesting that a merge would inaccurately reflect this phenomenon and the record of attention to it.

Sources

[22],

(unrelated film work documenting Dr. Glaros's employment by the University of Florida and contribution to its academic culture)

[23], (the academic institution that saw fit to turn its attention to the Church of Euthanasia]
[24], (unrelated page documenting Dr. Glaros's continued professional contributions to communications, scholarship, and academic inquiry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B77:2760:C33:7CFF:3C2D:C9CC (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yikes. A heads up would-be and current participants: a flood of people who have made almost no edits to Wikipedia other than to opine in a discussion like this is typically taken as a sign of canvassing and tends to give experienced editors the impression that people must be canvassing because the article would not be kept if left to others to apply Wikipedia's guidelines (see also WP:SPA). As it happens, I agree it should be kept, but a word of advice: unless you're providing new sources that meet standards presented at WP:RS, you're not doing your position any favors simply by jumping in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you, Rhododendrites. That is a very helpful comment and clarification. I understand the concern about canvassing. Anticipating this, I am presently working with Maria da Luz Fernandes, who did doctoral research on the Church of Euthanasia, to create a new article that will address the content issues raised here and that I will edit to conform to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Perhaps we can table further discussion until this new article is completed and Wiki-edited? I will post the rewritten article on this page, unless directed to do elsewhere by an administrator. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nephos9: Anyone who has a conflict of interest regarding the subject should not edit the article directly. That means anyone with a personal or financial connection to the subject (you'll have to determine for yourself the extent to which that applies to you). The idea, as explained through Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and its counterpart the conflict of interest policy, is that someone with financial, personal, or other direct connection to an article subject can't be expected/assumed to write about that subject in a neutral way. The best way to work on an article when one has a "COI" is by using the talk page (Talk:Church of Euthanasia) to make suggestions, then let someone else implement the change. That said, the scope of this deletion discussion is narrower. The specifics of how it's written are less important than establishing notability, pointing to sources which constitute passage of the general notability guideline or the the notability guideline specific to organizations. To my mind, that's been done sufficiently here, but we'll see. The discussion goes for seven days, at which point an uninvolved editor determines if there is a consensus to keep or delete. I'll add the page to my watchlist in case you decide to post to the talk page and others aren't responding (it's not a subject I was familiar with before stumbling across this discussion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Ah! Sorry, it looks like I got misread parts of the text above. I thought I saw disclosure of working with/for the church, not just writing about it. Nevermind the WP:COI business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Chris Korda does not appear to be independently notable, so I would support merging the relevant parts of his article into this one and redirecting here. I see several sources are linked above. I'll add to those (although it's likely I'll miss duplicates): article in the British Medical Journal, Newsweek, Knight Ridder/Tribune (only mentioned by name once, but the whole article is about the website), Live Action News, The Phoenix, New York Daily News, Wired... They look to keep track of a bunch of their press, too, so for a couple English-language sources that I don't see other reliable links for, NY Post, Boston Magazine, another from The Phoenix, another from Boston Magazine, India Times, LifeNews... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply: Thank you, Rhododendrites ~ our comments seem to have cross-posted simultaneously. Please advise re: your thoughts about my previous reply. Thank you. Nephos9 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this, hoping that some more seasoned Wikipedia editors will weigh in. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: As a scholar working on the subject of CoE, I consider the following data as viable for the databox:

Church of Euthanasia

(not to type in: Image) http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/graphics/coe_330x200.gif

(not to type in: Image description) The symbol of the Church of Euthanasia is represented by a greek temple with the Four Pillars

Abbreviation CoE

Headquarters Boston, MA. USA

Founder Chris Korda, Pastor Kim

Origin 1992, registered in the state of Delaware

Official website http://churchofeuthanasia.org/ (talk) 6:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I think enough sources have been provided to show notability. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature seems like a pretty good source, and there's coverage in newspapers above, highlighted by Rhododendrites and others. I can understand the reluctance of some users to allow in hoax-ish articles, but this seems like an established parody religion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tokyogirl79. Kiwifist (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Just checking in to see if you're still thinking this would be better merged into Chris Korda rather than the other way around. As above, it looks to me like the opposite would be the case (i.e. sources about him are overwhelmingly about the church, including those currently cited). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say that this would be a keep for me, given that sources have been provided here by Cffmariadaluz and Victimofleisure. I have no opinion as to whether or not Korda would be merged into this article, but if sources independent of the church can be found, then it should remain separate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both articles and Do not merge. Chris Korda has independent notability from the Church of Euthanasia, and, as user “71.192.114.11” wrote, “merging the pages would further confound rather than clarify.” (at 20:27, 22 September 2015 UTC) I will try to provide sources of information to clarify Chris Korda’s notability outside CoE, as a well-known musician and developer of popular software.

Extended content about Chris Korda doesn't belong here

Chris Korda is the great-nephew of Hungarian-born film magnate Sir Alexander Korda, who was very prominent in the British film industry, as he was the founder of London Films and the owner of British Lion Films. Korda is the only progeny of prominent writer and novelist Michael Korda, editor-in-chief at Simon & Shuster in New York. ^[1] Korda has an acclaimed electronic music career, having released two longplayers and six singles and EPs. ^[2] Korda [25] toured Europe with his album “Man of the Future”, released in 2003 by the German electronic music record label International Deejay Gigolo Records. Korda then toured worldwide, using his own software to perform live, including the 2001 Sonar music festival in Barcelona. Chris Korda is the developer of more than five popular open-source software programs: Korda created in 2005 the VJ software Whorld, a open-source visualizer that utilizes math in order to create psychedelic animation and artwork. An example of the usage of this software can be found here. In 2006, Korda released FFRend, a “Parallel-processing renderer for Freeframe V1 video effect plugins”. In 2008, Korda designed Fractice, a fractal renderer.

Chris Korda is also an inventor of music software, such as Waveshop(2013), a bit-perfect lossless free audio editor, reviewed in several websites, such as The Windows Club, Hectic Geek and Betta News. He is also the creator of ChordEase(2014). This is a free software that is compatible with any MIDI instrument and essentially it makes notes easier to play. ChordEase was presented at the music and technology conference NIME in 2015. Chris Korda also developed software for the world's first color 3D printer ^[3].

Discography:

Longplayer

1999: Six Billion Humans Can't Be Wrong (DJ Mix; as Chris Korda & The Church Of Euthanasia; International DeeJay Gigolo Records)

2003: The Man Of The Future (International Deejay Gigolo Records)

Singles and EPs

1993: Save The Planet, Kill Yourself (Kevorkian Records)

1997: Save The Planet, Kill Yourself (Re-Release, International Deejay Gigolos)

1998: Sex Is Good (International Deejay Gigolos)

2002: I Like To Watch (Null Records)

2002: When It Rains EP (International Deejay Gigolos)

2003: The Man Of The Future (International Deejay Gigolos)

References:

Chris Korda is an artist, musician, computer programmer - and an opponent of mankind, by Lotte Folke Kaarsholm

Chris Korda, by Álex Balaclava for Clubbing Spain

Entrevista a Chris Korda, by David Puente for Clubbing Spain, 3 March 2002

Chris Korda discography at Discogs

Dj Chris Korda en de erotisering van terrorisme by Corine Vloet for Nrc.nl, 16 November 2002

[http://nime2015.lsu.edu/proceedings/103/0103-paper.pdf ChordEase: A MIDI remapper for intuitive performance of

non-modal music] Chris Korda for Nime, June 2015

Korda kan gang gaan in Paradiso by Bert Steinmetz for Het Parool, 12 November, 2002

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGDG_82Smxo

Cffmariadaluz (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is attracting an awful lot of WP:SPAs. Typically suggests WP:CANVASSING. May be worth noting Victimofleisure is also now doing some on-wiki canvassing (e.g. here). I happen to agree with the outcome the SPAs seem to seek, but this is always a bad sign. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The vote was split, but all of the delete votes were cast before a number of sources were found covering this individual that demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ozborn[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER Derek Andrews (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I probably came across this article at its inception and searches find nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 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 14:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, albeit on the weaker side, as per: ^[4], ^[5],^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Michael Korda married first wife Carolyn Keese in 1958, and had one child, Chris, leader of the Church of Euthanasia.
^ http://www.discogs.com/artist/18625-Chris-Korda
^ http://patents.justia.com/inventor/chris-korda
^ Akmal Saleh and Joel Ozborn, a comic couple. The Daily Telegraph.
^ Adelaide Fringe review 2015: Joel Ozborn – Be Here Now. The Advertiser.
^ Joel Ozborn set to impress with his Sydney Comedy Festival show. The Daily Telegraph.
^ "Joel Ozborn - Stand Out". theage.com.au.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing provided by Northamerica1000, WP:ENTERTAINER includes stage performances. -- 009o9 (talk) 15:21, 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. Sandstein 08:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Weinberger[edit]

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

Highest citation count of the subject is 31 (that too a paper co-authored with doctoral adviser). Doesn't passes WP:PROF Solomon 7968 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 19:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Did you review the New Yorker article? If not, we don't know what their coverage is like. We do know what the book The Predictors says:
David Weinberger should be recorded in the annals of finance as the original rocket scientist on Wall Street.
The book certainly is not just a passing coverage of Weinberger. He also has an Erdos number of 3. He's not a professor - he's a financial professional, and seems like a notable one to me. II | (t - c) 23:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and WP:TNT as although how detailed the article may look at first glance, my searches even at scholar found nothing better so feel free to restart this when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this stage, can't find anything to show they meet the notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Rita Ora concert tours#Ora Tour. There is consensus that this article does not meet notability requirements. I'm redirecting as it is the option most in-line with policy. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ora Tour[edit]

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

Not a notable tour as per WP:CONCERT with only five dates and no significant coverage. Karst (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as my searches found nothing immediately outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Rita Ora concert tours; Generic starter MTV tour of interest only to Rita Ora fans and MTV's marketing department at the time. Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the redirect. Karst (talk) 14:49, 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 redirect to Lesbian fiction. For now. Consensus is that the articles in this area need reorganizing; but this can be done non-editorially e.g. as proposed by Lankiveil. Once that's done, this content can be merged from the history, subject to consensus, to wherever it fits. Sandstein 08:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian non fiction[edit]

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

"Lesbian non fiction" is not a properly defined subject. Apparently, it is supposed to mean non-fiction books dealing with lesbianism - but there seems to be no real rationale for such an article, any more than there would be a rationale for starting "Chinese non-fiction" as an article about non-fiction books dealing with subjects related to China. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, for the record, was created by an editor whose username matches the name of one of the few authors actually listed in this laughably incomplete article — thus igniting my definite suspicion that her intent was to promote her book rather than to write a genuinely encyclopedic article about the topic. I have posted a request at WP:LGBT to have this merged with lesbian fiction into an expanded article on lesbian literature (which currently exists only as a redirect to the fiction article, as if non-fiction weren't also literature), to properly parallel our article on gay male literature, which properly covers both the fiction and non-fiction aspects. I don't have enough expertise in the subject area to do it myself without some assistance — about all I could really do is cut and paste this piece of crap, and then add a small handful of Canadian lesbians I've read — but I still think the most appropriate solution here is to merge into an article on lesbian literature. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bearcat that this and Lesbian Fiction should be a Merge into lesbian literature ABF99 (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something of note is that back in 2013 there was a discussion of making one general LGBT article on fiction, though. I'm sort of undecided on this. There's the possibility of it being redundant to other articles if we keep it separate, but I'm hesitating slightly because fiction and non-fiction are sometimes handled differently in how they're written and covered. If we had an article on LGBT non-fiction, I'd support a merge there over a merge to an article about fiction, to be honest. But since we don't have one, this would have to be written from scratch. Anyone interested? I've never really written something like this before so I'm not sure how to get started, but I can help look for sources and with writing once someone gives me a specific part of the article to work on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 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 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promo Article creator appears to have severe WP:COI with regard to the book most extensively discussed within days of that book's release (via Kindle). There is no legit article here as there is no information sourced to an RS discussing lesbian non-fiction. And as such, there is also no content to be merged. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, what I'd like to see happen would be to move Lesbian fiction to Lesbian literature, and then redirect this article to Lesbian literature. There doesn't seem to be enough content to justify having separate entries for fiction and non-fiction at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Agreed. Article has been significantly improved since the last AfD nomination. Closing without prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible Support Fund[edit]

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

I just voted keep in the last AfD because the author was willing to improve the article. Seems like the author hasn't done anything. So, I keep my word and renominate this article for deletion with the same rationale the last nominator had. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Focuses quite a but on a controversy- perhaps WP:NPOV issues. I can't seem to view one of the sources. Another is the daily mirror, frowned upon per WP:PUS. The third appears to be a government source (not independent from the subject). At this time, on my end, it really only has one reliable source. Most other sources I can find are directly involved with the fund (WP:NRVE). Perhaps a mention at Welfare state in the United Kingdom or another article similar to that (maybe not that one specifically) would be warranted, but I'm not sure about a stand alone article. (P.S. I personally have less/no interest in the outcome of this discussion) Regards —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:32, 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 02:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep previous AfD was a unanimous keep, a quick search reveals that there is more content available[26]. The article has already been vastly improved since the original PROD[27] and subsequent AfD nom[28]. See also: WP:DEADLINE. -- 009o9 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above two links to the same diff. The unanimous keep was because the author was willing to improve the article. The article has to be improved at some point. No deadline leads to infinity. The deadline is now. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the second diff in my comment. WP:DEADLINENOW (also an essay) prescribes, "...if an article contains false or unverifiable content, you should correct it as soon as possible." Great Britain is not within my area of expertise, but all I'm seeing here is a decent start article. I feel that the subject is notable and it appears there is adequate coverage to write a complete article WP:NEXIST. Additionally, bringing NPOV accusations (I don't see a slant, or a motive for one) in this nomination, hamstrings the editor that you've apparently made some kind of side-deal with for your earlier keep vote. -- 009o9 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side-deal? Hmmm.—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not the person who set conditions on your support Here, introducing a 30 day limit that nobody else mentioned? Further, you've simply restated the original AfD reasoning, which was for a completely different version.[29] and the article is vastly improved since the speedy made by the same editor.[30]

In essence, your AfD reasoning boils down to "Seems like the author hasn't done anything." I'm not seeing that in WP:DEL-REASON and IMHO the current version of this article is WP:ATD regardless to one voter's conditions in the previous keep AfD. User:DanielJCooper has offered his expertise to voluntarily offer his time to document GB social services. I see no reason to put time constraints on his work, nor delete his useful contributions. -- 009o9 (talk) 19:32, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Mason (conductor)[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing solidly good to suggest improvement with Books and News finding results for other people and the closest I found for a music-related James Mason was this (some of them are for the early 1900s and a few for a UT Jazz James Mason from the late 1980s so I'm not sure if that's actually him considering there's not much information here). Pinging Jerzy and J Milburn. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 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 02:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia and mirrors are the bulk of the hits, followed by a smattering of false positives. I'm not seeing anything whatsoever that gets this subject over the GNG bar. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the commonality of the name made research difficult, but I can't find anything about this person which shows they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bladerunner Radio[edit]

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

Internet radio station with no substantive claim of notability under WP:NMEDIA. The only claim of notability here is a vague and unsourced and unquantifiable claim of a "world wide following" — and there's no evidence of reliable source coverage, as the only source here is an entry in a non-notable blog. As with any other topic, internet radio services do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist; they must demonstrate and reliably source clear and verifiable evidence of notability, but this doesn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 12 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) 04:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as I found no better coverage than more of the listed sources here. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of adequate sources to meet WP:GNG, although Lealos , Shawn (6 August 2013). "Close as a Blade". Oklahoma Gazette. was a nice article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) - After work done by editor to beef up references, and per the later evaluations, article now appears to have a consensus to keep Onel5969 ^{. TT me} 03:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zinfandel Advocates and Producers[edit]

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

Non-notable non-profit. Fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now unless it can be drafted and userfied as although News, Books and Highbeam all found results, there's likely no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about move to draft space for now? A brief look in Google yielded no articles about Zinfandel Advocates and Producers that would establish notability, but the annual zinfandel festival put on by the organization, variously called Zinfandel Experience or ZAP Experience, does appear to meet the notability standard, with multiple in-depth articles. There may or may not be enough material to support a short section about the sponsoring organization in a Zinfandel Experience article. I am willing to convert the existing article into one appropriate for Wikipedia, but agree it should not stay in mainspace as is. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the ZAP group since I like wine, so I looked into it further. I spent some research time and found literally dozens of references to ZAP, not only for the Zinfandel Experience that GrammarFascist cites, but for legislature introduced, efforts to find the origins of Zinfandel and what appears to be a pretty important project called the Zinfandel Heritage Project. I've been assembling all this and would like to make an effort to submit a fairly complete rewrite soon that to me appears to fulfill the notability requirements of wikipedia. [User:PH Solution|PH Solution]] (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering new user PH Solution's somewhat off-topic questions elsewhere (on my talk page, where they initiated a conversation with me after I put a welcome message on their talk page). Thanks for contributing to the discussion here, though, PH Solution. :) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Yes, this article needs to be improved, but I am very confident that the organization is notable. Disclosure: I live in California wine country and have many friends who work in the industry. I have read many articles about this organization over the years, but not all such coverage is readily available online. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment note that a major expansion and rewrite has just bee done by PH Solution. I urge previous participants in this discussion to reconsider in the light of this major change. @Ukexpat, Northamerica1000, SwisterTwister, GrammarFascist, and Cullen328: DES ^(talk) 01:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment As promised last week, I did a lot of research on this and think I've addressed the issue of notability, as well as increasing content. I initially thought I would just expand the stub, but it wasn't going in a useful direction so I decided to replace it, after reading all the encouragement on this site to "be bold". I hope my contribution to this page is worthwhile. It's an enjoyable project and I look forward to working on some other articles.PH Solution (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The (impressively researched) edits by PH Solution are more than sufficient to establish notability. I have struck out my previous comment above. With a little more work this article that was on the verge of deletion might soon make Good Article status. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was just informed by a very helpful person that I can vote on keeping this after making a contribution, so I wanted to do so. Thanks!!!PH Solution (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Vergara[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable entertainment personality. Article almost entirely composed of cruft. Quis separabit? 01:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some brief mentions on News and Highbeam (all in relation to his appearance on GameStruck. Other than that, zero. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found a few links at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better especially independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief role in a talent search contest. Per SwisterTwister, might change in the future. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added profiles from IMDB and ABS-CBN as sources.--Jondel (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is an unreliable source and has always been for Wikipedia purposes. You'll stop at nothing, I guess. Quis separabit? 13:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing something wrong here? Who is the one who'll stop at nothing? You have soo many AFDs. Why??What are you doing?--Jondel (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You haven't done anything wrong, although IMDb carries little weight on Wikipedia. It's just that after the ANI issue we had and the points made by yourself and @Obsidian Soul, regarding the quality of my nominations, I guess I somehow made a valid nom, as yours is the only keep vote. Bizarre! Best always, @Jondel, you are a good guy. Quis separabit? 05:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong to add IMDb. If the the article gets deleted, I am happy it got deleted by this voting process which shows it is not notable at this point. Kindly respect my right to be 'bizarre'. Best from me as well and always. --Jondel (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harinder Rana[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable music industry executive. Quis separabit? 01:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:BASIC. Searches turned up a couple of brief mentions on Books, nothing on the other engines (they did have hits for someone with this name, but they appeared to be two other individuals, a doctor and a politician). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found some results here and there, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources, and for lack of substantive coverage. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New Reform Party of Ontario. Consensus to redirect. Both the New Reform Party and REAL Women of Canada were suggested. I'm redirecting to the New Reform Party since Scime is currently the president of this party while her sole mention in the REAL Women section is a single sentence quote. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Scime[edit]

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

Unknown and non-notable party president. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least in theory, her past presidency of REAL Women of Canada would count for more than her presidency of a small fringe political party — but there's not a lot of genuinely substantive coverage of her in that role shown here, because after the first three footnotes (not enough to satisfy GNG by itself), her notability and sourceability turns exclusively local and/or unreliable (The Interim). And as far as I can tell no other president of REAL Women besides her actually has a standalone WP:BLP (not even Gwen Landolt, who's the only former president of REAL Women that almost anybody not directly involved in the organization might actually be able to name right off the top of their heads.) So there's not enough here to get her over WP:GNG. To be fair, this article was created in 2005, a time when our notability rules for politicians were a lot looser than they are now — being president of a political party, even a minor fringe party, was enough at the time. But consensus changed, and it isn't enough anymore. Delete, though I also wouldn't necessarily object to a redirect to the political party if there's a consensus to go that way instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to either New Reform Party of Ontario or REAL Women of Canada, I'm not sure which is better. - Found zero on News, JSTOR or Newspapers. Books had a couple of brief mentions, as did Highbeam, while Scholar had a single brief mention. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested as I found some links at Books and Highbeam, but there's not much for more of an article. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 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) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May Ling Su[edit]

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

Delete: porn actress; fails WP:PORN, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually won an award. Though not for porn. Her notability is more in terms of her feminism and her book On My Period apparently. Featured in Esquire, Guernica Magazine, tn2 Magazine, Metropolis TV, art has been exhibited in Museum of Porn in Art, significant mention in the book $pread: The Best of the Magazine that Illuminated the Sex Industry and Started a Media Revolution. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FYI, I've recently edited the article in question here. Appears to pass the GNG and/or has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - namely the documentary Thinking XXX and in the magazines Guernica and/or tn2. Guy1890 (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that other editors have made claims that she may be notable in her field as I am just not familiar with "menstrual artists", maybe I'll learn something. Quis separabit? 05:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep- I don't usually close on crappy !votes but the constant arguing between you 2 is bloody draining and I think this AFD's had the life drained out of it enough for 1 week so I'm wrapping this up, Sources provided meet WP:BASIC so overall keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Abrenica[edit]

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

Delete:~~non-notable former child actor; mostly reality TV.~~ He has only six acting credits at IMDb and some reality show appearances as himself, which does not an actor make. This is clearly a case of TOO SOON, without prejudice upon review. Quis separabit? 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actor is currently in a leading role in a primetime soap opera on a major TV network. He has also had other acting roles in previous drama series. Seems to pass WP:NACTOR. —seav (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Nactor--Jondel (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Jondel's vote should be disregarded. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and~~ "Per Nactor" is woefully insufficient with regards to compliance with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself"). Quis separabit? 02:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out as irrelevant. Accused. Not convicted. And you did the accusing. Don't vaguely imply an uninvolved third party.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR#1. The practice of the nominator of counting acting credits and then concluding non-notability if the number falls between 4 and 6 is NOT found in any notability guideline in this project. WP:TOOSOON only applies if there are ZERO acting credits. Six satisfies the requirement of WP:NACTOR of multiple significant roles in significant films/TV shows. Abrenica plays lead roles in at least four soap operas in a major national network, TV5, which satisfies the "significant role" part. In terms of WP:GNG, here are a few secondary sources where he is the main subject, satisfying significant coverage: Bandera (Tagalog), Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Entertainment Portal, (more here). The characterization of "mostly reality TV" is false. He was the grand winner of a (singular) Got Talent-type contest, but has since gained notability as an actor. He had never been a child actor.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON only applies if there are ZERO acting credits -- untrue, as an "actor" with zero acting credits would not be likely to long retain an article on Wikipedia as an actor/actress, and would likely be speedily deleted. Quis separabit? 13:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it says is The guidelines do not mandate that all or even that most of these criteria have to be met... but if an actor cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered, which may be what you were referring to. Quis separabit? 13:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... exactly. Wikipedia:Too soon#To summarize on actors: If an actor cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. What was it you said again? SIX acting roles. Even without anything else, six significant roles already meets the first inclusion criteria of WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON does not apply. Read that page again. In its entirety this time. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've also even realized this. But WP:TOOSOON is not policy. It's an essay on a common indicator of non-notability. What you should really be doing is trying to understand WP:NACTOR, after all these years. Just three little sentences that summarize what notability actually means for the subject of this discussion. Vin Abrenica is an actor.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsid: "inclusion criteria is greater than (≫) "acting role" and "Significant" can be a subjective adjective. Quis separabit? 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He meets both WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. And yes it can be subjective. But not in this case. He plays the lead male roles in several shows. Either the protagonist, or the main romantic interest. Those qualify as significant roles, yes? The shows are broadcasted in the prime time block to a national audience by a major network. They in turn, are also notable. I've said this to you so many times, I almost have it memorized: WP:NACTOR#1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as there's not much here although there seems to be coverage about him so it would be a weak keep at all but I'm not entirely sure. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to beat a dead horse, as some do, but these two links ([31], [32]) are interviews with gossip columnists from reputable Filipino newspapers but do not demonstrate any particular notability, concentrating on his connections to the Arista Academy, his elder brother (also an actor), and his friendship with Mark Neumann, also referencing other Arista alumni (Neumann, Akihiro Blanco, Alberto Bruno, Benjo Leoncio, Brent Manzano, Chris Leonardo, Jon Orlando, Julia Quisumbing, Chanel Morales, Malak So Shdifat, Marvelous Alejo, Nicole Estrada, Stephanie Rowe, Shaira Mae and Sophie Albert), none of whom are notable (note that Alejo is a redirect). I obviously cannot judge Bandera (as it is entirely in Tagalog). This link is about 50% Tagalog. This link is invalid. I still believe Abrenica to be non-notable; possibly a case of TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 13:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused (*pokes at dead horse*). Why exactly does that "not demonstrate notability"? Point me to the exact guideline that explains how you came to that conclusion. The people referenced in the interviews is irrelevant. What matters is that he is the main subject of interviews by independent, reliable sources. That satisfies substantial coverage required in WP:BASIC. I also clearly mentioned that those three are merely examples. There are several pages more of articles on him, both trivial and significant. Including articles that verify his significant roles in several notable TV shows, which again is really all that matters when it comes to actors, per WP:NACTOR. Including these: PEP (Marry You), Manila Standard Today (Beki Boxer), SunStar (Never Say Goodbye), and The Philippine Star (My Fair Lady). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:40, 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. Noting that while the original nominator has withdrawn the request, there is still a consensus amongst the other three participants for "Delete". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M N Rai[edit]

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

KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Sources Found KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 10:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, it helps to have a summary of why the article should be deleted even if it seems obvious. My searches found several results of course with News and browser but he would be best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not senior enough for inherent notability and his medal is well down the list - third-level at the highest. Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: if the nominator withdraws the nom, do the votes tallied count? Is this AFD over? Just curious. Quis separabit? 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - [email protected] - Nope nom can only withdraw if there's either no !votes or Keep !votes, If there's even one delete !vote it still can't be closed as withdrawn :), Hope that helps :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show this meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Withdrawn by nominator. Meets WP:POLITICIAN -- Kethrus |talk to me 21:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uğur Işılak[edit]

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

Article fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NPOV, and is unreferenced. -- Kethrus |talk to me 00:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches did not turn up enough to show notability. Although they were hampered by the zero amount of English sources, as well as the existence of a notable Turkish politician of the same name. I did find this, which is a nice short piece about him. But everything else I found was about the politician. Could be persuaded if someone who has knowledge of Turkish sources could find more to show him notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether or not he passes MUSICBIO, he passes WP:POLITICIAN. He just got elected to parliament in June and he has gotten noticed.[33] • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe simply because was elected as a member of the parliament. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KRCB-FM[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BCAST, is unreferenced, is not neutral, and is written more like an advertisement - although that could easily be fixed, it still fails WP:BCAST. -- Kethrus |talk to me 00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I removed all of the unsourced content from the page. Created an infobox (the page didn't have one), added sourced information from various reliable sources including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), linked the article with others via market and NPR California templates, and added a current logo for good measure. The article now more than meets WP:BCAST rules and standards, it's neutral, referenced, does not read like an advertisment and meets GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Neutralhomer: I agree, I'm currently looking into closing the AfD early now the article has been substantially improved. -- Kethrus |talk to me 01:44, 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. Consensus is neither PORNBIO or GNG are satisfied. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juelz Ventura[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guidelines along with WP:PORNBIO. Her scene awards do not satisfy the porn guidelines nor is the one music video appearance adequate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - Penthouse Pet, won of AVN Award (two times), ranked twenty third on Complex's "The Top 100 Hottest Porn Stars" 2011.... Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG with no significant RS coverage. Fails PORNBIO. Award wins are scene-related and they don't count. Penthouse Pets are not inherently notable. Getting listed on one of Complex magazine's lists of top porn stars doesn't establish notability either. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Subtropical-man.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 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 00:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had just written: Delete per: Notability of pornographic actors and models. (Which, if it were evenly applied to porn actor/actress articles across Wikipedia, would eliminate a couple thousand less notable than this one.). But the article is maintaining 250-ish views a day. It's clearly notable to some set of Wikipedia readers. Prburley (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have a couple of thousand porn star articles. At any rate, a house cleaning is in progress and other non-notable porn performers will be gotten to in due course. Finally, page views don't establish notability. Wikipedia is not a web host. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG as has not had significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Awards don't meet PORNBIO notability as they are scene based. Being a Penthouse Pet does not confer inherent notability nor does being on a list of 100 people on Complex. Number of hits on Wikipedia does not confer notability. Cowlibob (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/mike-mcculloch

[2] ttp://web.udl.es/usuaris/t4088454/ssd/

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_in_Physics

[4] Michael Korda married first wife Carolyn Keese in 1958, and had one child, Chris, leader of the Church of Euthanasia.

[5] ttp://www.discogs.com/artist/18625-Chris-Korda

[6] ttp://patents.justia.com/inventor/chris-korda

[7] Akmal Saleh and Joel Ozborn, a comic couple. The Daily Telegraph.

[8] Adelaide Fringe review 2015: Joel Ozborn – Be Here Now. The Advertiser.

[9] Joel Ozborn set to impress with his Sydney Comedy Festival show. The Daily Telegraph.

[10] "Joel Ozborn - Stand Out". theage.com.au.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]