Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 September	5 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Bomber Society[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 23:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. No significant independent sources on this group. Group advocates for FRINGE science. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets, WP:NONPROFIT. Can you specify and reference what you mean with, Group advocates for FRINGE science.? You seem to be the first to claim that this network of researchers advocates fringe science. prokaryotes (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with more authority references. prokaryotes (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is one (1) independent, reliable source (as far as I can tell at this point) and that is the SciDev article. Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question, also it seems that you have issue with counting. Notice that the editor removed reliable sources. prokaryotes (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

press releases are not reliable sources, nor are they independent. I already told you this, but look at the bottom of the phys.org source, where it says "Provided by: European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility". Press releases are not independent and not reliable beyond a claim about what the organization says about itself. It doesn't count toward NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, the Physorg source is used for the lede outline. However, you still do not respond in regards to your claims that ENSSER is a fringe group or why you removed reliable sources from the article. A dialog always includes 2 sides, so far you ignore my questions - in regards to serious accusations.prokaryotes (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prokaryotes. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. The fact that the group may advocate for fringe science (if Jytdog is correct) does not make the group non-notable nor prohibit its inclusion in Wikipedia. WP does not censor, nor do we limit inclusion to those groups which are politically correct. GregJackP Boomer! 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response above fails to deal with lack of independent sourcing, which is the first reason given. Smoke, not light. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes
Phys.org
Reason.com
Science 2.0
book 1
book 2
book 3
book 4, Ronald Bailey, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century 143 (2015).
book 5
book 6
book 7

I could go on. You really should have done WP:BEFORE. Smoke and light? Really? GregJackP Boomer! 18:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you have presented there are a bunch of passing mentions. Being good at press releases =/= NOTABILITY. And for the second time here, phys.org is a press release. What you value so much as "content creation" seems to have incredibly low standards and yes, I was already aware of these mentions. Most of them point out the FRINGE nature of the group, if you have bothered to read the sources you brought. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. The Forbes article talks about the organization and completely discredits any serious scientific chops it claims. The Phys.org is completely about ENSSER, and is not a PR. Reason spends the entire article refuting the position of ENSSER. It's positions are covered in the books listed, usually with a comment that ENSSER is wrong. That's GNG, and you don't get to censor things that you do not like. Screaming "FRINGE" does not mean you get to ban mention of notable groups from WP. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, at the bottom of the phys.org source it says it comes direct from ENSSER. That is the bulk of the content on phys.org - it publishes press releases and puts statements like that at the bottom. I am not censoring; there is a lack of sourcing giving significant discussion to this tiny advocacy organization. Jytdog (talk)

With regard to the Forbes source, that is written by Jon Entine. In all my work on GMOs, I never cite him, as he is a known advocate for GMOs. The GMO articles would look very different if I actually edited like you claim I do. I only use high quality, independent sources. And in this case, the only thing that comes close and that provides significant discussion is the SciDev piece. If this article is a "keep", this may be a case to cite Entine, since the whole article is about advocacy anyway. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book 4 link isn't working. prokaryotes (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organisation is presented in a paper that I found though google scholar and is found here. The second of the two editors seems to have done a range of other scholarly work presuming that this is the same person. Greg Kaye 17:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG, there needs to be independent reliable sources about the organization', not its members. There is exactly one. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The organization has received coverage from the Huffington Post, the Economist, and the LA Times, and other media outlets. The article meets WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GregJack's excellent research of numerous sources to counteract any disagreements. I'm a little confused as to why this was nominated when there is so much coverage that can be easily found.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as above, passing mentions are not useful for establishing NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, the articles cited here include more than "passing mentions" of this organization. For example, the GMO Journal article discusses the context of the group's advocacy in the larger GM food debate, and the Forbes article discusses the merits of the group's statements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GMO Journal site is a blog. The internet is full of blogs about GMOs. I never use them - they are not the kind of high quality sources we should use on controversial topics. There are probably many, many, many more similar sites that could be added as well; there is tons of anti-GMO advocacy on the web. GMOs are a science-based topic, not video games. Bringing those sources in would turn GMOs into Gamergate. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, that's a fair point — I shouldn't have brought in GMO Journal as a source. However, there are enough reliable sources that describe this group in sufficient depth and detail. You can see some of these sources in the section of the article about the group's activities, which I have recently expanded. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article clearly serves a useful purpose and has some credible sources behind it. I'll be the first to admit that it could be improved and expanded--so let's just do that, rather than delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garagepunk66 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 September 2015(UTC)

I just want to cite NOTABILITY here: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Where is the "significant independent coverage"? A bunch of passing mentions related to their PR around their claim that there is no consensus on the safety of GM food, doesn't cut it, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there are publications in the article (which Jytdog btw tried to remove), published in a peer reviewed journal. There is especially extensive coverage in regards to 1 of those publications. prokaryotes (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; although I do sympathise with Jytdog's comments I'm afraid arguments otherwise are prevalent and have greater weight. A cursory search has demonstrated this passes general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close with a trout for OP, as this organization has published articles whose inclusion OP is actively arguing against at Genetically modified foods, to no avail. It strikes me as bad form and a bit underhanded, this. The ENSSER published a paper which calls attention to the work done by OP at the GMO article. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above keeps, and as Petrachan47 points out, the OP is promoting an Afd that gives a strong suggestion of manipulation. My credulity is strained by this Afd, which appears to be part of an ongoing pattern. Jus da fax 06:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia requires 2 reliable sources at a minimum, and 3 if there is doubt. Can someone who votes keep please show the 2-3 sources which confirm WP:N? Only show 2-3 that pass.. I am ready to change my vote when someone shows those best sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 9 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. Now it's been up a week I kinda think it's a bit moronic to Speedy Keep however it's obvious BEFORE wasn't followed so should've been Speedied a week ago, Twister's found some good sources so I'm wrapping this up as a Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Zivoni[edit]

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

May not meet notability standards. Charlie the Pig (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Nominator makes no substantive arguments to support deletion and plainly has not complied with WP:BEFORE. Article makes plausible claims of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - That may be so and my searches found several results here and here so this will likely need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical commission[edit]

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

Incoherent Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I'd suggest the nominator add a little more information to their nomination in the future, my searches found nothing better FWIW. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poinsignon family[edit]

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

I'm unable to find sources about the Poinsignon family and any connection between different Poinsignons and whether they're linked to the subject family. The article also fails to identify its members by full names. TheGGoose (talk) 22:01, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject may be notable, in its current state it is very hard to identify the subject and find additional sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as details about this may be archived away or perished with time as the best results I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 10 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 Conker (series). Drmies (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conker characters[edit]

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT. Also, everything is unsourced. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But add verified WP:Citation for each character. This would be in the scope of WP:VG as there are lists of other prominent game series such as List of Donkey Kong characters which have been adopted by the project. Gaming4JC (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my keep votes for the Sly Cooper and Spyro character lists notwithstanding, I disagree that the Conker series is notable enough for WP:SPINOUT to be a valid argument. Especially considering that it consists of only two games and is based off Diddy Kong Racing, which itself isn't a well-known game Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, stronger merge similarly reasoned as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Spyro the Dragon, but less keepable as Satellizer points out that the Conker "series" is not really a series, with just one (NES) game and one (XBox) remake. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conker (series). Given that CBF and L&R are effectively the same game, a two-game series really doesn't need a separate list of characters. After trimming fancruft, this easily can fit into the Conker (series) page. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Satellizer and Masem, to the series article. (Which is hardly warranted itself, but even if that ever got deleted/redirected, the content could then just be merged into the respective game articles...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoozle[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing better than these links (there's no move target for this orphan) and I considered PRODing this but I wanted comments especially from past editors Mcmatter and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My only contribution was from 5 years ago and I tried to CSD it then, there have been no improvements and the article fails all notability thresholds.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks pretty non notable to me. I think a prod could have done the job too. I voted for software to be included in A7. But at that point it was not included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Rizzotto[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I don't read Latvian, but I checked out the sources with Google Translate.

The first source gives a brief rundown of his professional life, but does not assert any special notability; he is a member of several musician's guilds, but that does not make him notable. He's played several concerts, but ditto.

The second source is an interview of sorts, but again, I couldn't find anything that makes him inherently notable. I should note, though, that these *are* two independent, notable sources with significant coverage on him, which might let him squeak through WP:MUSICBIO.

The third source is his own webpage and can be disregarded.

Overall, I think a case could be made for notability, but I don't think he's quite there. Ashenai (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no case could be made for notability whatsoever. No extensive coverage, no criteria of WP:MUSIC fulfilled. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (feel free to draft & userfy) as my searches found nothing convincingly good to suggest better improvement here (probably the best results). SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 10 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sly Cooper characters[edit]

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT, with virtually no real world information to balance things out. Also, only five references are cited, all of which are far from reliable. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid WP:SPINOUT of the main game series article, split off to keep the main article of reasonable length. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk Gaming4JC (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Sly Cooper is most certainly a notable video game series and this is a WP:SPINOUT of that article. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similarly reasoned as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Spyro the Dragon. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of characters from a vg series is an appropriate spinout, though I agree cruft is a bit high here too. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a SPINOUT of a popular video game series. Do we need to say this multiple times? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 11:30, 6 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jak and Daxter characters[edit]

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT, with virtually no real world information to balance things out. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk Gaming4JC (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep similarly reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Spyro the Dragon. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate spinout for a vg series, and actually for a list of characters manages to avoid the typical pitfalls of fancruft. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a SPINOUT of a popular video game series. Do we need to say this multiple times? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 11:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A valid WP:SPINOUT of Jak and Daxter. That said, the article would benefit from copy editing to reduce overly intricate detail and to improve sourcing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/ˈkærət/ (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is new to me - a page that disambiguates phonetically. But I can't see the point of it - articles are not referenced phonetically; disambiguation pages exist to disambiguate clashes in written form. In any case, the three similar sounding words - carat, caret and carrot - all have disambiguation pages, and they all already reference each other. Nothing links to this new page, nor is there any conceivable way it would. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page is at /ˈkærət/ (disambiguation); it's peculiar form is making it difficult to link to. However, attempts to rename it failed because the names were on the title blacklist. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The normal dab pages all link to each other (well two were linked to Carrot, but are now linked to Carrot (disambiguation)). If you can figure out how to type this in, chances are pretty good you already know the information anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless, and just silly, who would type a phonetic descriptiuon in the search window? Kraxler (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone who heard it? Siuenti (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, heard it and converted it into a correct phonetic description and found the keys (Alt+... sequence) to type it in? Like Johann Sebastian Bach who heard a piece of polyphonic music and then off-hand wrote up perfectly the whole score for all instruments by memory? Hmmm... Kraxler (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were doing it, I'd find IPA for English and copy/paste from there. Siuenti (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This articles belongs in /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 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. Don't usually close on one !vote but MichaelQSchmidt's proven GNG is met and as he says being unreferenced isn't a reason to delete. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Short Film Festival[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 5 years with no evidence of of notability. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Being unsourced is a not a valid deletion rationale IF sources exist... and in looking I find numerous sources available which speak toward the festival in a more-than-trivial manner.[1][2] Time to improve, not delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:18, 5 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. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Boy (novel)[edit]

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

I can't find references to support the notability of this book. King-Smith is a popular and prolific author, but I don't think he meets the standard that anyhting he writes is likely to be inherently notable. The topic here has been completely unreferenced for more than five years, and consists only of an in-universe plot summary. Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick King-Smith, as my efforts to find reviews in reliable sources were markedly unsuccessful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Meets WP:NBOOK (4.The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country) as it appears on numerous school reading lists [3][4][5][6][7][8] and is taught in schools.[9][10] It has been used as one of the practice texts for the English Common Entrance Examination for year 6 students to move to senior school.[11] Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links 1, 3–7 (link 2 is giving me a 404 error): I think just because it appears in a recommended reading list does not mean it is actually the subject of instruction at a school. No one needs to read or examine the book just because it appears on the list. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added two reviews I found in the article. I also found two potential reviews using Google Books, although I can't access their content: [12], [13]. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reviews of the book (Booklist, Kirkus, School Library Journal). The "Emergency Librarian" link is not a review, it's a list of books in which this is one. That it is on school reading lists is interesting but doesn't confer notability. The "subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance. For a children's/young adult book I would expect at least Kirkus and SLJ. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/reply sorry about st margarets prep link, i can't get it to go to the reading list now (it has been removed). Regarding a book appearing in school reading lists and whether that means they are studied, i don't know about other editors but with the school i attended, students were expected to read at least the minimum number of books, from the list, usually 2 or 3 for the short inter-term breaks and more for the summer (end-of-year) holidays. On return to school our teacher(s) then gave lessons based on the books read, with the students who had read the book giving a report (when we had been provided with a large reading list to choose from, teacher would conduct a 'vote' to decide which books we would study, it was fun forming a voting bloc with friends to ensure our favorite book(s) from the lists were chosen.) That is why i have included these reading lists.

With regards to not appearing in kirkus, pw and slj, as these are US reviewers, a lot of english child/ya authors may not be covered by them ("but coolabah, they have reviewed a lot of king-smith's books, just not this non-notable one." - Drat!!!:))

As for ""subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance.", as more experienced editors, could you please provide a wikilink to the discussion that covers this as i have been unable to find this in the WP:NBOOK talkpage (including its archives).

In addition, Warning humor alert!(?), i don't think many 5 or 6 year olds attend "literature class" or "discuss Moby Dick", although i did find this slj review of an adaption - "Youngsters may come away with a barebones skeleton of Melville's classic tale, but the meat, and indeed the heart, of the story remain unfathomable to this audience.ALuann Toth, School Library Journal".[14] (sorry don't have slj access so had to use amazon).

Of course, i will probably defer eventually(?)(with much gritting of teeth and sheathing of claws.....

).

ps. you haven't really addressed the two references about it being taught in schools and being used for year 6 ceestudy, these alone should bring it over the notability line.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually nothing in this article ABOUT the book aside from the summary of the plot. See: Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Articles_that_are_plot_summaries. That is, there are only two short statements by third parties about the book. I don't see evidence that it is "taught in schools" - which isn't the same as being on reading lists. And, yes, there is an extract (about one page) in the CEE document, but that document includes extracts from about two dozen works. Not itself enough for notability, IMO. It suffices that the author has a page here, and that lists his books. I note that there are other books by this author (e.g. The_Queen's_Nose) that have WP pages that are not appropriately referenced. (That one has only one third-party reference, although it may pass GNG because of the TV show.) LaMona (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou LaMona for explaining things (i thought i was on a slippery slope:)), have changed to ~~Delete~~, agree that the article would need to have stronger references to be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a review. Shirley Lewis is expressing an opinion about the book, hence she's reviewing it. Being part of a list doesn't preclude it from being a review. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single sentence. So whether or not it is a review is moot - a single sentence is not sufficient to establish notability. LaMona (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added three more reviews, all of which are non-trivial, to the article. The Junior Bookshelf review article is 303 words long, the Magpies review article is 248 words, and the Books for Your Children review article is 112 words. I've really got to thank my university for their large collection of online databases. If anyone wants to see the reviews, I can send an email with their content. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to the additional reviews by @Fearstreetsaga: I am definitely favouring keep, and seeing the value of the additional sources. Sadads (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have struck out my delete as article now appears to have strong enough citations to keep (but as not online they are difficult to verify, although this does not reduce their notableness(?)) :)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed VEVO videos[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article appears to extend from List of most viewed YouTube videos, but only using videos that are on the VEVO service (which by the licensing between VEVO and YouTube , will end up on YouTube within a few days). PAtterns of behavior at the YouTube list show the frequent push of IPs and infrequent editors to push specific videos up the list as soon as positions change instead of at the ~5 day interval the list is updated with. This feels like a means to get around the enforcement of that 5 day interval and still promote favorite videos. In addition, while I can readily find sources (beyond YouTube) that show interest in tracking the most watched YT videos, that's not the case with VEVO, and I would believe this is due to the fact that nearly everyone associates VEVO with YouTube. MASEM (t) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~. ~~The nominator explained why, and I agree with him. A list for YouTube is fine, but not for VEVO.~~ Merge to Vevo article. TVShowFan122 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with both of you guys.

Reasons why this article should not be deleted:

I worked for 4 long, hard hours making this.
I was not tracking, i found the resources.
Not everyone associates VEVO with YouTube.
TVShowFan122, there is already an article on the most viewed YouTube videos so I decided to make something different.

Randomstuff207 w (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Randomstuff207 w, I know there is a list for YouTube, I frequently edit it. However, while I believe the article on Vevo should stay on Wikipedia, a specific article on its most viewed videos is just not needed. Maybe make it a section of the Vevo article then? TVShowFan122 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not all the viral YouTube videos are on Vevo: Gangnam Style isn't - nor is Charlie bit my finger, or Wheels on the Bus. Unreal7 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is a different subset of videos, my basic point is that we can point to third-party sources that show interest in tracking the top YT video, but nothing of the same ilk for Vevo. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: VEVO and YouTube are separate sites, the view counts for VEVO and YouTube are different and not all YouTtube videos are on VEVO. MLA2000 (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram and Bashir[edit]

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

This orphaned article doesn't have much information and has stayed the same since May 2007, and my searches found nothing good with one of the best links being Allmusic. At best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere (but the only linking article is "List of Kurds") as they aren't independently notable, also considering they only ever released one album. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as insufficiently notable musicians. Both fail GNG. Quis separabit? 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except by accident, we have no practical way of finding sources for topics like this. If the original editor doesn't give them, we're stuck. The article was added in May2007, and May 2007 was when it should have been dealt with. Instead, various editors have been doing touch-ups, without looking at the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:gng Pokerkiller (talk) 21:20, 10 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 clear. One keep argument argues there's sourcing, but this point is disagreed with. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Arnet[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose most substantive claims of notability are as the executive director of an organization of exclusively local notability, as a former member of a school board, and as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election to the state legislature. All of the reliable sourcing here is sitting on the latter two claims, both of which fail to satisfy WP:NPOL — school board trustees don't get articles just for being school board trustees, and candidates for office don't get articles just for being candidates. Which means that her eligibility for a Wikipedia article rests entirely on "executive director of the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania", but that claim is supported exclusively by primary sources that cannot contribute toward deeming her notable, with not a single citation in the entire article to a reliable and independent source that's covering her in that context. While this was kept in an earlier AFD discussion in 2008, Wikipedia's sourcing and notability rules are very different now than they were at that time — we're a lot stricter now (especially when it comes to a WP:BLP) about what constitutes legitimate sourcing and what is or isn't a suitable claim of notability, and this doesn't meet 2015-vintage content standards. I'm willing to withdraw this if reliable sourcing can be piled properly onto her directorship of a non-profit organization, but if that can't be done then she has to win the state-level election later this year before she's eligible for an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if things change in the future. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article has much cruft, needs more references, and needs severe pruning. Sources can be found here. Meets the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purely local coverage of her in the context of either the school board or her candidacy for an office she doesn't hold yet doesn't count toward WP:GNG at all — it falls under WP:ROUTINE, because all school board trustees and all candidates for office always generate local coverage. So such coverage does not demonstrate notability — for coverage of a school board trustee or a non-elected candidate for higher office to flip from ROUTINE to GNG, it has to nationalize or internationalize. The only ways she can get over GNG are to either (a) have generated coverage specifically in the context of her directorship of the Women and Girls Foundation, or (b) win the state senate seat when that election happens. But A hasn't been demonstrated here, and B is still in the future and thus can't be met today without violating WP:CRYSTAL. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a host for election campaigns, so far only very strictly local coverage, and quite trivial Kraxler (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:bio, all news coverage is trivial and local in nature. Pokerkiller (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN at this time. Could have been redirected to an article about the 2016 Pennsylvania elections, but such an article does not appear to exist yet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete after stubbing. Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was subject to a deletion discussion in February 2014, which attracted very little participation, and was closed as "no consensus", but there were really no arguments for keeping which stand up to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; the creator of the article and an IP editor both claimed notability on the basis of the recording being on a notable label, but notability is not inherited from association with a notable company. Neither in the article's cited sources nor anywhere else that I have seen is there any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - those sources are ... borderline at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now keep per Torchiest. Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to be WP:RS, they are simply blogs, wordpress sites, event listings or fan made sites with no editorial oversight. Me5000 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think a couple of the current sources are decent, and I've found the following additional sources:
That last source is more about Jim Semonik, who appears notable enough to have his own article. A few other options would be to create that article and redirect this to it, or create a single new article for the entire series, rather than trying to have separate articles for each volume. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last option, I suggest - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiest, David Gerard, I just wrote up the worst stub in the world using three of the listed sources. Let me know what you all think. JamesBWatson, Me5000, you too--I'm inclined to close this as merge if that's cool with y'all. Oh, please improve the article while you're at it. :) Drmies (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Ozawa[edit]

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

Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable, famous, popular, historical figure in that Japanese industry...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And reliable sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with the following Chinese sources: [15], [16], as well as the Japan Sugoi source cited in the article. The article is well-referenced to sources such as JMDB for information about filmography. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us what the hinews.cn article is about and how the source meets RS? Its in Mandarin, were you able to read it before citing it authoritatively as an RS?
- JMDB isn't a RS and it damages your assessment of the sourcing to assert that it is.
- Please tell me how this from Japan Sugoi is a RS or sufficient to pass GNG. It has no by-line and doesn't look like a proper RS. In fact, the site runs on wordpress and is licensed under t CC-SA 3.0 which almost certainly means its a personal website.
- Taipai Times is already there and might be one source but you need multiple sources to pass GNG
- So, in summary, one possible source and that's it unless you can explain the hinews.cn one better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hinews source says that she was active in the industry from 1997 to 2004 and that she starred in some classic Hong Kong Category III (mainstream) films. (WP:PORNBIO #3 may apply.) It also has some cruft about her appearance and demeanor, and calls her "Ai Iijima's successor." Then there's some praise of her acting skill. It concludes by mentioning that she became a professional writer after her retirement from pornography.
JMDB is perfectly fine for basic filmography information. I wasn't claiming it should count toward notability.
You are right about Japan Sugoi. My mistake. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, and the sources in the article and posted here appear to be tabloid pieces, not in-depth coverage, thus also fails GNG. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammy1339. While most of the current references appear to be primary sources, both Hainan Daily and Taipei Times are reliable secondary sources and the relevant articles are non-tabloidesque, significant coverage, enough for a claim of notability and also enough to start building a decent start-class article. Also possibly passes PORNBIO#3 per Sammy1339's analysis. Cavarrone 19:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a much closer case than usual, but ultimately the RS coverage just isn't sufficient. The Taipei Times piece can't be dismissed out of hand, but it's more about her agent's efforts to generate publicity than the subject herself, and contains little or no significant biographical content. In the absence of a solid claim that the subject at least approaches PORNBIO requirements, and given that none of the supposed next career steps mentioned in the Taipei Times piece seem to have panned out, I don't think the case for notability has been made. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Times article mentions her agent, but indeed it is 100% about Ozawa. Among other things, the article refers to "the phenomenon that a former porn star from Japan could create such huge buzz among Taiwanese audiences and whether there is a change in social values about sex", her "tremendous popularity" and her "received overwhelming public adulation and huge media coverage" which suggests more coverage is available in native language. This article alone is a solid claim of notability for the subject IMO. Cavarrone 17:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But where is there any other evidence of that "huge media coverage"? I don't even see any other coverage in Taipei Times. This isn't the sort of article where notability is based on a single potentially reliable source, when that source makes claims that should be easy to corroborate -- but aren't. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are hard because we are talking about Taiwanese news sources (not the easier to find and check) and because the article is not a week old but dates back to 2003! Yet the article underlines the media coverage even in the summary "... a string of public appearances that won her massive media coverage..." to the point of questioning a professor at the National Central University "whether there is a change in social values about sex". Except Ozawa's agent is so powerful to force then Magistrate Lee Chu-feng to publicly welcome the actress' visit and to declare her presence could boost tourism on his region, I see some notability here. And on the other hand, Hainan Daily is fine in explaining why she is not just a random adult actress but one of the notable ones. Cavarrone 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe" not. The China Post has online archives going back to the relevant data, and it doesn't turn up any result for the article subject's name. Same for Taiwan News. The Hainan Daily piece is just standard website clickbait, and is so superficial that just about its only biographical content is that, after she retired from porn she started a blog. There's just not enough here to support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not or maybe yes. Online archives are often incomplete, I know it because I regularly use online archives of news sources like Variety or Corriere della Sera and they go back even older, but the older you go less things you'll find. Eg. searching for a very common word such as "actress" in a January 2003-January 2004 period, The China Post returnes only 42 matches while the word "film" gives only 68 results, i.e. irrealistic numbers for a complete archive. To make a comparison, if you makes the same search for the year 2014, you'll find 284 matches for "actress" and 783 matches for "film". Taiwan News is apparently even worst, over the same period of time it gives exactly 0 matches for both the words. I am not saying I am nearly certain these newspapers covered the actress back in 2003, but I am reasonably certain the Taipei Times piece is not deceptive when writing about Ozawa's media impact. About Hainan Daily, if the above Sammy1339's summary is correct, it says more than the blog thing. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree this time (while I think both of us agree it's a borderline case). Cavarrone 05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right about that but the reason why on-line databases get weaker with age is that the people uploading to digital conentrate on the stuff that is really important. So not making the cut probably supports the deletion case. I respect the view you have put forward but have you considered that this is a BLP and that we are expected to retain on evidence of sources not the difficulty of finding old ones. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Kapdi[edit]

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

The best results my searches found were this and this so I'm not entirely sure if he's solidly independently notable (article has existed since October 2008 with hardly any further improvement). SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too vaguely written and lacking in sources even to be verifiable let alone to pass notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO. I found these two; [17] - short news article about his involvement in educational awareness campaign and this [18] - A Ten Year Plan For the Total Education of Indian Muslims which is about a lecture he gave at an education conference he was involved with, but a lot more is required. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 11 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. Regarding redirect, the person who removed the redirect and expanded the article indicated that the two terms Shanku and Shankha do not mean the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanku[edit]

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

This page has zero sources listed and no other reliable sources that I can find. Without any reputable secondary sources, it should not exist on Wikipedia. BurritoSlayer (talk) 18:44, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not even able to conclusively confirm that a 4th-century government minister named "Shanku" even existed. It should be rather easy to at least verify the existence of someone who was purportedly so important. Therefore, a seemingly obscure person whose very existence is difficult to confirm (using reliable sources) certainly fails GNG. --Biblioworm 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but, BurritoSlayer (I find that username amusing, BTW) and Biblioworm, what about restoring the original redirect instead of simply deleting? (I'm not familiar with Shankha but I'm assuming it's still a plausible search term) SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 10 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Spyro the Dragon[edit]

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT, with virtually no real world information to balance things out. Also, only four references are cited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk Gaming4JC (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate WP:SPINOUT for notable game series. Deficiency of sources and excessive fancruft is not adequate to amount to deletion here when they are fixable with trimming and reinforcing citation, and in my uninitiated (towards classic PlayStation franchises) opinion it is in an acceptable place. Similar arguments can be (and have been, by others) made at the same nom's other AfDs for Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and Conker series character lists. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Spyro the Dragon is most certainly a notable video game series and this is a WP:SPINOUT of that article. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate spinout of long-running game series. Does have some fancruft problems but that's fixable. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. I agree with the spinout claimed by the other supporters of this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a SPINOUT of a popular video game series. Do we need to say this multiple times? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 11:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Annie Pope[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. This is the only non-trivial mention in a reliable source, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR standards of notability. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Krishna[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Subject fails WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR with only trivial/no mention in cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional article about a non-notable actress, undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 02:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 10 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, nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unto the Dusk[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Film fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, and is only mentioned in passing as example of recent independent films in the three cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Sajin Baabu" "Unto the Dusk"

Keep per meeting WP:NF. Issues with failings of its authors aside, the film itself is covered and more more thoroughly in sources not being used, and thus the topic merits inclusion. For examples, we have Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express (1), New Indian Express (2), New Indian Express (3), The Hindu, and others. Shame on the COI and sockfarm, but under WP:NRVE we have no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Deal with the bad guys, fine... but save and expand the notable topic accordingly, for our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Thanks for finding the sources User:MichaelQSchmidt. Can you update/clean-up the article with the sources you found? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just got home, but will be happy to do so. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Duracell[edit]

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

This article seems to fail all notability requirements - the claims of notability are all underwhelming (worked on non-notable radio stations; placed at 4th and 57th in two polls conducted by non-notable organisations; released a white-label test-pressing record which charted on a non-notable single store chart; formed a partnership with a non-notable brand) and, critically, I can find nothing in reliable third-party sources about her. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Underwhelming is a matter of opinion; I didn't see underwhelming in the guidelines.

Click the "books" tab, she has been written about.

If HMV is non-notable; why does it have its own Wikipedia page?

If the 4th place poll position was from a non-notable organisation, why was it mentioned in the guardian? http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/dec/09/10-classic-club-nights

and why did the no1 uk garage DJ collect his award?.

I would like a little more info before you delete, and it gets recreated.

Yas at NewMatter (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails general notability and WP:MUSIC. Searches for "Lady Duracell" returned almost no results; searches for "Queen of Funk" return results about other people. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can't really judge re. notability rules, but there is a definite new-establishment bias to all this, as there is with Wikipedia's coverage of pop and rock music generally. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? We look at print sources as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:48, 11 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) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rind (Baloch tribe)[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found sources. Brustopher (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination thanks to Brustopher's hard work convincing me. Thank you. Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unni Maya (singer)[edit]

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

Not convinced that this singer is notable; note that playback singers are effectively in the background (as they create background music). None of the sources are actually about her. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. The sources in the article are all poor quality; some don't even mention the subject (eg, ibtimes); and even the best of the bunch, is this article in a local supplement of the Indian Express newspaper that only talks of her as one of the city school-kids who did well at a inter-school cultural festival. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Two of the films in her filmography have wikipedia articles created by the same set of editors, and the articles are currently nominated for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Abecedare. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems only to be a backgruond singer, thus without notability. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While I don't believe this singer is notable enough yet, playback singers in South Asian cinema are generally both notable and famous (most are much better known than the corresponding film directors), receiving attention from both film and popular music fans. See Lata Mangeshkar for one of the more prominent example; wikipedia has articles for several hundred more. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aakashvani (film)[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. None of the cited sources are reliable, and as an upcoming movie the subject fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Aakashvani film" "Khais Millen" "Vijay Babu" "Kavya Madhavan"

Soft delete until filming is confirmed. Article's current sourcing is irrelevant and addressable when WP:BEFORE finds the topic spoken of in more-than-trivial detail in reliable sources. As soon as we have filming confirmed, the topic should be welcomed back and expanded accordingly per proper sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:30, 6 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheStart[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was previously deleted following a PROD, and then re-created, so I am bringing it here for discussion. The cited references are: a page at allmusic, a page on the web site of a company publishing the band's records, a dead link, and a page on a web site which allows "user-contributed text". I have not found any other evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing needs improvement, but they've released several albums under three notable independent labels. (WP:BAND, #5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanzzibar (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I also considered weak keep but the main issue is there's no good third-party coverage and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The group has coverage from sources such as Allmusic, and it seems to be notable enough. Their 2004 release was even highlighted by the music publication as an 'Album Pick'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to a lot on allmusic there is

Mauet, Sarah (15 December 2005), "TheStart help jump start new wave revival", The Arizona Daily Star

Thorne, Evan (12 April 2002), "Aimee Echo the highlight on The Start's 'Shakedown!'", Chicago Daily Herald

Iwasaki, Scott (2 November 2001), "Fresh start suits Start just fine", Deseret News

and a short review in

"Not quite the beginning", Mosman Daily, 19 February 2004

Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 10 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. Copyvio. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COSMOLOGY. DIFFERENCES AND HYERARCHY OF INFINITE SETS BY THE EXAMPLE OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPACES AND SOME RELATIONS OF THESE SPACES, AND A BIT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. PROD removed by article creator. Everymorning (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:14, 4 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 23:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India as an emerging superpower[edit]

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

This article reads like an essay. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 16:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article mostly presents referenced facts, the perceived essayness of the article is something that can be dealt with by editing and is thus not good grounds for deletion. The subject itself is easily shown to be notable, there are many books on the subject;

At least two books consist of collections of scholarly papers on the subject;

India as an Emerging Super Power: Possibilities and Obstacles (may be self published)
India's Human Security: Lost Debates, Forgotten People, Intractable Challenges (papers from a conference titled Invisible India: Hidden Risks within an Emerging Superpower)

More scholarly interest in the subject can be found;

"A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of India as an Emerging World Power", India Review
"The emerging role of India in international business", Business Horizons ("The sweeping reforms promise to make India an economic superpower")

Far from deleting this, we should be asking ourselves why has it taken until now to post such an article? SpinningSpark 22:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ultimately, the topic passes WP:N, and concerns about essay-like content can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 5 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, nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palakkattu Madhavan[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. This article cites no independent reliable source, and given that it was created the editors involved, I don't believe any such source exists. Article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, instead of assuming a source doesn't exist because of a users supposed COI, you could have a look for the source yourself and remove all doubt. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Palakkattu Madhavan" "M Chandramohan" "Kuruvanna Basheer" Vivekh "Sonia Agarwal"

STRONG Keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. Sorry Abecedare... but my own due diligence shows the topic has lots of coverage in reliable sources. I quickly found Sify, Times of India, International Business Times (1), Bangalore Mirror, Deccan Chronicle, International Business Times (2), and many others. Sheesh... please look first, dude. The article currently lacking decent sourcing through a possible or intentional ineptitude of its author(s) is correctable. We might punish the socks, but we do not punish our readers when dealing with misguided contributors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Thanks for finding the sources User:MichaelQSchmidt. The film indeed seems notable enough. Would you mind adding the sources you found to the article? A side note: this is not a simple case of misguided or socking editors; but of undisclosed paid advocacy. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just got home, but will be happy to do so. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobutaka Shinomiya[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Consensus from previous AfDs shows that ambassadors are not inherently notable. All I could find was one article in Portuguese and another in Spanish merely confirming he's an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with caveat Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Sources in article contain only bare mentions or are not independent. I will reconsider if some independent coverage for his awards can be found. While the awards may allow him to pass WP:ANYBIO passing a specific notability criteria allows but does not require an article to be kept. There must be enough other coverage to justify and sustain an article and in this case there does not appear to be. Jbh ^Talk 13:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Also note that there is an article on the Spanish award, including a list of recipients. Shinomiya is not on the list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smrithi[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with direct conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report. This article cites no independent reliable source, and given that it was created by editors involved with the movie, I don't believe any such source exists. Article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination and WP:GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Delete Sorry, but the nominators' empty statement "I don't believe any such source exists" is meaningless when due diligence find the topic is sourcable... however, what is a pertinent issue is that it simply does not have enough available to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:11, 6 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 as a recreation of a previously deleted article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilize (film)[edit]

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

This seems to be a film promoting anti-cellphone nonsense. It has only one source, which is actually just the trailer. And the trailer starts with an impassioned piece to camera, apparently presented as a factual news report - the presenter is Stephen Colbert. The makers seemingly got trolled. It claims many notable "stars" but on inspection this turns out to be mainly archive footage. There's no real evidence of any importance at all. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 16:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been to AfD before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation, and was part of an organized campaign to add Kevin Kunze to Wikipedia. I'll compare the two versions and see if anything new was added. I knew that this film seemed familiar. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it was moved to the userspace at this AfD, where it was called "Disconnect". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have anything new and it actually looks like this was an attempt to get around the deletion of the article's deletion last year. I'll speedy this and salt both entries. The original editor has already been blocked for copyvio issues, otherwise I'd warn them against pulling this cheap trick. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Nepal Remittance Facility Scheme[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Current article has two references, both to banking sites which simply explain the procedure. The procedure exists, but a News search turned up zero. Other searches turn up hits, since it is a term, but nothing substantial to denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. At first I thought that maybe this could be merged to India-Nepal relations, but on second thought it does not seem important enough even for that.--Staberinde (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose unless it can actually mentioned elsewhere as my searches found nothing explicitly better aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greece in the OGAE Song Contest[edit]

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

There is no such event as the OGAE Song Contest. The only OGAE event in existence are OGAE Second Chance Contest and OGAE Video Contest, neither of which has Greece ever won, nor entered with the suggested participants that the nominated article is suggesting. 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 contest or country articles per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:N. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (engage) @ 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fabricated article. I am Greek and I never even heard of such a contest. Dimadick (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it is a good faith mistake by the creator. Anyway, not notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 6 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 Space Elevator. There's no clear consensus here for any specific action, but looking at it from the other direction, if there is consensus for anything, it's for "do not delete".

From a headcount point of view, there's support for either keep or merge, but (with the exception of DGG, who makes a reasonable point), all of the keep supporters are essentially saying WP:ILIKEIT, and the references produced don't appear to meet our guidelines. Even the proposer suggested that a merge might be the right thing, and one of the remaining keeps is just what he said, where the referent has in turn changed their opinion from keep to merge. So, it seems the consensus, such as it is, is for merge.

But that gets us down to what the merge target should be. Both Space Elevator and Space elevator competitions were mentioned. I don't see any strong argument favoring one over the other, so I'll just leave it up to whoever completes the merge to use their best judgement (which might be a combination of the two). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Elevator Consortium[edit]

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

Not notable. Tagged for notability a while ago, but tag was removed without providing evidence. A search turns up our article Space elevator competitions so probably merge into that. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ORG due to the following reliable sources: Pacific Standard CNN CNBC Space.com Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC) I have changed my mind and now think that a merge as proposed by RockMagnetist would be better, the coverage of this organization does not appear to meet ORGDEPTH. Everymorning (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Everymorning says. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I improved the article after attending the 2015 conference in Seattle at the Museum of Flight. I was impressed by the technical sophistication of the material presented there (My qualifications are that I'm an inventor with over 30 patents granted and a Principal Engineer in a very large and well-know software organization). I met people who had traveled from Japan and Europe to attend, people who currently have positions in reputable and well-known space agencies, and notable inventors and authors.

Isecscribe (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with space elevator. None of the sources meet the depth of coverage criterion for WP:ORG. For example, several sources simply include the Consortium as part of a list. Putting together the four sources mentioned by @Everymorning, all we can learn about the Consortium is that it has an annual meeting and its president is Peter Swain. The articles mainly cover the subject of space elevators, so why not merge? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument convincing and so have struck out my previous !vote. Everymorning (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Keep. Notability is a requirement for the subject. It's not a measure of how well an article conveys that notability. When an article on a notable subject doesn't convey that notability well, the fix is to improve it so the notability is conveyed better. ISEC is absolutely notable. They are the center of the space elevator world. They make it all happen. In the modern era (post Edwards, post X-Prize), they are the keepers of the very definition of what a space elevator is. They're actively engaged in improving all aspects of design. They coordinate efforts of people all around the globe. No-way, no-how should ISEC be deleted for notability. Neither should it be merged, because ISEC is a separate and separately notable subject. Skyway (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thing I forgot to mention in my vote was that I searched diligently for better sources and couldn't find any (and clearly @Everymorning did some searching as well). Anyone claiming that the subject is notable should produce the sources. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done! It's just a stub article, but it has twelve(!) sources. Some of them support other stated facts and don't add to the showing of notability, but a bunch of them do support notability. You should have searched on the page itself. Your own failures and inabilities are not a reflection on the notability of any subject. :-) Skyway (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning toward keep) - The existing refs are hopeless - all blogs, self published, or infotainment. In its current state it fails to demonstrate notability through reliable secondary sources. That said, a google news search turns up plenty of hits, several of which seem fairly decent. While none of them appear to be explicitly about ISEC, many quote extensively from ISEC, and some have done interviews with representatives of ISEC (this one from CNBC is fairly good]. This suggests ISEC is considered an authority on space elevator construction/economics. Does that make ISEC notable? As a moderate WP:inclusionist, I'm inclined to say yes. Definitely needs to be tagged with refimprove though.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeti Hunter: Your search is the same one we have all done, and some of the sources (including the CNBC one) have already been discussed. Most of them would be useful sources for Space elevator, but only use the head of the International Space Elevator Consortium as a source for a quote - one of the examples of trivial coverage that are explicitly mentioned in WP:ORGDEPTH. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist:, apologies, I failed to check Everymorning's struck-out refs before doing my own search. WP:ORGDEPTH defines trivial mentions as, for example, a list of meeting times or sporting results, or (relevantly for this discussion) simply identifying a quoted person as belonging to the organisation. Several of these sources (CNBC, Space.com, possibly CNN) are more than mere mentioning, and describe what the ISEC is and what it does. Not much more, I'll grant, but it counts as a non-trivial mention, which gets it over the line of WP:GNG. ORGDEPTH defers to GNG.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still have my doubts. For example, the relevant text in the CNBC article says

That's the goal of the International Space Elevator Consortium, a group of scientists, aerospace engineers and other big thinkers devoted to the development of "inexpensive, safe, routine and efficient access to space." They believe the answer lies in suspending a very long—and very strong—elevator cable from the surface of the Earth to a point thousands of miles in space.

Which is just a long-winded way of saying that the International Space Elevator Consortium is devoted to developing a space elevator. This CNN article has just a bare mention - is there another one? However, there is good coverage of some of their conferences, like this Space.com article. Maybe that's enough. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by definition: few if any of the citations are to conventionally defined reliable sources. Basically, the argument is that it is notable because they say that it is notable. 77.99.195.233 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the definition. Saying "it's notable" isn't at all the same as saying "the article adequately demonstrates the subject's notability". All notable subjects are notable in-and-of-themselves, and saying "it's notable" is never intended to be the proof, it's simply talking about the subject's notability. Again, it's the subject that must be notable. It's the article that must (eventually) give evidence of notability. But if an article doesn't do that yet, it doesn't at all mean the subject isn't notable "by definition". If a subject is notable for continued inclusion, it's just a matter of whether the article's included references are strong enough for the article to demonstrate the subject's notability (as our refs indeed are). In fact, an article doesn't even need to give evidence of the subject's notability, there only needs to be the expectation that strong enough supporting refs can be found! Skyway (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have just undone a NACD. Please can any no-admins leave this to an admin to close. I have relisted because the close is clearly contentious and it would be good to get a better consensus.This looks like a merge so far but further discussion of the nature and depth of sourcing against GNG would make the outcome more explicit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyway, it would be more helpful if could link to specific sources that you feel establish the verifiable notability of the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyway: Skyway, the refs currently in the article are NOT good enough. The general notability guideline requires more than blogs, self published sources and trivial mentions. Most editors here have attempted to find better, reliable refs. Some have been found which lend support to notability, but it remains a borderline case. Your argument boils down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES - I tend to agree in this case, but it is not my or anyone else's job to track down better sources for interested editors. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Yes. It is a judgement call as to whether an article's current sources are adequate to demonstrate a subject's notability. I can give you that. Although, the requirement for includability is that the subject be notable, not that its article demonstrate it. I only offer the idea (that the current sources are adequate) as an extra-added-bonus on top of the already good notability of the subject, which is the only actual requirement. It does certainly help if some sources in an article are good for demonstrating notability. I happen to think they do that well. Even if they don't however, it's quite permissible to allow for better sources to be found and added in due course. Skyway (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyway: you are relatively new to deletion debates, and you need to understand how they work. It's true that the article does not have to demonstrate notability, but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, and in an AfD you need to demonstrate that those sources exist. Your arguments for notability are based on your understanding of the importance of the organization, and you may be right; but in this forum you need to prove it with sources. And those sources need to be reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage (please read Identifying reliable sources carefully). A few of us have tried to find those sources and have not succeeded. So unless you can get more specific and show us what sources establish reliability and how, your arguments will carry no weight with the closing admin. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? What "closing admin"? This is just an excuse for you to go round-and-around. There's no upswell to delete at all. This effort had to be "relisted" twice to get anyone else to care, and even then few care, and nobody was recruited the second time. The subject has always been plenty notable enough, and even though it's not strictly necessary, the article has quite a few good independent notability-demonstrating sources that have been listed for some time. Even more have been mentioned on this page. Skyway (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YH, you may be overstating our resistance to blogs as a source. "Blog" is a publishing format; that it is used most frequently for self-published material does not bar us from including other blogs. We freely accept blogs from major news sources. So if you're applying the concern to space.com, we need to look at whether it's self-published (it's not), whether it has editorial oversight (I wasn't able to quickly find it, but knowing the publisher, probably) and whether it's a source of significance (quite possibly.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a close call to me. If it is accepted as a reliable source, does an article about a conference hosted by ISEC count as an article about ISEC itself or about the ideas that were discussed in the conference? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one example of news organizations relying on ISEC. I added the numerous examples of that mentioned here (in the AfD) to the article. Skyway (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's not necessary to answer this question if the article is merged. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Space Elevator would be off-topic for that article. Skyway (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References Supporting Notability: This is a list that Skyway (talk · contribs) had added to the article. Since the goal of the article is to convey information about the subject and not to defend the article, and since sources used to establish notability, I am moving the list here, so that they may be considered in this discussion.

http://www.space.com/27225-space-elevator-technology.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/10/tech/innovation/space-elevator-nanotechnology/
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/ready-for-a-ride-on-a-space-elevator.html
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/08/26/space-elevator-distant-reality/
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/people-are-serious-about-building-a-space-elevator
http://blog.nss.org/nss-links-up-with-the-international-space-elevator-consortium/
http://lineshapespace.com/carbon-nanotube-applications/

--Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having now looked at these sources: they are passing mentions (single sentences in lineshapespace, bigthink, three sentences at CNBC, two sentences at CNN just citing them as a source for information, and actually zero sentences for the group in The Watcher, although the conference gets a one-sentence mention), affiliated organizations (indeed, the nss source is an announcement of the affiliation)), and the space.com piece - a piece covering the conference written by someone who manages not to mention that he was the keynote speaker at that conference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Organizations interested in a subject should not in general be merged with the subject, unless they are essentially the only one interested, and the project described by the subject is essentially a project by the organization. It seems that the interest in Space elevators is considerably broader than just this one society, so the article should be kept, separately. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)`[reply]

@DGG: Are you quoting a policy or guideline? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving my opinion about what is the normal practice at AfD on many topics over many years,. To the extent it's consistent., it has the practical effect of a guideline. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if the organization is not notable, that means it should be deleted. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what's relevant to Space Elevator and Space Elevator competitions which is what they seem to be most known for. I was actually torn on this one, similar to ?NatGertler? above, I found a lot of passing mentions but then they are used as the source of expertise, hold the conference etc so they seemed to be noteworthy if not WP:Notable. Looking at WP:ORG and the depth of coverage section, these mentions fall squarely within un-notable groups. SPACKlick (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated above, the group's efforts have been covered in reliable sources such as CNBC (here's the link again) and others (one I don't think that's yet been mentioned above is International Business Times, here). It's not just like they're mentioned in passing within only once sentence either. This article should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned in just two sentences in the International Business Times source, both just to describe them as a source for a given piece of information; they are mentioned in three sentences in the CNBC source, one of which is just to identify a person being quoted. So no, those sources don't have depth of information about the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeWithMarkets: Yes, the content of the CNBC source was mentioned above and its coverage was discussed above in detail. If you are going to claim that the source provides adequate coverage, it would be more useful if you said what was wrong with that analysis. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather pointless to hound every single person that posts in a deletion discussion to whom you happen to disagree with, nor is it constructive to make personal attacks against them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am questioning your reasoning, not "hounding" you or making personal attacks. I just see a lack of engagement in this discussion - people talking past each other instead of trying to clearly define what constitutes "substantial coverage". I would rather be proved wrong than ignored. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - weak because I keep thinking that the source is going to be found. It all seems to qualify as passing mentions, except for the space.com source, which I thought was going to be the thing that saved this... until I realized that it was not an unaffiliated source, but rather an article by the conference's keynote speaker. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article fails WP:N because it has no independent, third party sources. Quality over quantity! 12 references that are all primary source/blogs are not reliable. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Cassia[edit]

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

Low-quality, issues unresolved for years, does not comply to WP:PEOPLE Comagfr (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - none of the refs are about Cassia himself, just passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Couldn't find enough in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mentions are brief and tangential, couldn't find anything better to source article with. Vrac (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no coverage about him, just articles he's written. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG, article says it all - "He has been mentioned ..." Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 11 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 FAW Trophy. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham Gymnasium F.C.[edit]

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

This appears to have been an amateur team that won the FAW Trophy in the 1890s. Delete? Redirect to that competition? Your attention please @GiantSnowman and Sir Sputnik:: complementary light refreshments will be served at the commencement of this deletion discussion. Please remember that WP:AfD is a smoke-free workplace. Shirt58 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (yak) @ 16:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FAW Trophy - possible search term but doesn't look to be notable, given extremely low-level of competition. Giant Snowman 17:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - have only competed at tier 3 or below. Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. Since the article has been created and deleted three times this year, I salted it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sakit Mammadov[edit]

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

Questionable notability, was csd-deleted then recreated. Putting it here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from this source I get the impression that this man is a major artist in Azerbaijan. Then again, this other article from the same site claims he exhibited at the Louvre, in an exhibition called "Carrusel [sic] du Louvre", which is actually the name of a shopping mall; that's not a good sign for reliability. Louvre.fr knows of one Mammadov, but not this man. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:V. Cited sources are not convincingly reliable and I couldn't find better ones. For example, Mammadov never won the Leonardo da Vinci Medal, unless it's a different medal by the same name that I cannot find any information about (neither in English, nor in Italian). Perhaps better sources are available in Russian or Turkish? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 16:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless clearer and more convincing sources can be found. The medals in the infobox seem very sketchy re WP:V, and a search finds few reliable sources other than self-published wiki-type sites.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Here is the low-down on that "Louvre" show. As you say, QVVERTYVS, Carrusel du Louvre is actually a mall attached to the Louvre. They (the mall) had a commercial contemporary art fair, and the article subject appears to have (presumably) rented a booth. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 5 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 23:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily (cow)[edit]

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

None of the references appear to be reliable sources. They are from biased publications (Spirit of Change) or blogs (Counterpunch), or 404 errors. I've searched for more sources on Google but nothing reliable came up. Laurent (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cajole) @ 16:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Emily was the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, including the following. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eidlitz, Elizabeth. Holy Cow. Orion. July/August 2006.

Rosinski, Jennifer. Peace Abbey Honoring its Sacred Cow. The Boston Globe. June 15, 2005.

Gedan, Benjamin.Quiet Activist Emily the Cow Will Rest in Peace Abbey. The Boston Globe. April 1, 2003

Casey, Janet. 5 Years Later, Celebrating Legend of Emily the Cow. The Boston Globe. November 26, 2000.

Ryan, Michael. The Cow Who Saved Herself. The Washington Post. May 4, 1997.

Vigue, Doreen ludica. Emily the Cow: on the way to stardom. The Boston Globe. December 23, 1996.

Hodgson, Liz. Cow gets scene and not herd. South China Morning Post. December 17, 1996.

Heifer's saga lures filmmaker. Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, Mass). December 16, 1996

Tousley, Ben. Emily, Cow-in-Residence at the Peace Abbey. Peacework. February 1996.

Mueller, Mark. Crafty Emily moo-ves right in with Sherborn clan. Boston Herald. December 26, 1995.

Life is no longer at steak for Emily. The Boston Globe. December 15, 1995.

Keep per Hirolovesswords. It is reasonable that sources from this era are not accessible online. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if information from the sources cited by @Hirolovesswords: can be incorporated into the article. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep; there are even books written about "her". FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:32, 7 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. Can be recreated if and when reliable sources are found. Sandstein 09:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsi[edit]

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

Not notable: a random place-name from Korean mythistory. OR, no cites. Ogress _smash! 06:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: I found references below:

www.taekwondobible.com/korculture/spirit/myth.html

www.san-shin.org/Dan-gun_Myth.htm

www.lifeinkorea.com/information/tangun.cfm

It may or may not be an outright hoax, but it may not be notable and has OR, so I'm on the fence for now. I was also about to nominate Sanamahism for deletion for the same reason, but I was questioned and decided to let it slide for now. Racer-Ωmegα 07:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, even if it is a hoax, this may be older than Jar'Edo Wens by a few months, but I'm still left undecided whether to endorse deletion or not. Racer-Ωmegα 07:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is mentioned in passing (allegedly) in two medieval mythistories as the place a divine ancestor landed when he descended from Heaven. "Shinshi" is the modern Korean pronunciation of the Chinese words "god/spirit + city". The divine man descended from heaven and built a Divine City. That is the entirety of its presence in the material: not notable. Ogress _smash! 16:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not some random place-name or OR as Ogress insultingly describes Korean tradition. There was a lot of material from pseudohistorical sources, or hoaxes, to which I opposed multiple times and deleted. This however was to no avail by other editors who kept adding information based on pseudohistorical sources. I removed such material based on pseudohistory to improve the article per given requirements of the former deletion tag. To answer Racer-Ωmegα, this Shinsi is not a hoax, nor is it OR. It is based on multiple historical sources. It is widely accepted in Korean academic literature, such as the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. It also has a counterpart in multiple language, with a more detailed article in Korean. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page is uncited and refers only to the place where a mythical divine man descended from Heaven in the mythistories of medieval Korea. I flagged it as a potential hoax, and you yourself state it was full of hoax material. "tae kwon do bible" is not a reliable source, nor is san-shin.org or lifeinkorea.com. Ogress _smash! 16:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Korean Culture is a reliable source, which I cited. Cydevil38 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cydevil38: You mentioned it, not cited. Which edition did you use? Is it online? If printed, what page? Who is the author? Etc. Please cite properly. I'd vote keep if you could provide a proper citation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If a place is mentioned in a myth, it can be regarded as a real place in the terms of the myth. Of course how far a myth has an element of history in it and how far it is fiction is a different question. I am fairly certain that we have articles on places mentioned in Indian epics, which are equally mythical, and I do not see why Korean ones should be different. Essentially, this is the residence of a mythical ancestor, whose son founded what is now the capital of North Korea. This makes it a precursor capital. That is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'd like to see more articles on Korean mythology, this stub article is unhelpful. It mentions no records of the legend, no scholarly sources and no influence on modern Korean believes. Compare with the article on the equally mythological Land of Nod which at least has a mention of which book it appears in, its etymology, and the impact it has on popular culture. If no sources can be provided, then this should be deleted. Dimadick (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've quickly developed something of a reputation as a Wikilawyer for Article Inclusionism, yet still I am unsatisfied with this piece. Either substantial new source material needs to be brought forth (from which a major re-write could be produced), or the Article is not worth preserving. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@UBI-et-ORBI:, you've become such an inclusionist that you voted oppose deletion when you are arguing to delete. Which do you mean? Ogress _smash! 23:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: haha — sorry about that. I think I got a bit turned-around by the Keep, Comment, Oppose voting format that's been running on this discussion. My vote is in support of Deletion, and I'll adapt my previous note to reflect this. However as I said above, if someone can bring enough new source material to my attention (such that I can see the beginnings of a substantive Article): I have a completely open mind towards adjusting my stance on this piece. Thanks so much for your note here! --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain pending proper citation provision by Cydevil38. For myself I can attest it is not a hoax, but English sources are sparse. I found it mentioned in Yŏl-gyu Kim (2005). Uncovering the Codes: Fifteen Keywords in Korean Culture. Jain Publishing Company. pp. 161–162. ISBN 978-0-89581-830-0., but the first part of the text is not available for the preview. We could really use more input from Korean speakers on what they find on the Korean internet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Cydevil can't answer you because he's been banned for long-term edit-warring (and possibly sockpuppeting) on the topic of Goguryeo Korea and its mythistory, i.e. the same shenanigans he's using ;in this article, which doesn't have a single cite on it. Ogress _smash! 09:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: Thanks for tip. As I have a policy of not blaming content for its creator, this doesn't change much for me: I'd still like to see better refs. Now, is there anyone in this discussion who can read Korean, and who can discuss what appears in the Korean web search? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Oh, Cydevil didn't create the page anyway. Ogress 00:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both ja.wiki (ja:倍達国) and zh.wiki (zh:神市) explicitly states the alternative name Baedalgug/배달국/倍達國 (ja.wiki flat out use that as the primary article name). With that GBooks gives me these Korean-language books (can't say if actual (myt)history or historic fiction or Wikipedia mirror) and some mentions in spme Chinese-language history journals when searching in Chinese characters. I have no access (not to mention can't read Korean) to all of them, so no !vote. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's hold on just a few more days: I'm going to leave messages asking three randomly selected, currently active users from Category:User_ko-N for comment: User:Garypark, User:Gershwin0905 and User:Roriromrack. --Slashme (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June Julian[edit]

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

Artist, academic. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Lincolnspencer with the following rationale "Deleted reviewers note & added response in Talk Pages". Unfortunately, the creator never followed up improving the article after asking what to do on my talk page (I responded at User_talk:Lincolnspencer#Proposed_deletion_of_June_Julian). Bottom line: I don't see how she passes either WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF. Coverage is in passing; I see no in-depth works about here. Not all academic or artists are notable, and this seems to be the case here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Works held in museums, she's shown around the world, etc. She shouldn't be deleted. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Can you provide sources for that? Those claims in the article are uncited, see also New Media Theorist's comment below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Piotrus: you're right... I was looking at claims from article. I may have been hasty and I'm sorry for that. New Media does have a good point about her being a vibrant contributor. Wouldn't that be an academic notability keep then? Has anyone searched her on lexis nexus? I can try looking thete on Tuesday or Wednesday. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I tried Google Scholar, I see no profile, and only one article from 1997 with 11 citations that seems to match her name and field of work ([19]). If what is at June_Julian#Published_works is her best selection of works, I doubt she comes close to WP:PROF. If you are in humanities and you are listing conference papers as your best "published" works, it's not a good sign... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me search Lexis Nexus after Labor Day. I'll have access by Wednesday at the latest. If I find nothing, I'm ok with changing my vote. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nominator. Coverage is very widely spread across different subjects: a show here, a paper on online learning there. I searched "June Julian museum" and could not find a museum with an online listing of her works. Nothing in Google Books. Notable artists are in books. I did find this link indicating that she is in the member's juried group exhibition at the Drawing Center, which is not really high profile show. Artists with as big a career as the Wiki page would have us believe are not usually in member's shows... She is no doubt a vibrant and professional contributor to art and art education, but I don't think she's a notable one. If kept, the article will hopefully be transformed from its current promotional resumé-speak.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and New Media Theorist; I simply can't find extensive coverage...or any coverage for that matter. Non-notable as of this moment. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article claims that her work is in permanent collections of museums, and in particular sites two, one of which is the Noyes museum. But on the Noyes museum site I could find only a brochure for a workshop and a press release for a temporary group exhibit in which the subject's name was one of several listed at the end in a sentence about "also appearing in..." So to me, this is a failure of verification that means we should apply stricter scrutiny to everything in the article, a standard that I don't think it stands up to. I don't see any independent and verifiable evidence of passing WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 7 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. Consensus here seems to be that the substantial improvements since the nomination allow article to satisfy our notability guidelines-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rattlesnake Shake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. A non-notable, non-charting song. Azealia911 _talk 21:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only released in France, I think, and it didn't chart. Nearly all the cover versions are by Fleetwood Mac spin-off acts. Fails WP:NSONGS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NSONGS –Davey2010^Talk 02:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Was also released in America. I do have some sources for this one. These should all be added by tomorrow. It is a fairly notable song. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: If the sources that you'll be adding give nothing more than it's release in other countries, it still fails WP:NSONGS. What exactly will you be adding? Azealia911 _talk 12:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Then Play On: I did this but article creator reverted edit. I see no assertion of notability: that the song has been covered ain't good enough. Who are Aerosmith, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONGS #3. Unlike TheLongTone I see the cover versions as evidence of notability beyond the Fleetwood Mac album from which it comes. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The numberical points of WP:NSONGS are all secondary to it's introduction of "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The article doesn't look as if it'll be expanded much more than it already has been, and the fact the song has been covered should not be a be-all-end-all keep. After rigorous googling, all that's come up in my searches are YouTube videos and lyric pages, with the occasional forum or Fleetwood Mac fansite. Azealia911 _talk 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NSONGS #3 – "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." If we count members of Fleetwood Mac rehashing their own songs, then half their catalogue will be notable. Mick Fleetwood's and Rick Vito's versions are just solo artists doing a song from their own band. Peter Green's "covered" it as well, but how can you cover your own song? The only really independent cover I'm seeing is Aerosmith's, and that's not several. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early to say "The article doesn't look as if it'll be expanded much more than it already has been" given it's only a day old. "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists" does not say there has to be several cover versions but several versions - so you can count the original too, plus there's another by Jimmy Bowskill so even if you count all the Fleetwood Mac related variants as one you still have 'several'. Reviews are a bit thin on the ground, it's true, but there is this allmusic.com one and a mention in this this NME one which, although brief, confirms the importance of the song to Aerosmith fans. I believe there's enough here to satisfy the inclusion requirements. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think counting Fleetwood Mac solo members' versions as separate would open the field up enormously, and my personal opinion is that two different acts aside from Mac and its members doesn't constitute "several". Mac might not be the Beatles, but if we're going to have a stub article on every one of their songs that has been covered by their own members plus a couple of other notable or semi-notable acts, then that is most of Mac's catalogue, maybe 80–100 songs. It certainly includes all of Fleetwood Mac, Rumours and most of Tusk and Then Play On – that's nearly 50 songs already. Camper Van Beethoven have covered at least 20 Mac songs on their own. We surely don't want articles about songs that are effectively just a list of acts that have done cover versions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you may well be right and there a number of other related discussions I have started or contributed to where I have !voted to delete: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. However in this specific instance I see enough to satisfy inclusion criteria. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the discussion of members of the band "covering" the song, would a Destiny's Child song be notable if Beyoncé, Kelly Rowland, Michelle Williams, LaTavia Roberson, LeToya Luckett and Farrah Franklin released independent versions of it? Azealia911 _talk 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bretonbanquet; there have been a lot of people who have covered Fleetwood Mac songs. I've even seen a cover of "Did You Ever Love Me?" on Youtube. Covering a Fleetwood Mac song doesn't automatically make it notable, but it certainly does help the article (especially if Aerosmith covered it). I have already added a source to the article to improve it somewhat, and I plan on adding more later (I might have four of five more sources to pull from). Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to album article with the history kept. I have no serious objections to "keep." I would be more likely to support "keep" or a future "undo teh redirect" if it was clear that the song has "been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" [emphasis added] and the article was expanded beyond its current content. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Update: Weak keep per improvements on page including references. It's still in that "grey zone" of "arguable notability" and I respect those who believe it hasn't yet made it "over the hump" yet, but as best I can tell, it's closer to "clearly meets WP:N" than to "definitely fails WP:N." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Since the article has been nominated, it has seen massive improvements. I'd argue that it is a start class article by now. As mentioned above, there are still more sources to come! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck repeated !Vote Azealia911 _talk 14:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only seeing two independent, third-party reliable sources. Azealia911 _talk 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the repeated vote. I though you could revote under the "relisted notice". I still have some additional third party sources to add, but even if they aren't included, I'd argue that two reliable third party sources is adequate. I also added even more background to further cement the keep. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been significantly expanded since being nominated for AfD. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any independent, in-depth, reliable sources. Coverage by the band/creator does not cut it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this not have enough "in depth and reliable sources"?! There is a mix of reliable first and third party sources included, so while coverage by the band may not meet your standards, the third party sources should be enough. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after massive improvements, it's clear to see this song is notable enough. The song has been covered a good amount of times. The song was released as a single. I'm sure if you really looked into the evidence, I'm sure you'd find it somewhere as a charted song. For instance, I recently found out Blue Denim by Stevie Nicks charted in Canada even though it was said not to have charted anywhere ever. You never know. Visnvoisnvo (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song charted, as stated in the article. It didn't do badly either, getting into the rock music top 40, and so that seems notable to me. That the version of the tune by Mick Fleetwood himself rather than by his band charted isn't relevant to the song's notability as such. There a great many songs ("I Got My Mind Set On You" comes to mind for me immediately, as a George Harrison fan) that were more notable as re-vamped versions rather than for the original tunes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The third party, independent sources are enough to satisfy WP:N and WP:NSONGS #3 per Visnovisno and CoffeeWithMarkets. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. --Tanonero (msg) 01:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was deleted by User:Materialscientist on Sptember 4. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Himmat singh ( Designer )[edit]

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

Nothing notable at all. Delete per WP:BLP and WP:GNG . Shlok _{talk .} 07:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flussonic[edit]

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

No evidence that this is notable software. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. This doesn't seem notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (software) as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search only found download sites and user-generated sources. Fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a 'snow delete' situation. An admin should be able to just take care of this right now, given the backlog of other deletion cases that we have. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what to add to this page to prevent from deletion? User:Maxlapshin 11:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxlapshin: Please see WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. -- intgr [talk] 10:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 10 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) 14:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Idupuganti Bhooshana Rao[edit]

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

~~clealry copied from another site--see [25], "The members of the profession will learn many important facets of his life from recollections of his colleagues and students."~~ DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Peacock-language aside, this is somewhat borderline. But I am not seeing any reliable sources with his bio. Passing references... but in the end, he was just a forensic professional, doing his job. He hold a few positions of semi-significance, but nothing that seems to make him notable by default. Not every hospital director or equivalent is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider for acceptance . Sir, major corrections have been done to this article with citation of relevant references.Other statements without references has been deleted. This Forensic Pathologist is notable person for introduction of Postgraduate courses in India and as founder of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine. User:drsurajfm11:05, 27 August , 2015 (UTC)
Strong Keep Generates impressive English-language coverage for "just a forensic professional". How many average forensic professionals investigate the murder of the Prime Minister of India? How many average forensic professionals establish the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine? WP:GEOBIAS is of relevance here. If you look at Category:Pathologists by nationality, you'll see that for a country of 318 million, the United States has 134 pathologist articles. India, a country of 1.252 billion has 13. Dr. Idupuganti Bhooshana Rao investigated the death of the Prime Minister of a nation of 1.252 billion. Earl Rose (coroner) should have been allowed to conduct the John F. Kennedy autopsy, but apparently he, and the actual autopsy itself are both entitled to articles. To make matters even more hilarious, the Pink Chanel suit of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy gets its own article as well. Reminds me of Oprah Winfrey "You get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car! Everybody gets a car!" Sometimes Wikipedia makes me despair of the Western world. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nommed as a copyvio or cut and paste? Or something. Link [26] report if you think it's a cut and paste. The references look good and they are third party. Notability isn't even brought up... Im not sure whats going on here --Savonneux (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider for acceptance . Sir, Sources are available related to subject in books and Scholars. Kindly search with Dr. I. Bhooshana Rao instead of Dr. Idupuganti Bhooshana Rao. Check the link https://www.google.co.in/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Dr.+Idupuganti+Bhooshana+Rao%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=RzfgVYDBPMm1uQS9qLeYAw#tbm=bks&q=%22Dr.+I.+Bhooshana+Rao%22 User:drsurajfm10:18, 28 August , 2015 (UTC)
Keep He was clearly a significant figure in his field. That said, the article should be renamed to drop the title. Also, it needs to be edited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly keep. Sir, Importance of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine is already mentioned in Forensic Pathology in Wikipedia. User:drsurajfm 06:55, 29 August , 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been much improved since I nominated it; the overpromotional material that was clear copyvio has been removed. I would in its present form not nominated it for deletion. I can;t technically withdraw the AfD because there's another delete comment. "Just a forensic professional doing his job" is the sort of dismissive comment that can be applied to anyone whom one does not immediately recognize as famous. As we was founder and head of the national society in his field, it certainly does not apply to him. 71.167.144.135 (talk) 23:05, 4 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)} 05:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Socialist Crisis in France[edit]

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

Reads more like a political essay than an encyclopedic article, already covered by existing articles like Paris Commune, Dreyfus affair, etc. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to Paris Commune since that's the proper article for the topic that's being covered. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a correct target. The Paris Commune was an incident from 1871, this piece is on the politics of 1899-1900. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is largely right in saying the article reads "like a political essay", but he (and the subsequent commenter) have not realised why. On close reading, the article is actually intended to be about a probably notable essay - or, rather, series of articles by Rosa Luxemburg, published in Die Neue Zeit in last 1900 and early 1901 and then collected and issued separately as a short book, on arguments then going on among French socialists about whether or not they should co-operate with "bourgeois" politicians in supporting Alfred Dreyfus, in defending the French Third Republic against perceived attacks from right-wing groups and in joining the French government to help with these aims. Luxemburg was firmly on the side of those opposing any such co-operation - she deals with earlier events like the Paris Commune, but only as background to current arguments at the time of writing. The articles, I understand, caused something of a sensation at the time, and the book later became something of a Marxist classic. The reactions to it, both immediately on publication and since then, have probably been significant enough to justify a standalone article - unfortunately, the article as it stands seems to be (somewhat confusedly) summarising the book rather than showing why we should regard it as notable. PWilkinson (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a meta-essay: an essay or critique of a 115-year-old monograph. I say, start from scratch to get a stub. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 12 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 Ghost Stories (Coldplay album). Don;t usually close on one !vote but it seems the best choice for this, As for the Keep - It's up to the Keeper to prove how (or it) passes GNG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O (Coldplay song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no independent third party notability that can make the song notable. Mere low chartings does not assert that. Delete or at best merge to album article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost Stories (Coldplay album) no significant coverage outside of album reviews Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets WP:GNG sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:31, 7 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. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanleybet International[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Toohool with the following rationale " For a business of this size and with an 18-year history, there are sure to be lots of sources to satisfy GNG, even if they are a little hard to find b/c the company operates mostly in non-English countries". Well, then, do show us those reliable refs; I don't see any. All I see is mentions in passing, and PR spam. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are just a few sources to meet GNG: [27] [28] [29] [30]. If you simply search Google News for "stanleybet", you will see that there are many more sources in other languages, since most of the company's hundreds of locations are in countries like Romania, Croatia, and Italy. Can't imagine why the nom would think this article is spam, considering it doesn't sound very promotional, and a company with no operations in English-speaking countries wouldn't have much reason to promote itself in English Wikipedia. (They do actually have UK locations, but didn't open them until 2014, while this article was created in 2009.) Please consider systemic bias factors in your campaign against spam articles. Toohool (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toohool: You are right, I must have mistyped the company's name. I see the sources now, and they are satisfactory. I am withdrawing this nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G5) Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Galea (Performer)[edit]

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

See WP:Articles for deletion/John Galea. Since then, a bunch of suspected socks have created this article under a bunch of titles, e.g. (Singer) John Galea, John- Paul Galea. IPs have 2x removed speedy template on this. Boleyn (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, and salt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a pretty frustrating situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janusz Podrazik[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Wikigmm (creator) with no rationale. Bottom line: not all composers are notable. I don't see the subject winning any awards, or being a subject of independent, in-depth, reliable coverage. Therefore he does not belong in an encyclopedia (yet). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this can't be improved as the article seems interesting but the sources are not as satisfying and my searches found nothing better than this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough on searches to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 11 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 09:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janek Ambros[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Paulrifkin (creator) with no rationale. Not all people involved with the movie industry are notable. This person hasn't won any awards, or been a subject of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. He does not belong in an encyclopedia (at least, not yet). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as this would appear to have potential although my searches found nothing as good as it could've been here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up some items, but not enough to met the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 11 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology Ireland[edit]

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

COI creation, primarily sourced. Murry1975 (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I absolutely love flags and vexillology websites and it seems like a really interesting place, but there is nothing I can find that would pass WP:GNG or WP:RS. The author of this article also created the recently deleted Stanislav Zamyatin, which was featured prominently in this organization's newsletter as its CEO: seems to me like there's a larger link here between the two and there's probably a COI violation going on. Between the lack of outside sources and the COI of the person who created it... it looks like a really interesting group but that isn't enough to let them have an article. Nomader (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes judging by the users profile and the ceo profile they are one in the same. It features as a small and sufficient part in Genealogical Society of Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry do you really mean sufficient. The talk page of Genealogical Society of Ireland suggests a merge of this article into that one. This makes sense to me.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in Wikipedia but I will say that I am an expert in flags and as the main representative of them in Ireland I will say that there is a 'lot' of badly written, false and plagiarized writing on flags in general. I am not sure how you are contributing to Wikipedia and the world, but I can say that you are not helping by insisting that this page be deleted. My German friend who is a prominent contributor on German Wikipedia has informed me that English Wikipedia forbids dependent articles, meaning that I have to find someone, who is not member of Vexillology Ireland to write the article, using sources outside of VI and its parent group Genealogical Society of Ireland. Another issue is that since Vexillology Ireland is part of the Genealogical Society of Ireland, it is the latter that gets all the publicity, even though in actuality they are involved in different things. I guess a merger is better then deletion but I strongly think that much would be lost in Ireland and in the field of vexillology (flag studies) if this page is merged or deleted. I would strongly urge you to reconsider and assist in the preservation of this page rather than the 'destruction' of it. Thank you and hopefull you can be considerate and understanding of the situation. Hohostan (talk) 18:21 , 21 August 2015 (GMT)

Basically, there must be reliable sources that talk about Vexillology Ireland. Believe me, I love flags as much as you do, but in order to have this article exist here on Wikipedia, there has to be significant outside coverage that talks about the organization from verifiable and reliable sources. Do you have anything that I might have missed when I looked? Nomader (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A first step is done by adding the North American Vexillological Association as reference for VI as member of FIAV, which is the main authority for vexillology. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see your point, and the FIAV is definitely a large organization. But I don't think it's enough to satisfy the requirements for an article to exist here. Just because it's a member organization doesn't mean that every member organization necessarily has to have its own page. But the reference that was added to the article is just a list of all member organizations, and their website doesn't have any other information on VI like a profile on it either. Can you think of anything else? I'm looking but I still haven't found anything that would lead me to strike my delete, especially not the FIAV reference. Nomader (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems significant enough. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/XfD. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, Vexillology Ireland produces a biannual newsletter known as 'VIBE', copies of which are found at the National Library of Ireland.^[1] The society is currently working on setting up a joint flag registry with the Flag Institute and work has gone underway.^[2] More citations will be provided after the 26th International Congress of Vexillology in Sydney. http://www.icv26.com.au/ Hohostan (talk) 10:23 , 25 August 2015 (GMT)

^ http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000540013
^ http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/flags/ulster/

I don't think that a library holding a newsletter makes something necessarily notable. My dad wrote a really great running book once, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia page even though it's in the Library of Congress. As I've said above, there needs to be significant coverage and I'm just not seeing it. Nomader (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hohostan: according to your Userpage, you're the head of this organization, correct? Could you make sure to declare your conflict of interest at the talk page of the article and somewhere here in this discussion? Nomader (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 28 August 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) 04:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, but that does not mean it belongs to an encyclopedia. Is there a single independent source that calls it notable, important or such? If so, please ping me and I'll review this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The Wikipedia article on Vexillology Ireland should continue to exist. Flags Australia recently hosted the 26th International Congress of Vexillology, which included a presentation by Vexillology Ireland of its intent to bid for the hosting of ICV29 in 2021. As an executive of a well recognised flag association that has existed for over 30 years and hosted two ICVs, and the webmaster for Flags Australia I find it hard to see how anyone other than the association itself provide reliable information on a flag group, unless one goes to the extreme of ghost writing a contribution by an erstwhile third party to avoid the mindless application of a rule that is inappropriate in the circumstances. The existence of Vexillology Ireland is verified by its membership of FIAV (which has stringent membership requirements), and the CEO Mr Stan Zamyatin attended ICV26 in Sydney. He has just published a new book on the design of flags, copies of which were distributed in Sydney. If the Wikipedia article states something that is wrong or exceedingly biased, then Wikipedia has a record of such excesses being corrected. There is no need to censor the existence of the article itself. - by Ralph Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.168.246 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is not whether Vexillology is a significant subject, but whether Vexillology Ireland is a notable organisation. The fact that the subject had no national society from 1992 to 2013, between the dissolution of a 8-year old society and its revival in 2013, suggests to me that it is NN. My guess is that there is one enthusiast who is producing an on-line newsletter and a dozen or two members. If so, it is certainly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing off of a search of Vexillology Ireland finds good independent-third party sources. Article fails both points of WP:NONPROFIT. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge over to Genealogical Society of Ireland since the parent organization is far more notable than this branch of it CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kontakt.io[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by suspicious (SPA/paid editing-like pattern) User:Effie.wang with the following rationale "Meets standards". As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam, and it clearly fails NCOMPANY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (maybe draft & userfy) as my searches found nothing convincingly better here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches didn't turn up enough for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 11 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. Of note is that press releases are not usable to establish topic notability. WP:GNG states, ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelestream[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:TonyTheTiger with the following rationale "given the Rueters ref, we should consider whether this passes WP:GNG". Well, Tony, let me teach you a spammer trick that they used to waste our time: Reuters and other big media companies REPUBLISH PR PIECES AND PRESS RELESESES on their sites. Big hint: see the "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." on the top of that page? It means it is spam. Many of the Reuters refs I see here on Wikipedia are for this kind of spam, be ware of them in the future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, this article is based almost entirely on regurgitated press releases plus the company website, and I have been unable to find any significant, independent reporting of this company in reliable sources. Accordingly, the company is not yet notable and therefore ineligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only could the sources be better, my searches found nothing and mostly press releases here, here, here, here and here. There's nothing to suggest better improvement but feel free to restart when coverage is better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not so sure we should discount press releases as WP:RS, but I am just realizing that they are barely mentioned in the press release.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 5 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. On behalf of the New World Order. Sandstein 09:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsealed: Conspiracy Files[edit]

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

A conspiracy documentary series with little to no chance of notability; about section reads like an advertisement and possible chance of copyvio; probably too soon as well. --189.25.205.234 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created discussion page on behalf of the above IP editor. I offer no opinion on the nomination myself. --Finngall ^talk 03:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we are way too open to listing all TV shows. What makes this notable? I see no independent sources. Did the show get any independent, reliable reviews? If so, list them here and ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability - and I've had to remove the 'about' section as an unambiguous copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Trade Sports[edit]

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

My searches, best results here, here, here and here (note there's also a Fair Trade agriculture company), found nothing to suggest improvement or even that Fair Trade Sports is still active (last activity seems to be shortly after 2010). SwisterTwister talk 03:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that it's notable and this reads like a press release, not an objective encyclopedia article. Fuzchia (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SPAM that fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Football Federation[edit]

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

May not meet notability standards. Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Football Federation requires a wiki presence to hold the history of the federation, its members and its honors. Mike Hadnett (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the several top-level regional football league structures in New Zealand. If - as seems reasonable - the New Zealand national football league could be equated to the English Conference, the NFF would be approximately level with the Isthmian league. The certainly fulfill the requirements for notability inasmuch as they were (1) heavily involved in the organisation of the FIFA Under-20 World Cup held in New Zealand; (2) have received significant coverage in multiple independent sounrces, e.g., [31] [32]. They would also qualify as a nationally well-known local organisation. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: does being "one of seven district federations affiliated to the national body" make it notable? See here: http://www.nff.org.nz/index.php?id=336 Spiderone 07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: - no, at most I'd say redirect to New Zealand Football. Giant Snowman 10:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: - as New Zealand Football delegate the responsibility of running football within the country to the 7 federations, i believe it does make it noteable. NFF have over 15k registered players who play football and futsal within its region. Multiple All Whites have also come through the NFF talent centres including Bill Tuiloma. Mike Hadnett (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would be akin to deleting London Football Association or similar. Per Grutness, it can be argued that the subject passes WP:CLUB and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - would appear to meet WP:CLUB, specifically as a nationally known organisation. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 8 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. The consensus is very clear, and entirely in accord with policy, there is no significant dispute, so I am closing in accordance with WP:SNOW. DES ^(talk) 19:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Snipplet[edit]

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

My searches absolutely nothing at all aside from results for other people or simply mirrors. What's especially interesting is this (change of content but no sourcds at all) and this has stayed too long (started in May 2008 by SPA) to not have gotten better and what's worse is that there has never been any other significant change. So unless this was an unknown person, there's simply nothing to confirm existence and suggest improvement. Inviting Calamondin12 for comment. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was tickling me as such a fabrication I considered speedying but thought AfD was better and at best, if this man existed, the author may have been adding their family history (which would also explain the no sourcing). SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found absolutely nothing in my searches too, beginning to think this is just some hoax. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he actually was a "widely respected member of the British Parliament" active in speaking out about the Potato Famine in Ireland, then certainly he would be discussed in books indexed by Google. But I find nothing. Then, we have a major addition of content by an editor who claims to be a "history buff", and who made just this one edit and then disappeared. I think that this unreferenced article is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really does look like a hoax. If this guy were real, there would be sources. The only other possible explanation is some sort of spelling error. I did try searching on Sniplet and a couple of abbreviations for James. The only corroboration for his existence that I could locate was a twitter account [33] - it corroborates his existence as a hoax. Nice spotting, User:SwisterTwister.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Someone as involved in politics as he's supposed to have been would be well referenced. Lack of simple facts like which constituency he represented in parliament gives it away, too. Neiltonks (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a hoax. Any MP in virtually any era will have many references in Google Books, old newspapers and elsewhere, particularly one firmly identified with a political cause. No references whatsoever for "Snipplet argues snippets" or similar details. The "Crime and Outrageous Act" is apparently a bungled reference to the Crime and Outrage Bill (Ireland) 1847. Charles Gavan Duffy's Young Ireland: A Fragment of Irish History 1840-1850 lists the names of the commissioners on the Royal Commission (more commonly known as the Devon Commission) on page 640, and Snipplet's name is not among them. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, this is the first Wikipedia hoax I've encountered to be "supported" by a fake Twitter account. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going with "crock of hooey" here. Past UK Members of Parliament are not a difficult topic to source — I could potentially buy a member of the old Parliament of England in the 1200s or 1300s slipping through the sourceability cracks, but not a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the 1800s. (The foundations of modern media and publishing were already very much in place by that time — frex, we still to this day have direct, widely available digital access to The Times of London content all the way back to 1785. So no stinking way does something like this just disappear from the history books — an MP who'd become a prominent laughingstock, to the point of having his name sweep the entire nation as a sarcastic slang word, would have gotten covered like crazy.) Plus, if you look further back in the edit history, the context of the "snippet of blood" speech changes from the Irish potato famine to the creation of the Suez Canal — as does the entire thing he even said the snippets of blood were doing (they were being wasted on a capricious adventure instead of being compared for preciousness.) And we'll never mind that "snippet of blood" is not a figure of speech anybody would ever have used in a political tirade anyway — blood idiomatically comes in drops, not snippets. Finally, for added bonus, this article fails to state what constituency he represented in Parliament (presumably because any such detail would have made a hoax easier to detect), and no article about any parliamentary constituency in the entire United Kingdom links to his name either. So he's clearly a figment of somebody's imagination — nobody who had really served in Parliament in the 1800s would be this unsourceable, especially had they become even half as infamous as this article claims. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 4 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System[edit]

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

There are zero review articles on this topic from the last 20 years on pubmed. Not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator yes not much peer reviewed literature but their are textbooks so agree notable and withdraw the nomination. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see plenty of GBooks hits, including one published just few days ago: W. Scott Terry (27 August 2015). Learning and Memory: Basic Principles, Processes, and Procedures, Fourth Edition. Psychology Press. p. 140. ISBN 978-1-317-35087-3. Seems like there are plenty of sources; if you disagree and reply here, ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have trimmed some poorly sourced content on effectiveness. Yes the textbooks supports notability agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus, in fact, there was an entire book chapter (in a Springer-published book) written about this device: [34] Besides that significant coverage in reliable sources can be found here, here, and here, as well as in the Boston Magazine article I already added as a source to the page. Everymorning (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Banney[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this orphaned article is independent notable and my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. Nothing suggests improvement for this which has stayed the same since December 2005. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of numerous independent reliable sources. Refs now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only good source is the recent article on him by 1233 ABC Newcastle, a local media outlet. I think we would need something more than that. Being covered in regional (provincial) media once doesn't seem to fulfill WP:BIO, nor WP:COMPOSER. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it seems to be approaching WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Adlam[edit]

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

Article is about a musician and producer without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourcing in the article consists of his management company, and an Allmusic profile. My own search for sources turns up album credit listings and little else. The best I could find for notability was this interview from a site which may not meet the criteria for a reliable source. Whpq (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as there's no evidence of even the slightest good third-party coverage and it seems the best results I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pas WP:MUSICIAN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 4 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 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zehra Güneş[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NHSPHSATH. Not enough independent coverage to warrant notability. The Undead Never Die (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom.--Savonneux (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Osplace 01:35, 9 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 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bundi[edit]

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

Non-notable Kenyan doctor. His claim to fame seems to be being the "KCSE best student in Kenya in 2002." I have not done research on his "over 50 published papers", so it is possible he may meet notability that way. Natg 19 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When did it become OK to nominate an article for deletion while trumpeting the fact that one hasn't bothered to check the validity of the claims of notability in the article? Did we delete WP:BEFORE and remove the references to it in deletion policy when nobody was looking? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a hard time seeing what The Big Bad Wolfowitz is pointing at. Of this person's works, I've found about 20 citations overall. He fails WP:PROF, and I've also been unable to find independent coverage about him. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying comment from article creator on Paul Bundi:

I believe that wikipedia should recognize any hero who is recognized in his or her family.DT Paul Bundi is one of the most recognized young doctors here in Kenya.if you ask.is he internationally known? I will say NO.but I suppose wiki puts into light persons who have got a reputation in their home lands as scholars,doctors,authors,politicians,athletes, etc..I will say Paul Bundi has an honour as a author ,scholar and a doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigits (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. International fame is not necessary — I would settle for significant coverage of the subject (not by the subject) in major national-level outlets such as the Daily Nation. But even that much seems to be lacking. The comment by Erigits above that we should have articles on "any hero who is recognized in his or her family" is obviously far from the standards we have set here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newkia[edit]

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

Non-notable company (and its parent?). "planning to release a phone in late 2014"; by now, too keep that in the article, and thus the whole article, would be violating WP:CRYSTAL.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this may've actually folded as my searches found no recent news aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient independent coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There was a spate of coverage up to around November of last year. While I know that notability isn't temporary, right now it seems the company is dead, and since the company is dead, there isn't enough coverage coming out that would warrant a separate article. If Zilliacus had an article, I would have suggested a merge to there, but there isn't one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:10, 11 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 Danger Mouse (musician)#Danger Mouse albums. Sandstein 09:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Years (DJ Danger Mouse)[edit]

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

No sources on the page + No sources that can be found using google, google books or google news = No article. Simple as that. 和DITOR E tails 10:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect over to Danger_Mouse_(musician)#Danger_Mouse_albums CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - well-known DJ with many CDs; this itself may not be notable. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 12 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 09:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tutku Burcu Yüzgenç[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tutku Burcu Yüzgenç

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

WP:NHSPHSATH Says that amateur players at the high school/under 18 level need substantial independent and non routine coverage to be notable. A separate standard for international Under 18 volleyball players would be incredulous. These articles are all stubs made solely because these people participated in U18 volleyball youth championship and the WP:ROUTINE reporting and statistics that goes with that.

There have already been discussions apparently that U-18 volleyball teams are non notable
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran men's national under-19 volleyball team
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peru women's youth volleyball team
There was also a discussion on TfD where they decided that the templates would be deleted:
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 11#Template:Dominican Republic women u20 volleyball team 2009 World Championship
Also the talk page on WP:VBALL seems to indicate that the project doesn't believe youth amateur players to be notable
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notable_versus_Non-notable
and their discussion on general notability of volleyball players
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notability_guide_for_volleyball. Particularly note the quote from one editor "participating in a Senior World Championship is enough for being notable. Note: This means Senior competitions, not Junior Championships neither world not continentals" Savonneux (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. --Osplace 11:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating because of these issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fails WP:NHSPHSATH. The Undead Never Die (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not quite sure why this needed a relist given unanimous support toward deletion, but there's no evidence of passing WP:NHSPHSATH or WP:GNG for any of these. ~ Rob^Talk 23:26, 5 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. This is an A10 deletion as even the original author has posted on the talk page that the other page should be moved to this title. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salkia[edit]

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

Replication of a pre-existing stub for Salkhia ~~(except that it has been misspelt)~~. [EDIT] On reviewing the spelling per WP:COMMONNAME, news sources seem to reference "Salkia". This being the case, the current "Salkhia" article should possibly be renamed as "Salkia" with a redirect from "Salkhia". ~~Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)~~--Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 4 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. Until somebody makes a stronger case with some of these sources? Sandstein 09:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Sathida Prompiriya[edit]

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

At best, she would appear well known and notable but without sources and my searches not finding any aside from possible results at The Bangkok Post, there's not much to suggest change and improvement (and I actually reviewed this in August 2011). SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bangkok Post article cited in the article no longer exists (need subscription to access). Thai language search finds these news [35] (from 2011 news), [36] (from 2015), [37] (from 2013) --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not thing much in news. Passing mention in the Bangok Post. The Nation ([38]) in passing calls her "award-winning singer Sathida Prompiriya". What awards, it does not say, and I'ld bet the author based that on Wikipedia article (and awards listed there are hardly impressive). That does not seem to be sufficient for passing WP:ARTIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if notability is only indebted to have winning a relatively unknown event once then that is not enough for her to have an article by her own. Note that other prize-winners of World Championships of Performing Arts lack own articles. Lappspira (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The news articles linked to by Lerdsuwa would indicate that the subject meets the GNG, having been covered in-depth by multiple third-party sources, including nationally circulated print newspapers. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:15, 9 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 09:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Tonight[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News source mentioning the video premiere on MTV Base http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/667770-halima-namakula-s-son-hemdee-to-shake-up-us-music-industry.html
MTV article about another Meaku song http://www.mtvbase.com/news/new-eddy-kenzo-featuring-praiz-and-meaku-dropping-soon/as3mgs

Digitalmedia90 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources you provided is not an evidence of notability, its just an evidence that the the song exist. Source1- does not say anything about the song. Source2- say "Eddy Kenzo has collaborated with Praiz and Meaku on a new song titled “Selfies”. According to the singer, the track is expected to drop real soon!". All of this does not establish notability. Notability is beyond a passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Source1- does not say anything about the song." Please re-read Source1. The video for On Tonight premiered on MTV Base, a major television network for music in Africa. I included Source2 here simply as a reference. User:Digitalmedia90 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothin' better. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 11 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 Deleted via move to SwisterTwister's userspace. Sam Walton (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters (TV series)[edit]

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

Article about a forthcoming television series, sourced at this point only to a single announcement that the show has entered the production pipeline. Per longstanding WP:AFD consensus, Wikipedia does not create or keep articles about television series on the basis of a production announcement alone, as things can happen which can cause the series to be delayed, massively reworked or never actually air at all — thus making it a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Rather, a forthcoming television series does not become an appropriate article topic until it's officially upfronted by a television network as something that's definitely going to air rather than just being planned to maybe air. Delete, without prejudice against recreation once Syfy announces a definitive airdate. (I would also have no objection to sandboxing it in draft or user space.) Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -As stated by Nom, television series is still in planning stages and therefore does not yet qualify for Wikipedia. ABF99 (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (and I'm willing to store it at my userspace in the meantime) as it's still in production and details aren't clear. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 11 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) 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cave[edit]

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

I see possible improvement here but I'm not sure if it's enough so I'm taking it to AfD for comments and consensus; my searches found quotes such as "[one of] Britain's leading mountaineers", "acclaimed, internationally acclaimed, well known and renowned author", "one of Britain's finest mountaineers", "top climber", "one of the greatest mountaineers of his generation", "one of the world's most respected mountaineers", "one of the most respected mountaineers in the world" and "world famous" in various sources from my various searches here, here, here and here. He may be very well known in the UK and his mountaineering but I'm not sure if this is improvement and time-worthy. If he is notable, I'm willing to make the improvements myself (the article needs improvement from its current state). SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable prizes for his books in his field. That's sufficient DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not contain any reason to delete — just some waffle about possible improvements. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 16:51, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Business Awards[edit]

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

Almost totally unsourced and ridden with promotionalism throughout.

(1) No sourcing is given for any of the information about the organization. I find It is not even sourceable to their web site [39], which gives no information about the organization: only a list of judges and award winners. The only sourcing in the article of any sort for any of the material is the statements of a few of the many recipients that they have won an award. Looking for more, I find almost nothing except many other statements from companies they have won an award, published in press release or local news outlets. The two exceptions re two press releases: [40] and [41]. They have the same extensive text about the company as does the WP article. The WP article is not a copy of either--it was here first. Nor do I think they copied the WP article--it seems they both are essentially copies of some material the company prepares for its press releases. The second of the releases gives some additional information that the awards are primarily sponsored by "RSM International... a worldwide network of independent accounting and consulting firms. ", and other sponsors R|SM. The London Stock Exchange's " ELITE, the Pan European programme set up by London Stock Exchange Group to support high growth European SMEs"

(2) As for promotionalism, just read the article. Sections 1 and 2 contain essentially nothing else , and the rest of the article is just the list of awards.

(3). This article has been here since 2006. It was shorter then, but no better. It might seem incredible that material of this sort could survive this long, but it's not uncommon here: I would call it disgraceful rather the incredible. The reason I nominated here instead of just using G11 was to call attention to the problem. (& because the awards are used as contributing to notability in about 50 WP articles. Any article dependent on them needs to be considered for deletion). DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work with WP:WikiProject Europe to find sourcing, especially sourcing behind paywalls (e.g., LexisNexis, ft.com) and in languages other than English. As self-serving as the article is (and that could be changed), it looks like more than a few companies have entered the competition and it's got testimonials (see http://www.businessawardseurope.com/about# "What other people think of the European Business Awards") from half a dozen ministers and unspecified support from a ministry of the British government (UK Trade & Investment). Alternately, redirect to a yet-to-be-written general article about business awards in Europe (see http://www.europaeischer-unternehmensfoerderpreis.de/, http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Le-palmares-des-Prix-Entreprises.html, Swedish Business Awards, as examples of other business awards in Europe). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many companies have entered the competition, and a great many seem to have put out press releases saying they won. Not everything supported in some vague way by the UK Government is notable, nor would I even regard that as an sign thatit's likely to be--any gov't and its agencies will be involved in many more non-notable thing than notable ones. Testimonials on a organization's page mean nothing -- or less than nothing-- a notable organization does not need them. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no convincing sources for notability, promotional tone throughout ("After rigorous face to face assessed in front of a judging panel, Ruban d’Honneur recipients are honoured and the names of the Award winners revealed as Europe’s top businesses at a glittering Awards ceremony"). I'd have speedy-deleted as purely promotional. Sandstein 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Sandstein. Purely promotional article about a purely promotional award. Searches did not turn up anything which would show this is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 12 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 09:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telsonic Ultrasonics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP with no substantial coverage outside of specialist publications. Previous AFD closed as soft delete but contested by a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as this needs attention from familiar people and people with access to possibly non-English or otherwise challenging sources and my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough to meet notability guideline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 11 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, technically it is an unsourced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marta DuBois[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 01:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Selves in a Modern World[edit]

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

No secondary sources or claims of significance - just an article cited to the book itself, saying what's in it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. McGeddon (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added secondary sources. This book is cited in other works. Further research, possibly in password protected sites, may determine if WP:TEXTBOOKS applies. --Djembayz (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While I don't have particularly strong feelings on this one, the fact that the book has had journal reviews from Religions of South Asia and at least one other publication make me feel like it's worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We cannot keep articles on Wikipedia because someone have feelings for it. In other words, it have no reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of emotional feelings. Religions of South Asia is a credible, reliable source. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:NBOOK. Simple as that. AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEvin Key[edit]

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

No indication either on this page, any of his album pages or in the first couple of pages of Google results that he may meet WP:NBAND; all his alleged side projects appear to be offshoots of Skinny Puppy, to which I recommend redirecting this. Laun chba ller 00:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (multiple WP-notable projects), though it needs better referencing - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:NBAND. User:David Gerard, can you clarify your keep comment? I don't understand your argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who is a member of multiple notable bands is generally considered notable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – founding member of one of the most seminal industrial bands of all time. I feel like there was a failure to follow WP:BEFORE in this case. Some sources:
Five questions with Skinny Puppy’s cEvin Key

Skinny Puppy's cEvin Key Looks back at 'The Mansion Family', Stream the Soundtrack Here

The Inquisition of cEvin Key

Vancouver band demands compensation after learning music used for Guantanamo Bay torture

Interview: cEvin Key of Skinny Puppy Talks About hanDover

There are plenty more e.g. in Google Books, but that was just what I found in the first few pages of a regular Google search. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is silly. He founded one of the most famous industrial bands of all time. Just because he's deservedly well-known for this doesn't mean that his article should be deleted. There are numerous sources available online to indicate notability, some of which are listed above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a quick look through Google and Google books. This article clearly meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel For Truth[edit]

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

Although with this version and a previous slightly larger version (but still not acceptable), this could've been speedied and actually was tagged by Cryptic (whom I'm inviting for comment) but I'm nominating instead as I'm not sure if it can be improved. This has stayed since May 2005 and the best results I found were [42], this and this. Chances are this is not notable, or at best, should be mentioned elsewhere and it has not been improved after all this time. Also pinging past editors RHaworth and Tassedethe. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of this article (no surprise - I tagged it ten years ago, almost to the day). It wasn't properly a speedy then - this was well before G11 existed, before A7 applied to anything except individuals, and before we speedied copyvios under G12 instead of giving them a week of living death at WP:CP. On the other hand, I can't find any revisions that wouldn't be speedyable as at least one of those three. If someone wants to write an article here, all power to you; but there's no good version to revert to. Delete. —Cryptic 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at GNews and GBooks, can't find any sources, and as written this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) very clearly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ten years ago, almost to the day, I said "too soon" and removed Cryptic's tag. But in those ten years not a shred of independent evidence has been provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable organization. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:27, 11 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 Alan Kurdi. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Kurdi per WP:SNOW, and this one is just as clear a case: there is an overwhelming number of votes for "merge", with good arguments presented. An argument for actual deletion was not maintained by a consensus of editors: that it is OR (nominator's position) is rejected. Now, Robofish's delete vote, that this is a POV fork, has merit to it, but since the rather unwise (in my opinion) creation of this article by Burst of unj more material may have been added that's not in the Alan Kurdi article, so I'll close this as a merge and leave it up to the discretion of wiser editors than this one to perform it as they see fit. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of Alan Kurdi[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. In addition it has inline quotes galore. ~~Keep~~. --Burst of unj (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - POV Content Fork and some OR. Flat Out (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Aylan Kurdi. Given the ubiquity of the image at the moment I think it has some value as an article, but there's no need for two separate ones. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ after the article has been renamed as recently requested. The other article could be merged to this one, since the photos - or ethnocentric or even racist perceptions of the photos possibly - are what, unfortunately, brings this death out of the shadows of the thousands of other refugee deaths in that crisis. --Burst of unj (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)— Burst of unj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment : I have created this new article - a topic that relates to another topic where I was a siginificant contributor. In addition I have edited about five other topics during my one-day membership. --Burst of unj (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Burst of unj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge over to Death of Aylan Kurdi! I strongly object to having two seperate articles because it only serves to make things more frustrating and more confusing for both readers and editors. It's not just unhelpful-- it's actively making things harder. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Aylan Kurdi. Delete as there is already a detailed article about this (Alan Kurdi).--Ceroles (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Aylan Kurdi, content fork.--Staberinde (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alan Kurdi, more appropriate article including context beyond photos. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I do not get the impression that the photographies are the main topic of the sources. An important topic that merits a section perhaps, but a separate article I don't think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The other article is mostly about the photos and the reaction to the photos. Yet one has to plow thru subjects such as ISIL before actually getting to the most notable part of the chain of events. On the other hand, in the "Photographs- article" there is no chance of hijacking the topic, by starting to mention everything which did or possibly affected Kurdi's life: Simply the article begins with the subject of the photos and the reaction to the photos. Note that now the discussed article has been renamed Photographs of Alan Kurdi. Burst of unj (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. No need to have two pages and the other page has more context and generally doe it better. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge asap. 37.52.5.52 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge. The article on the photographs and their reception in the world (under some appropriate title) should be kept and articles on the victim (Alan Kurdi) and the photographer (Nilüfer Demir) should be merged into, and the pages should redirect to, the article on the photographs. Both the victim and the photographer are notable only for the reaction to the photographs. --Lambiam 10:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quote from a different deletion discussion on this wikipedia: "... and redirect to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. Apparently this boy was not notable; his photographs are. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)" --Burst of unj (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quote from a deletion discussion for the English Alan Kurdi article: "Edit: keep both--Moplayer 15:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)"--Burst of unj (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent bits of both into Nilüfer Demir. She made this, and this sort of publicity all but assures later things she does will make news. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She shot photos on the beach (during and/or after the boy might have been layed at different places on the beach), and then the press agency did their thing, and then the Twitterati and other social media users did their thing, and then politicans and weather vanes followed the winds of changes. "... assures later things she does", you said. Maybe we can get back to that, uhm, later. Burst of unj (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have forgotten about this later. Just remember to remember I called it when she lands her next job. She may not have fanned the flames, but starting a fire this size definitely gets a foot in the door. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alan Kurdi (the article that is there, regardless of which name is finally chosen). This is a clear WP:POVFORK as this article was created by the same person who nominated the other article for deletion -- and, might I add -- in bad faith as there is no indication in the other deletion discussion that a) this article exists and b) it was created by that same editor. I only found this by following the rather confusing trail of discussions around naming article(s) about Alan Kurdi. freshacconci talk to me 01:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been paying attention to the relevant talk page [43]. I have created an article about a different topic, that in some ways overlaps the topic you feel should be the main topic. I have shown (thru translations) some of the significant support for the idea that only the Photographs of Alan Kurdi is a notable title/subject. I claim that this article is not a POVFORK of another article, and I also claim that I have not created it as such. Please note that I did coatrack some text about the photos in the Alan Kurdi article before I started the "Photographs- article": The reason being that the Alan Kurdi article was at the time the least inappropriate place to put the text. (If the "Photographs- article" already had existed, I would not have bothered improving the Alan Kurdi article, and I would have placed the photo related details in the right place from the start. And I probably would not have to be hearing about ~~Newspeak~~ POVFORK at this point in time.) --Burst of unj (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alan Kurdi. Unnecessary content fork. -Zanhe (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alan Kurdi. Otherwise it simply makes no sense. --Moplayer (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the deletion discussion, Alan Kurdi: Delete the title, "redirect to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. Apparently this boy was not notable; his photographs are. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2015" --Burst of unj (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following opinion might be interpreted as saying that neither the "Photograph of-" or "Alan Kurdi" should be kept: "Delete BLP1E - add content in European migrant crisis. -- Callinus (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2015" - from the the other deletion discussion (in English). Burst of unj (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insert comments from other AFDs into this one - it's confusing and unhelpful. Discussions should be kept to their own pages. Robofish (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:POVFORK of Alan Kurdi. That article is the longer-established and more neutral one and (assuming it survives its current AFD, started by the creator of this article) it should stay. There's no need for a merge; all the important content from this article is in that one already. Robofish (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article name (or names) we finally decide on should be the most appropriate ones. If the Photographs of Alan Kurdi were what caused the reaction - and not that one of a thousand children and adults (and refugees) died, then maybe one article should be called "Photographs of-". I am not aware of the guideline that says that a seven-day-old name gets chosen over a six-day-old article name every time. Burst of unj (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who "we" is. The closing administrator will decide which argument has consensus. The arguments are leaning towards deleting this article and keeping Alan Kurdi (or titled as Death of Alan Kurdi). Your constant hammering of the same tired points is not helping the discussion. freshacconci talk to me 22:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The closing administrator will decide which argument has consensus." Is that a new way to describe or define consensus? You pretend to know which way "The arguments are leaning towards". I guess we don't need a closing administrator, because we already have your take - on the discussion! Burst of unj (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alan Kurdi. Two articles are not needed and the story is really about Alan Kurdi, the boy who died. The photographs of him are significant because they showed his dead body to the world, not significant in and of themselves.-Josephus37 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been thousands of photos that have "showed (...) dead body to the world", of refugees who are not notable enough on their own for a wikipedia article. In this case there were notable Reactions to the Photographs of Alan Kurdi. Notability to support a sepearate article about the boy, or about the death of the boy, has not been demonstrated. Burst of unj (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - The (subject of) the Photographs- article is no less notable than the subject of the Death of Alan Kurdi, or the subject of the person himself. (And if the article about the photographer were to be deleted, can that article reasonable be redirected to the article about the boy (or his death)? She created his notability so to speak, and he did nothing to contribute to his notability! No insensitivity intended.) Burst of unj (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia in Norwegian there is an article called Photographs of Aylan Kurdi's corpse. Burst of unj (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this discussion should maybe not be closed before the deletion discussion of Nilüfer Demir is closed (or decided). Burst of unj (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quote (from the deletion discussion of Nilüfer Demir): "Redirect (per WP:BLP1E) to Photographs of Alan Kurdi, or to Alan Kurdi if former article should end up merged/deleted. No notability outside single event which is already covered by multiple articles.--Staberinde 19:57, 10 September 2015" --Burst of unj (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into wherever the information at Alan Kurdi winds up. ~ Rob^Talk 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alan Kurdi or Death of Alan Kurdi (wherever the principal article ends up). At least one of the photographs is iconic. Miniapolis 00:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the discussion at Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge with Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse here, to try and prevent the discussion from becoming too fragmented. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All three articles to this article. This topic is a single notable event and the fallout of it. The event was the taking and publication of these photos. The boy's life and biography is only notable in how it relates to these photos. As far as i can see the photographer is currently only notable as they relate to these photos (but I'm less sure on that one). SPACKlick (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPACKlick's post above is also a Keep. If it does not say Keep, then the statistics link at the top of the page, will not count this as a keep. Burst of unj (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to tell people what their votes are. The statistics are not important, as consensus is reached by argument and discussion, not by vote counting. ~ Rob^Talk 12:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably statistics are important. Arguably the "stats link/button" is there for a purpose beyond "recreation" or "entertainment". Burst of unj (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved from Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge with Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Kurdi, which has a similar merge discussion moved from Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi.

I don't see the rationale for a separate article that duplicates much of the same content Flat Out (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

additional comment - I feel it would be better to gain consensus on notability of the subject and the appropriate title, than have two pages. Flat Out (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think merging is the logical solution. Aylan Kurdi was not a noteworthy person, so there should not be two separate articles. --50.67.53.203 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not merge. The massive publication of photos in news media is notable and have taken on a life of its own, so to speak. And the reactions to the photos are also notable. The notability of the dead 3-year old is a arguably a quite different issue. --Burst of unj (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Burst of unj I feel that you are arguing that the merge should be in reverse, rather than supporting two articles. Could you please clarify? Flat Out (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment "Could you please clarify?" Not merge - no need to merge two different issues (at different levels of notability). --Burst of unj (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)u

Merge I don't see the need for more than one article at present, and as they seem to be nearly identical, it is a waste of time editing both, so I would urge that this is done as soon as possible. As for which way the merge takes place, the issue really is the semantics of the article title. 'Photos' was a poor choice, as I'm sure Wikipedia Style would prefer 'Photographs'. It is also rather premature to say exactly what real the story is going to be in the long term, as I rather suspect that there may be a lot of fallout from this incident, and the photographs that started it may just be a small part. So I think I would go with the 'Death of..' at least for the time being. As I say, I think the main thing is to get consensus for a merge and work on just one article, for the time being at least. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - No sense in having two articles that cover the same event.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge and Comment: Nilüfer Demir is the photographer who made the series of photos, so maybe there should also be an article about her and her work. -Mardus (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge it's about the same event, and if not merged most likely they will contain mostly duplicate information anyway (as they are now). HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Seems we have consensus to merge. Burst of unj would you like to move non-duplicated information across to this article or do you want to wait for the outcome of the AfD? Flat Out (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

*Comment and Warning I'm sorry, but I consider it inappropriate that Burst of unj be asked to take any further action with regard to this subject. Seriously. No way is WP:NPOV anywhere near being in evidence. Investigation of his account, with first contribution dated 3rd September 2015, indicates that it was set up specifically to work this whole story alone. His first contribution was to add sizeable paragraphs which put a very negative light on the whole issue. Later contributions are of the same effect. He appears to be very determined to downplay anything to do with Alan Kurdi and even proposed the deletion of the article Alan Kurdi. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, in my opinion. Were the article ever to be deleted, Wikipedia itself would be foremost in the headlines, and rightly so. That the notice about proposed deletion remains, that there is a debate at all, is shameful. This cannot continue. Boscaswell (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it ok that I share "the shame" with perhaps one hundred wikipedians on the German page, who have not asked for their deletion discussion to be closed down immediately? (Their discussion has lasted longer.) There is room on wikipedia for all notable information about Alan Kurdi. That said, there is a chance that one article will be deleted, or two, or zero. And even then, there will be room for all notable information about Alan Kurdi. Burst of unj (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge - This must happen. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge The only logical solution. I do not see the need for more than one article. Spomtplainoi (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge. Quickly. — AjaxSmack 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge but ... I think the merge should be in the other direction, as proposed in the section below. The main topic is the reception of the photographs; the interest in this specific victim among tens of thousands of others is only due to the photos. --Lambiam 09:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. No need for a particular hurry. --L.

Question - Is this discussion closed now? I am asking because there is a "big box" in the discussion, and no one has added anything, so therefore it looks like a "close". Burst of unj (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's another discussion that was merged here. The overall discussion is not closed. ~ Rob^Talk 12:57, 11 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Vincent Chin[edit]

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

Delete - Not known outside of Detroit and is confined to only someone of the Chinese race. Article does not have particular merit as there is no mention of this person nowadays (unlike other notable murders like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin - these murders had the effect of causing riots. No riots were incited after his death and is largely forgotten nowadays even in the Asian American community). --DogPath (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete = article fails to show significance beyond the time period. Fails general notability. --66.87.81.158 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The effects of this murder, which some commentators credit with starting a "Pan-Asian" movement, went far beyond Detroit and "the Chinese race", as some say Chin was mistakenly thought to be Japanese. In 2012-2014, it was still generating commentary and discussion in reliable secondary sources such as the New York Times., as well as other examples here, here, here. An academy award nominated documentary was shown on PBS. A search of Vincent Chin + Pan-Asian produced several references in Google Books here. A murder can be historically notable through the ensuing, long-term commentary and discussion it creates in reliable secondary sources, without inciting riots. ABF99 (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage to easily meet WP:GNG. This murder was also the subject of a documentary film that was nominated for an Oscar. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin Note that the nominator, DogPath has only been on WP for about 2 weeks, making one edit to the article in question before bringing it to AfD. Following that IP 66.87.81.158 adds their token delete !vote about 1hr later, with only a handful of edits in the article space. Smells of feet around here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out by ABF99 above, this subject has a lot of reliable source news coverage that point to lasting notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Breadth of sources prove this wan't "just" a crime, or "just" a hate crime, but the trigger for a social movement '''tAD''' (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep certainly notable, not even borderline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this even nominated for deletion? I nominate deletion of the person who nominates the deletion of this article. Cyanidethistles (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per ABF99. Poor nom. Cavarrone 19:56, 10 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.

[1] ttp://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000540013

[2] ttp://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/flags/ulster/

[1]

[2]