Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 April	17 April >

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Gjergjaj[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails both WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. The second AfD finished with a Delete 1.5 months ago and nothing has changed since then to meet either criteria. The Db:repost was declined because the article was substantially different but ... well I don't think it should have been - hence the third AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see the arguement for deletion of the page but also for keeping it. Mark De Mori at one point was ranked 10th by the WBA and therefore qualified for a page. However, Gjergjaj has a better record, is ranked a lot higher overall in the world than De Mori ever was and is better fighter overall. If you're going to delete Gjergjaj for being non-notable then De Mori should also be deleted. De Mori is only notable because he fought David Haye, and therefore so is Gjergjaj. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the nominator stating that he fails GNG (based on what?), Gjergjaj has received enough coverage to satisfy that guideline, and not all relates to the fight with David Haye (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). He's ranked at no. 29 in the world by Boxrec, 35 by the WBC, and if he beats Haye in May (however unlikely that may seem) he's going to be ranked highly enough by two of the major sanctioning bodies to satisfy NBOX. He was ranked high enough in Europe to be named as a European title challenger ([4]) although the fight didn't happen. --Michig (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous two comments contain spurious arguments. Claiming he deserves a page because he's better than a fighter who has a page is both subjective and falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Claiming he'll be highly ranked if he defeats Haye (who is not ranked in the top 10 by several organizations) is not necessarily true and also falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the six weeks since this article was last deleted he has done nothing to enhance his notability (since his last fight was in 2015). Some routine sports coverage about his upcoming fight with Haye is not enough to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't meet WP:NBOX. My comment above deals with the keep arguments that have been made. He doesn't seem any more notable now than in the previous two discussions (which were both in the past 6 months). Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the above, he is far more notable now simply due to the fact he is fighting Haye and this article is a big improvement on any of the previous ones about him. Also, he is the only heavyweight inside the Boxrec top 30 without a page, and it is true that Mark De Mori was ranked just inside the Boxrec top 100 before he fought Haye. Gjerjaj would have certainly had a page had his European title fight happened (its now Chisora vs Pulev). De Mori has a page and he is no more notable than Gjergjaj, despite his very questionable 10th place ranking by the WBA at one point, he is lower than Gjergjaj everywhere else. 92.31.150.162 (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that makes him more notable than he was before. Saying he'd have been notable if other things had happened doesn't make him notable. He's not notable just because he's fighting Haye (though the keep voters seem to believe that) because notability is not inherited. Still fails both GNG and NBOX.Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gjergjaj IS more notable now because he is fighting Haye though, there is no denying it. Also can't see how he fails GNG and delete voters still haven't explained why. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Disagree about him being more notable just because he's fighting a more notable name. If there was a title of significance on the line (European Union/EBU-EU at least), he'd automatically gain notability, but fighting Haye for nothing whatsoever means squat. Furthermore, he isn't yet ranked in the top ten by either of the big four ([5]) or the EBU ([6]), and certainly won't be after losing to Haye. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles in Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Blick (published by Ringier) provided by Michig demonstrate that Arnold Gjergjaj passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the German articles fall under routine sports coverage since they fall under the category of "here's what happened in last night's fight". In other words, more play-by-play than significant coverage. I could find the same kind of coverage for thousands of fights of non-notable boxers. Papaursa (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully, the next week can be spent discussing sources, which is really what notability is about on wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the articles fall under routine sports coverage. For example, here is the Google Translate of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung article. Here are the first three paragraphs:

His trainer and manager Angelo Gallina baptized him "The Cobra" because it waits before and then suddenly attacks. Arnold "The Cobra" Gjergjaj - sounds good and has an intimidating effect, you want to be of a professional boxer in the heavyweight division. But the native of Kosovars from Pratteln liked this artist name, then nearly seven years ago, did not accept as correct.
It is not devoid of humor, as Gjergjaj explained this refusal. 197 centimeters and 109.5 kg make the "Turnbänkli" appear very small in the basement of Boxklubs Basel under him, his hands big as spades, carry the force of 550 kilograms to be. And this man says with a wink: "I'm still myself fear cobras."
Gallina called his protege as "sympathetic and playful". Initially times it was for him a "Baby Cobra". Back when they together spanned in 2008, was Gjergjaj twofold Swiss amateur heavyweight, and Gallina guessed that would be possible more.

The article provides even more detailed biographical background about him:

Meanwhile, the cobra is almost fully grown. Another amateur title was added, then was Gjergjaj professional, the most successful heavyweights that Switzerland has ever known. Last October flicked his left jab in the 9th round briefly lights when Bosnian Adnan Redzovic from. It was his 26th victory in 26 fight as a professional, the 20 by knock-out. Then he was allowed to put the belt as European champion of non-EU countries over the shoulder - it is not a particularly serious and coveted. Had he not won Yves Studer also at middleweight, you know this country hardly of its existence. "Many have taken this title and our work to ridicule," says Gallina, "it accused us of having no proper opponents. But that's the reality. "Boxing costs. The stronger the opponent, the more expensive the fee, the more complex and financially burdensome preparing with additional personnel. Critics Despite says Gallina: "Our way is the only portable." The giant Gjergjaj had in small steps the international ranking climb, first against building opponents, then, as in the last 14 fights against boxers with a positive balance. 2011 and 2012 yielded Gjergjaj from a total of 12 fights. Point by point, he has worked up in the current 50th place.

This is not merely "here's what happened in last night's fight". Instead, this discusses Gjergjaj's history as a boxer.

Cunard (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking at the German sources (Tages Woche and Blick) in the article since you didn't provide a link to the article you mentioned. Your translation left out the beginning part where it is clear it's a local interview with his manager before that night's fight in Basel and it talks about the local boy who's been rising up the rankings to 50th and will be fighting before a home crowd tonight. That seems more promotional and typical sports reporting than you implied. Do you have some significant coverage that isn't from Basel media or about the Haye fight? Papaursa (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article I mentioned was linked by Michig. Neue Zürcher Zeitung is the Swiss newspaper of record, so I think that substantial coverage of Arnold Gjergjaj in it is a strong indicator of notability. I did not find a similar level of depth about the subject from the Haye fight. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked for sources and found an incredible amount of articles just about the upcoming Haye match. This might be notability for one event, however. Many of the articles stated that Arnold is an unknown. I'd suggest just postponing until the match but it's over a month away so I guess we have to decide the notability as is. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still questionable for any available essential improvements, Draft at best if needed for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "still questionable for any available essential improvements"? The Wikipedia article is sourced to several reliable sources and is neutrally written. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above mentioned comprehensive coverage in one or (maybe) two articles just doesn't meet WP:GNG, I'm sorry. The guidelines call for 3-5 independent and reliable sources with comprehensive coverage of the subject - I just don't see it. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I've listed multiple sources below. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I posted a quote from a 2015 article from Neue Zürcher Zeitung that provides substantial biographical coverage about the subject.
Here are two more sources from 2015:
1. Dutler, Alex (2015-06-01). "Arnold «The Cobra» Gjergjaj - Europameister mit 7-Tage-Woche". Basellandschaftliche Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  Arnold "The Cobra" Gjergjaj slaves there for the defense of his European champion title on June 6, 2015. The best Swiss heavyweight boxer is 1.97 meters and 110 kilograms already a colossal appearance, but his top secret Scandinavian training partner with the Vikings Bart and the tattooed arms surmounted him again by a few centimeters.
  ...
  On the whitewashed wall next to the ring, an image of Vladimir Klitschko hangs. Even with the Ukrainian world number 1 Arnold Gjergjaj has already measured in sparring. For the 30-year-old Swiss with Albanian roots wants to reach the top.
  ...
  The European champion belt, which Arnold Gergjaj has taken on 4 October 2014 in Basel before 2000 spectators against Bosnian Adnan Redzovic is awarded by the European Boxing Union (EBU), one of the oldest organizations in the world. However, the Swiss holding not the top EBU title, but those in the category EBU-EE - he is European champion of non-EU countries.
  So it's not the most important belt, but the first of a Swiss heavyweight boxer ever. And that Arnold Gjergjaj is on its way to the global peak, can be the cross-association world rankings BoxRec refer.
2. Oppliger, Matthias (2015-07-06). "Hand gebrochen, Trommelfell geplatzt: Gjergjaj bleibt trotzdem Europameister" [Hand broken, burst eardrums: Gjergjaj remains nevertheless European champion]. TagesWoche (in German). Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  It was an evening of firsts: the first time a battle of Arnold "The Cobra" Gjergjaj was broadcast live on Kosovar television. For the first time the professional boxer from Pratteln had to defend his European title (EBU-EE). For the first time in his career Gjergjaj went down.
  Denis Bakhtov, called "Darth Vader", was without a doubt the toughest opponent for the cobra. In two ways. On the one hand he demands Gjergjaj on Saturday night in the St. Jakobshalle, as this was never demanded. No matter how hard he hits, the Russians put the matches away seemingly easy. A counterattack? Bakhtov can not stop them. A right hook? Bakhtov oscillates slightly with your upper body to the left.
  The article goes beyond routine discussion of a sporting event by analyzing Gjergjaj's fighting techniques:
  Although the decision in the end turned out clearly, all three judges saw in Gjergjaj the winner, could arise during the fight in the meantime, another impression. The early rounds were at least balanced, Bakhtov of active boxers. While Gjergjaj used his size advantage and kept his distance, Bakhtov knew only one direction: forward. So the prattler saw something too often pushed into a corner, where he tried to sit out the richly varied punch combinations of Russians in double coverage.
  Tactically and stylistically hardly two more different fighters could stand against. Gjergjaj fought cautiously, mostly over let the smaller Boxer the ring center and practiced in running work. Although his art was clean, but based mainly on a strike, the jab. Bakhtov contrast was taking risks, examined the Infight and dodged the few strokes of the cobra with its oscillating Waist sent out. His quick combinations always found their destination, sometimes it was the body, even the head.
Here are four sources about the 2016 Hayes fight that provide significant coverage about the subject:
1. "Arnold Gjergjaj fordert Ex-Weltmeister David Haye". Neue Zürcher Zeitung (in German). 2016-03-30. Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  Arnold Gjergjaj stands before the most important fight of his career. The currently best Swiss professional boxer meets on May 21 in London on the Englishman David Haye.
  For the 31-year-old, 197 cm large Gjergjaj it is the biggest fight of his career. The as a professional unbeaten pugilist from Pratteln with Kosovar roots was far against anyone yet boxer on the format of "Heumachers", although Gjergjaj had already won the title of "European Champion of non-EU countries".
  ...
  For Gjergjajs coach and manager Angelo Gallina is not appropriate "fear, but respect" for Haye. Some researchers drowned Gjergjaj himself: "This fight in a magnificent setting is a huge motivation for me, a great world to show my skills My goal is clear. I want to stay unbeaten and with all due respect to David Haye:. His time is up."
  The possibility that Haye underestimated his upcoming opponent is available. At least this is the case with many British boxing fans. In many blog posts after the fight announcement Gjergjaj is "unknown" and considered despite his flawless fight record as "easy prey" for Haye, "perhaps he will be even more overtaxed than De Mori" conjecture several British Boxkenner.
2. Müller, Tobias (2016-03-30). "«The Cobra» Arnold Gjergjaj steht vor seinem grössten Kampf". Basellandschaftliche Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  Understandable. Today will be announced later in the day, what is clear is actually for days and is in social media as safe: Arnold Gjergjaj to deny the first big fight of his career. Against none other than the British David Haye. Of course there is little time for anything else at Angelo Gallina. Whether he was at the time of the message on the way to London to be at the press conference to local media Red and response to fight his protege against Haye today - this question remains open.
  ...
  Gjergjaj is currently classified in the BoxRec ranking ranked 29th To get further forward, he needs a victory against a large - like Haye is undoubtedly one. Only so Gallina and Gjergjaj can reach their ambitious goal of a world title fight. Siegt Gjergjaj in a possible duel against Haye, he would make a huge step towards his dream. In a defeat that would probably burst prematurely.
  29 fights, 25 knock-outs
  This a fight against Haye carries the risk of losing, a fact due to the impressive statistics of the British. In his 29 fights won this 27 times, including 25 in the preliminary round. An impressive record that is certainly the 31-year Gjergjaj known. What's more, it would be the first appearance of Pratt moth before such a backdrop that the fight, the "Haye-Day" will be held in the O2 Arena in London before 20,000 spectators. This would be a completely new stage for Arnold Gjergjaj. A fight on a completely new level in his career.
3. "Arnold Gjergjaj fordert David Haye: Es ist offiziell: «The Cobra» aus Pratteln bekommt es in seinem ersten ganz grossen Fight am 21. Mai mit dem «Hayemaker» zu tun". Basler Zeitung (in German). 2016-03-30. Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Arnold Gjergjaj stands before the most important fight of his career. The currently best Swiss professional boxer meets on May 21 in London on the Englishman David Haye (35). The duel was made official at a news conference in London.
  For the 31-year Gjergjaj it is the biggest fight of his career. The as a professional unbeaten pugilist from Pratteln with Kosovar roots was far against anyone yet boxer on the format of "Heumachers", although Gjergjaj already won the title of "European Champion of non-EU countries".
  ...
  For the rapidly beating Haye (27: 2 victory prematurely, 25) is Gjergjaj (29: 0, 21) be the last hurdle on the way to an IBF world title fight.
4. Davies, Gareth A. (2016-03-30). "David Haye pledges to donate 10 per cent of ticket sales to Nick Blackwell". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Haye, whose forthcoming fight against Gjergjaj is expected to be shown on free-to-air television, made his comeback at a sold-out 02 Arena in January with three million viewers watching on the channel Dave when he defeated Australian Mark de Mori in 131 seconds.
  He faces an opponent in Gjergjaj who has won all 29 career fights.
  Since fleeing Kosovo as a war refugee, Gjergjaj has been based in Switzerland, where the 31-year-old heavyweight is a resident.
Cunard (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene C. Pulliam[edit]

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

Person does not appear to be notable, nor do I believe most of this material is verifiable. Article is completely unsourced, and has been since October 2007. Cursory google searching results for 'Eugene Collins Pulliam' are articles about his son and genealogy data. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO Article could use sourcing. Here's some: Indiana Journalism Hall of Fame, Co-founder of DePauw University journalism honorary Sigma Delta Chi During...63 years, he owned or operated 46 newspapers. At the time of his death, Pulliam was publisher of the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette and owned the Indianapolis Star and News, among other papers. Fellowship named in his honor, Washington Post obit, His role in the 1936 Presidential campaign, Review of a book on him, WorldCat listings of all editions of his biography. There's a lot of coverage on him. He was pretty important in the publishing business. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My experience matches that reported by Maile66. I had no trouble finding sources, including even a tertiary source [7], which you almost never get. Msnicki (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ I've added references to articles at the Indiana Journalism Hall of Fame website and in the Encyclopedia of American Journalism which should be enough to establish his notability. Indyguy (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Maybe a little "over-texted" (or "under-sourced") but those are editing issues, not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimous after discussion.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jussi Olkinuora[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ @Joeykai: what part of it, specifically? The player has played games in AHL, which is a professional league (WP:NHOCKEY/LA). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA ,the AHL is a "fully professional minor league...for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #3." Criterion #3 of WP:NHOCKEY states "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues." He has played 21 games in the AHL and has achieved no honors. Joeykai (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary better signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Foley[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant coverage to meet GNG and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Competing at a junior tournament (not the world championships) is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary better signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Poolman[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a First-team all-star in the USHL but that league is not considered for notability. There is no way this article passes WP:NHOCKEY at this time and he fails WP:GNG as well. Deadman137 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary signs of better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outro (video gaming)[edit]

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

Let's knock the dust off this article and give it a good hard look. Ah, the Outro. You may know this concept by its more common name, the ending. Your first warning sign is that the article was created way back in 2005, before the majority of our modern notability guidelines had been created.

Beyond that: the entire thing is original research, with no references to independent sources whatsoever. It's full of opinions in the lead, then the "body" of the article is just a completely arbitrary list of games with endings, which, as we know, pretty much all games have, unless they're ancient arcade coin-gobblers. There's no clear criteria for inclusion as an example, other than some random editor came along and decided to add something.

I looked, and while there are plenty of people posting videos with "(video game) outro" as the title, no reliable sources have mentioned it. Searching books, I can't find anything. What I can find is mentions of outro as a generic concept; if anything, it's most commonly in music. There's no coverage of video game outros as something uniquely notable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on redirecting this one to Glossary of video game terms but I didn't find an easy source at the time. I don't think the encyclopedia would be worse off if it was deleted, but this could be a useful redirect term if we have proof that "outro" is used in a video game-specific context. czar 14:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outro is an appropriate term for what's being discussed, but there's really nothing special to video games with the term. I do not think there's a redirect option here being a disamb. title already. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Masem above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, there might be "outros" in video games, but without WP:VG/RS'es, this is just WP:OR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't anything that I really disagree with in this article, but it's all just original research. The Fallout series is probably the best known example of a story-based cinematic that describes the results of your adventures, but even that doesn't really turn up anything with a WP:VG/RS search. Sure, there are a few trivial mentions, but that seems like it. We can add a definition to the glossary if anyone finds a source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests, aside from the currents contents, the necessary improvements and sources to make the article better. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Vanjagenije, CSD A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Harris (composer)[edit]

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

Composer with questionable notability. I am trying to find anything for him, but with a name like Andrew Harris it's hard, while the ref is dead and the IMDB link didn't even go to him. I have found so far one Andrew Harris who is a composer-but he is British. Wgolf (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was some additional content stripped from the article by an anonymous IP in 2013 — but none of it bolstered notability at all, as it cited no reliable sources (besides the still-existing source and IMDb, the only other source that was ever here was a Blogspot blog), and still essentially boiled down to a résumé for a musician with no discernible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Delete; technically speediable A7. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respect to the dead link, there's a link in the Wayback machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20080517063859/http://www.boardsmag.com/articles/magazine/20061101/soundofselling.html that has a passing reference to an Andrew Harris who is a sound engineer. Searches for other references show that such a person exists (see http://music.cbc.ca/#!/artists/BARTEL ), but there's nothing with respect to in depth coverage. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Krefft[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with some advertorial tinge to it but not quite blatantly enough to merit immediate speedy on that basis, which makes no strong or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR -- it basically amounts to James Krefft is a writer who exists, and is "sourced" only to his books' sales profiles on amazon.com (which is not valid sourcing). A writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but must be the subject of media coverage which verifies an AUTHOR pass to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of any category. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There are zero reliable sources in the article -- especially serious for a BLP. I had difficulty even verifying the few claims made in the short article. I find nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. While there's plenty of evidence he's written books, there's nothing to indicate he meets WP:AUTHOR. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim that Chomsky revewed him (despite its promotional nature) is probably enough to save this from A7 speedy deletion, but it's not enough for actual notability, and I see nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- All I can see shouts NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt very much that Chomsky "reviewed" a book by Kreft - I searched and found no trace of it. Many self-promoting authors conflate "reviewed" with "blurbed". I can find no notability for Kreft or any of his books, which may well be self-published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest the necessary better signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant hoax. — ξ ^xplicit 12:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Seo Chang-jun[edit]

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

no sources, and I have tried without success to verify the claimed awards. – Fayenatic London 19:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article about awards that one member of one band has received is far too specific, and none of my searches suggest this meets notability requirements.. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This article is a hoax. The artist (and his song and band) do not exist. For example, Style Icon Awards was not held in 2015, and Jessie Li won Best Newcomer at the 10th Asian Film Awards. Random86 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely hoax. Pburka (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See related sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strong lookpla –Random86 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Mila J discography. Sandstein 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No case is being made in the article that the song is notable. The bulk of the entry is merely describing what happens in the music video. There are no citations or sources. Pupsbunch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 21:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this clearly has no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mila J discography, since the album is also non-notable. SSTflyer 03:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mila J discography: For the reasons stated above. The song and parent album lack notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and AfD nominator clearly changing mind and trying to close this as well. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Pratt Graham[edit]

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

No IMPORTENCE AND NOTABILITY DODODODO1 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Keep -- every Chancellor of Syracuse University have their Wikipedia pages. If we delete this one, why not delete the others as well? (This AfD is also coming from a very new user (not that there's anything wrong with that), but this AfD seems a bit off.) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy W. that it should be kept. Elsa Enchanted (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep - [8]: "As dean of the College of Applied Sciences, Syracuse University, Dr. Graham holds high position in scientific circles, position attained through a long course of university study... [He] did pioneer work on the conduction of electricity through rarified gasses, and... elaborated a new theory concerning comets." There's notability and significance for you. GAB^Hello! 18:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AfD poster. I want to close the discussion,i am removing the deletion tag ,i accepted the above openions (DODODODO1 (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

"Closing AfD, result was keep (nomination withdrawn)." (DODODODO1 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as I'm going to be bold here since the major museum exhibitions would certainly be enough for notability (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Belkin[edit]

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

Not convinced this subject is notable enough. A considerable number of the sources come from the company that sells his paintings, giving this a sense of advertising. T v x1 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easlily passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. His works are part of Russian Hermitage Museum and Museum of Russian Art in Moscow. Those two are two largest and most important museums in Russia. In addition to that his works are in other major museums. I've removed some promotional content and added some sources. The article needs further rework, but at this stage it's a solid stub to stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP suggested. Anyone with works in the Hermitage permanent collection is unquestionably notable. I removed the improper external links. I suggest that the nominator read WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Jensen[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. He's been inactive since 2009. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. If the "All-American" awards were post-season awards by an organization recognized as official by the NCAA I could see passing under WP:NCOLLATH, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of this still currently questions the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-noable baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bruce (baseball)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Doesn't register significant coverage in the Omaha World-Herald, his hometown paper. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while playing college sports in the US may confer notability - some sports are followed minutely by the press - it doesn't guarantee notability. Here's there's nothing to show detailed coverage of the player. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Joseph-Goteiner[edit]

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

No actual indication of notability. Certainly does not meet WP:CREATIVE--no significant criticism of the work or work in major museum. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly not satisfying any applicable notability, not yet any acceptable signs for an acceptable article, as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Emerging artists should get a chance to emerge and have a career and some real accomplishments before we publish their biography in an encyclopedia. An actual body of work for example, would be nice. Mduvekot (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for a creative artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan Mexicans[edit]

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

These two news articles show that there are people from Kenya in Mexico. This is not an encyclopedic piece of information. There are people from all countries in Mexico and sometimes they get into the news. It does not show that there is a "Kenyan diaspora" in Mexico. It also does not show that there is a notable group that identifies as "Kenyan Mexican", which is also a neologism that does not actually appear in any of the sources given. If we write articles like this we would have articles about all combinations of "Mexican" and all the worlds other countries. A reliable source about immigration should identify a group of "Kenyan Mexicans" for this article to be a reasonable addition to the encyclopedia.

So basically the rationale is: the topic is non-notable, and the only two sources do not support the encyclopedic significance of the topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps at best for now and wait for better information and sources to become available. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaivi Dhanda[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTAL. Donottroll (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero reliable sources listed. I found passing mention (e.g., see http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/life-style/woman-of-substance/217610.html ), but nothing significant. Even referring to WP:CRYSTAL may be a bit generous. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not an independent or reliable source, and that all this article has. KDS4444^Talk 05:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as also still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Vinzelts[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion by its own creator earlier today (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof. Vinzelts), but no reason was given for the deletion, and the nominator withdrew the nomination. However, after reviewing the article myself, I find that the subject's notability has not been clearly established. The subject is described as a peace activist, musician, and scientist, but the sources provided appear to be links to pages on the web sites of organizations with which he is affiliated, a press release, a YouTube channel, and a broken link. No independent reliable sources have been provided, nor have I been able to find any good sources myself. If the subject really is notable, more would need to be done to establish that under WP:BIO. But based on the current content, I would recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an amazing total of 4 hits on google. If they were decent sources, I would vote keep, but all my searches turn up nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sockpuppet contributions. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep subject has already made Diplomatic appearances as one of the prominent Youth Leader of the United Nations, theses are the young People who are doing amazing Jobs like Malala and other young activists, by sacrificing their lives and time in transforming the lives of youth in the world unlike other dormant youth, and motivating a lot of young people to lead Change in the Society. Thus satisfying WP:Speedy keep. Subject will probably continue to make more international appearances in performing Outstanding activism and advocacy activities, and hence still satisfies the general notability requirements. Should not forget the Subject has already began a path that could end him up being a prominent world leader in days to come, how much coverage is needed before people keep wasting time trying to delete rather than improve this article of such prominent young Leaders? This article already has excellent referencing that shows that He is a notable activist in the civil rights movement of the United Nations, including books published by either his or other Organizations and online social presses. I encourage the nominator to withdraw this belittling remark. The subject appears to have made widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Stronbolt++ (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— Stronbolt++ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep the subject is a notable enough topic WP:Speedy keep perwith dated banner asking for improved research. The subject has made a lot of contributions already to satisfy the general notability requirements, however, we are working to provide more links and references.Dr. Daniel Obuobi 06:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIEL OBUOBI (talk • contribs) — DANIEL OBUOBI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy Keep He appears notable to me, and just because the article isn't well written or well referenced, More improvement should be done on this Article rather than to be deleted.WIKILEAKbolt (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— WIKILEAKbolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep I see merit in speedy Keep request. should not be deleted, the subject meets the general notability requirements.--cyberCHRoxE-- (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— --cyberCHRoxE-- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ More improvement are being done on this Article, to make it a notable one, and still continuing to link it up with reliable sources, I added some reliable ref tags - so at least you can see the source url's for easier evaluation of those refs. I strongly believe this Article should not be deleted since the subject has other reliable links that are yet to be sourced to make the article more notable for educational purposes ^[1]Dr. Daniel Obuobi 08:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIEL OBUOBI (talk • contribs) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ghana News Agency. "Prof. Vinzelts and Kalybos Begin Peace Tour (New York Summit)". Ghana News Agency. Retrieved 2016-04-16.

Note: Related UN Youth Ghana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UN Youth Ghana. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources – fails WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That Ghana News Agency reference is the press release which I referred to above as already being included as a source in the article. If anyone has additional sources to use for the article, they should go ahead and add them to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched and was unable to find significant coverage in independent sources to pass WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as this is still questionable for the solid notability this article needs. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Vacariu[edit]

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

I like the sunglasses, but I have to say to the article creators, single-purpose accounts HARRYCRAIG and, er, Vacariu.bucharest: you haven't demonstrated that WP:PROF is met, not by a long shot. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not seeing very many peer reviewed articles and very few citations. The page is badly formatted, but even looking beyond that, I'm afraid the subject isn't even close to meeting the standards of WP:NACADEMIC in my opinion. Delete JMWt (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SUNGLASSES. Just joking. Delete, PROF has not been satisfied, despite his stuff on Academia.edu. GAB^Hello! 15:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little clean up on the article, minor copy editing and formatting, added some ref tags - so at least you can see the bare url's for easier evaluation of those refs. There are zero results from HighBeam Research for "Gabriel Vacariu" and no results for any of his books either. A Google search though brings up multiple references to Vacariu questioning plagiarism or unbelievalbe similarities with his work and others in that field.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation counts too low to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 and no other evidence of notability. In particular, being a victim of alleged plagiarism is not grounds for notability unless that story is picked up by major news sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe in some parallel universe, but way below PROF in this one. Might be notable for paranoically accusing everyone left and right of plagiarism, if anyone but he was talking about that. E Eng 03:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmurry GAA[edit]

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

Junior club, non-senior county championship winning. Murry1975 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cork Intermediate Football Championship is clearly on senior level. I do not remember a policy which prescribes a championship at the highest level to be notable. The Banner talk 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not senior it is an Intermediate club below senior level. Not top level amateur sport.Murry1975 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Intermediate level is a level for seniors, not a youth level. It is the second level, that is true. But as far as I know there is no rule, guideline or policy that prescribes that a club must be active on the highest level. The Banner talk 15:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject article might have a great impact for Educational purposes.--cyberCHRoxE-- (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome newbie, has zero impact for edutactional purposes. Murry1975 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The block for disruptive editing received by the newbie is perhaps more educational for him. The Banner talk 15:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Gaelic Athletic Association is comprised of small & large clubs and each club is vital to understanding how the organization works. There are All-Ireland championships for clubs at all levels, not just senior. Pmunited (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Seguin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Seguin has never made a senior appearance in a professional league. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in a cup match against another team from a Pro-League, so he is notable. Kante4 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not realise that would make him notable until after I nominated. Now withdrawing. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Rho Pi[edit]

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

I came across this via a speedy and it just barely passes A7 criteria via its affiliation with Alpha Epsilon Pi, as it started off as a branch of that fraternity. I was initially debating maybe mentioning this in the main fraternity article, but there really isn't much out there about this fraternity or it breaking away to form its own fraternity late last year. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual chapter of a fraternity. We have never considered them notable. Nor do we consider local branches of other organizations notable, such as the 1000s of local chapters of charitable organizations, or the 100s of individual branches of the hundreds of chain restaurants or supermarkets. The rule here is very simple: NOT DIRECTORY. Such articles would be most dramatically in violation of it. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Put it this way - if this were a single chapter, local fraternity, it would not be notable. If it is notable as an offshoot of another, clearly notable national organization, then I would argue that notability is not inherited. If the split itself were the subject of significant coverage, then an article on the split itself might work - and perhaps could be discussed at the parent fraternity's article, if other chapters split as well or if coverage expands. Now, I'm citing WP:USUAL as well, here - because a local chapter can very easily expand elsewhere, particularly if other chapters split from the parent organization. If Beta Rho Pi were to expand to other campuses, and if that expansion were properly documented, then I can see an article working. But not now, not as it stands. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connect Bus and Coach[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Murry1975 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding source coverage online to qualify an article; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable bus route fails CORDEPTH & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for the necessary better notability improvements, nothing convincing to currently keep. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Pinney[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actor. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^talk 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Pinney has an extensive career as a voice actor and has a following of sorts. His career spans a quarter of a century and has over eighty credits. He also has a few credited physical acting roles as well as some small parts. Again this is another article that needs a lot of work. 12:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete as I would've also considered Keep however my searches found nothing better aside from a few links and the IMDb is not anything convincing so I have to suggest Delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless superior, secondary, independent and reliable sources can be found to establish notability. All my searches turned up were fan wikis and indexes; unfortunately nothing approaching our RS standards. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in need of serious work, but its subject is definitely notable. I'll try to look for some more sources when I have the time. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derbundeskanzler (and Karl Twist) with respect, that's not how this works; in order for this article to survive the AfD, we're going to need to see sources which establish the topic's WP:NOTABILITY--as a practical matter, we can't just go on the blanket and unqualified assumption that "it's definitely notable!". Are you really certain there are sources out there that meet our WP:RS standards and are suitable to establishing notability for this man under WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR? Because several of us have looked and found nothing. If you're certain they exist and want this article to stay, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide them now, not just assurances that those sources "must" exist and will show up some day. If you can find said sources, I will happily change my !vote, but the AfD process requires more than guesswork. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood.com has a biography for the actor here, and while it seems the "All Movie Guide" biography linked from the following page was left unarchived, there is an archived page from The New York Times we could use to source some of his roles here. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that Karl Twist has added a few different sources to the article. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still adding to it Derbundeskanzler. I'm going to do more work on it as well. Karl Twist (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I don't mean to discount your good-faith efforts here, but all any of these sources do is list credits; not a single one of them discusses Pinney beyond listing his name and the role he played. Further, only one of these sources comes anywhere close to meeting our WP:Reliable source standards. Please see WP:Notability; we need in-depth coverage of the topic and its impact, not a dozen different variations on a TV.com role list. I'm afraid that I can't change my !vote based on anything presented so far, and if these sources represent the best that two dedicated fans can dig up with several days to work at it, I daresay this is pretty conclusive evidence that this individual is non-notable, for the purpose of Wikipedia's policies on such. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow Rise, first of all I would like to say that I am not a fan! Prior to coming across this article for deletion, I was only vaguely aware of Pinney and only because I had seen it here and there as a reference to voice overs. Also don't like animated films and loathe these cartoons on tv. There is now another source that "discusses Pinney beyond listing his name".
Here at 411 Mania, the review : Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD 3.16 Review – ‘Paradise Lost’, The Review by Wayatt Beougher. Pinney is even mentioned in an unrelated article as you can see. Industry-wise he is now being referenced. This is just a few hours old. Hot off the press so to speak. So now you can raise the tally from "only one of these sources comes anywhere close to meeting our WP:Reliable source standards" to two. I think I can find another to make that total three. He's also mentioned in books as well. Given time I believe this article will satisfy the strictest folk here. So the question is, Why am I going to such an effort to improve the article and save it ? The answer is that I believe him to be notable. Yes he has only had around 6 - 8 on screen acting roles that I have been able to locate. Actually I will increase that as he has done 33 episodes as Harry in Harry and the Hendersons tv series. Also he has done some stage work.

He was an announcer in 3 episodes of Thank God You're Here.

As a voice actor however he has had 13 episodes as Balkar / Terra / Klone in Blackstar, 7 episodes in The Dukes, 17 episodes as Mainframe in G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, 48 episodes in The Centurions, 19 episodes as Mighty Mouse and Mike Mouse (main roles). He did 2 episodes in Spider-Man Tv series as The Thing / Benjamin J. Grimm, 3 episodes as Fish #1 / Zoo Keeper / Security Guard and others in SpongeBob SquarePants, 48 episodes as Wormguy / Alien / Worm Emperor etc in Men in Black: The Animated Series, 2 episodes in Jackie Chan Adventures with 1 as Dr. Weber. He has also done 13 episodes in various credited roles on Robot Chicken. Then add about 30 other voice-over roles in various programs and films and that's quite an amount.

Even though there is no doubt in my mind that Pinney is notable, I will say that we also have to view voice actors with another kind of mindset. I have looed at other voice actors in Wikipedia and many are screen actors with a much smaller amount of voice work. Pinney is the other way around. He is a prolific voice actor with a much smaller amount of on screen work. I dare say though that his role as Mannheim Hofflung in the Charles Dennis directed film Chicanery may change that. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hollywood.com does go in-depth about his career in the following paragraph on their site:

Over the duration of his career, Patrick Pinney exercised his vocal talents in a range of films. Pinney worked on a variety of projects during his early entertainment career, including "Casual Sex?" with Lea Thompson (1988), "DuckTales: The Movie" with Alan Young (1990) and "Project X" with Matthew Broderick (1987). He also contributed to "The Chipmunk Adventure" (1987) starring Ross Bagdasarian Jr., the Hamilton Camp and Ed Gilbert hit "The Little Mermaid" (1989) and "The Terminator" (1984). After that, Pinney moved on to lend his vocal talents for roles in films like the Paige O'Hara blockbuster animated film "Beauty and the Beast" (1991) and the Lea Salonga blockbuster animated adventure "Aladdin" (1992). Pinney's music was most recently used in the Jaden Smith hit action flick "The Karate Kid" (2010).

I think this source would be useful in building the article, and it's definitely not a simple list of roles. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time seeing how those observations are anything but a list of his roles--they don't speak to the quality of his acting in those roles, his career in the industry, his influence or status, or anything but the fact that he played those roles. Also, hollywood.com is not RS.

That said, the Agents of Shield review Karl found above definitely takes us a step in the right direction--that's the kind of (at least somewhat) detailed coverage that we're looking for here. I don't think that one paragraph is quite enough to base an article on in and of itself, but it does show that some media sources have shed some light on the nature and quality of Pinney's work as a voice actor. I'll make some more efforts to turn something up; if we can just find one or two more sources with that level of coverage, I'll be satisfied that the minimum requirements of GNG have been met, and will switch my !vote, which should be enough to get this closed as a Keep. In the meantime, I'd like to request that anyone coming upon this discussion and contemplating a close waits to do so just a bit longer, so we can dig a little deeper on this. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Snow Rise, there's a bit here about Pinney in the Modesto Bee where his name is mentioned six times. The article by Marijke Rowland is fun reading too. Comedic ‘Unnecessary Farce’ slams into Sierra Rep. Pinney is notable but one that needs improvement with work and searching. Can be both interesting fun and tiring. Karl Twist (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was nominated for speedy deletion, i believe i could be improved on.--cyberCHRoxE-- (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi --cyberCHRoxE--, I have had a look at the history here and the article has never been nominated for speedy deletion. It was given an Article for deletion tag this month as per "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy". I'm working to improve the article and here is what the article looked like before I started on it. And here is where I'm up to so far. I'm not finished yet. BTW: Nominated for speedy deletion is different from nominated for deletion. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like Karl Twist has added quite a few reliable sources to the article that prove Pinney's notability. I might edit the article myself to add "cite web" templates to the references, but I'm happy with the sources themselves. Capcapandgengen (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of notability. The two "keep" editors, being contributors to the article, can be seen as having conflict of interest. Furthermore, their arguments are not convincing. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freshly Squeezed music[edit]

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

~~Though it appears in search results, I am nominating for this reason Freshly Squeezed Music. Greek Legend (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The wording of the nomination isn't clear, but it is presumably trying to point out that the differently capitalised page Freshly Squeezed Music has been deleted on a number of occasions, including at AFD. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This should be speedy deleted under criteria G4 as this is a recreation of a previously deleted page via an AFD discussion. Mwenzangu (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment This does not qualify for G4, because the page is substantially different than the version that was deleted. Note that G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I have not checked the potential notability of the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I do not see how it is not notable enough to be included? Though previous pages have been deleted on this subject, this article not only is very different in it's construction and use of sources, but it also asks (Using Stubs) for more parties to contribute to its completion. The page (Record Label) is linked and mentioned in other approved Wiki Pages: Voodoo Trombone Quartet , Swing Republic, Swingrowers Lodekka, The Correspondents and more. It's Club night 'White Mink' is mention in Electro swing and the sources backing this articles notability include The Independent & Mixmag ( Electroswing770 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Subject is not only mentioned in passing, if you view the linked artists associated with the label you will see that in every aspect of their activity they mention being signed to the record label Freshly Squeezed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electroswing770 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

comment Please don't try to !vote more than once. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Any Record label of over 10 years standing in the industry these days is notable! joking aside, I also know they just signed a Joint Venture with Island Records (Universal) not yet in the media, but they aren't going away anywhere in the real world any time soon, so they should be represented here too. This is the key label behind the Electro Swing genre as mentioned above. The points re notability above are not that relevant when a label's first job is building the profile of it's artists, not itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copydawg (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very questionable for solid independent notability. RS's are little more than mentions. Ludicrously promotional tone isn't in itself a criteria for deletion, but doesn't help!Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG, only trivial mentions. And actually, Pincrete, as per WP:DEL4, promotional tone can be a rationale for termination. I think the combo of promotion and lack of notability in this case is a certain recipe for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "delete" arguments are significant, "keep" arguments less so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Yee[edit]

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

This is someone who has written a lot of book reviews on the web. The sources do not adequately establish notability. Besides the primary sources and web searches, which are obviously not usable, there are several books listed. As far as I can tell through Google Books, they are not in depth. He also got quoted a few times as a spokesperson for the EFA, but being quoted in the media does not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. For the very same reasons I gave last time around: 12.130.117.156 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, however, the "Google test" gives 155k hits for Yee, whose reviews are widely quoted, referenced and syndicated. Relatedly, Google scholar shows a rather substantial 365 mentions. The "author test" mentions readership of >5000: according to Yee's statements (see Talk:Danny Yee), he has gotten over a million hits on his reviews over the years—even if Yee's characterization of server logs isn't exactly accurate, the 5000 threshold is easy exceeded by two orders of magnitude. FWIW, Google groups shows 4260; and Alexa shows his homepage at 64,061. I also find it notable that his reviews have been slashdot frontpage stories repeatedly. • The prior AfD (over a year ago) was based on different, and inadequate, article contents that in fact failed to assert notability. LotLE×talk 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough, probably meets WP:GNG . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches easily found nothing better and the article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that ThePlatypusofDoom's account was created yesterday, April 7. The IP editor's keep vote is based on Google search results, which is not policy-based. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He writes a lot of book reviews. Writing book reviews is almost never enough alone to make someone notable, and the way his are published, basically self-published is less likely. The sources are mainly his own work, not others assessing his work let alone reliable third party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as John Lambert above points out writing a lot of book reviews is not the same as getting coverage of a notable person as the subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The first "speedy keep was me. I thought the explanation made that clear. I wasn't at a computer where I could sign in when I posted it. LotLE×talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with John Pack Lambert. Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find his site and reviews he has written (e.g. on Slashdot) but all of the work I find is self-published, and I found no sources ABOUT him. Even famous authors must have sources about them to meet GNG. This does not meet GNG, nor AUTHOR. There was a Google books search given as a reference (which itself is not an acceptable reference) but all of the books I looked at were false hits - none had content related to Danny Yee. LaMona (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. non-notable recording by non-notable artist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Jesse - EP[edit]

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

Reason Jayden Jesse (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotional post of non-notable work. JamesG5 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2016 (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/2016 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is going on here? A user creates an article about an EP they released, and then nominates it for deletion themselves? I am confuse! (the subject itself has no evidence of notability, and the article should be deleted). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. self-promotion by non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Jesse[edit]

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

Reason Jayden Jesse (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly self promotion post by a non-notable individual. JamesG5 (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2016 (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/2016 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as Kosovo is not a member of FIFA or UEFA, fails NFOOTY. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enis Bunjaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Bunjaki has never made a senior appearance, and his two appearances for Kosovo were non-FIFA matches (tier 2), as Kosovo is not a member of either FIFA or UEFA. A similar discussion involving a player making appearances for Kosovo can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alban Bunjaku (3rd nomination). Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since he played two international games for Kosovo I created this article, but however you guys know better than me, so if you agree each other to delete this article I'm not against you. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that Kosovo is not a FIFA member, which then means he does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. He even is playing for the German U19s, which is allowed due to the fact he did not actually make a FIFA-recognized international appearance in a Tier 1 match. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Secret Agent Julio: Let me tell you something. It's such as a professional footballer which has played for a professional club against another one, even if the match has to be for a domestic cup. That's the case of subject, he has played against Senegal a fully recognized national team, plus this match was permitted by FIFA. I mean so he hasn't played against a unrecognized national team such as Northern Cyprus, Vatican, etc. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has already made two senior international appearances, thus satisfying WP:FOOTY. Subject is also only 18 and will probably only contine to make more appearances, but even if he doesn't he still satisfies the general notability requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that it only covers tier 1 international matches, meaning Kosovo's matches as a non-FIFA member do not qualify. More importnatnly, he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two internationals for Kosovo, which has applied for FIFA membership - [9]. There's no reason they wouldn't be admitted, other than bias by some of their neighbours. Nfitz (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not change the fact that the matches he participated in for Kosovo thus far were not tier 1, which are the only tier notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't simply apply the rules, when the only reason Kosovo matches aren't fully recognized is because of the political machinations of those who seek to occupy the country. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the exact opposite is true. We should not be ignoring the rule, simply because we don't like politics of the situation. Considering FIFA membership would mean access to World and Euro Cup qualifiers on one hand, and respect for stricter sanctioning requirements on the other, there is a very real difference between tiers 1 tier 2, and WP:NFOOTBALL is acknowledgement of that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kosovo gained the rights from FIFA to play international friendly matches, and Bunjaki has played two. --Sadsadas (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that it only covers tier 1 international matches, meaning Kosovo's matches as a non-FIFA member do not qualify. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league, or in a tier 1 international match meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. More importantly, the subject has received insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Kosovo applying for FIFA membership is clearly not the same as them having it - so it's not an 'official' FIFA game. Giant Snowman 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY, No tier 1 international appearance, or fully pro league. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. He's not actually an official member of FIFA. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 03:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recently created article that doesn't really expand on the main Minecraft article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Enchats / Anvil enchants[edit]

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

Minecraft how-to in violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. --Non-Dropframe _talk 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could probably be speedied as a test page or as something that doesn't expand on the main Minecraft article in a beneficial manner, since we don't do game guides on Wikipedia. At the very least I don't think that there's any way that this would survive AfD, so speedy would be the best outlet here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing for a second time - Nom hasn't returned since the closure/reopening and no one's refuted the sources etc so closing as Keep....again (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScoopWhoop[edit]

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

I'm nominating again since I'm simply not convinced by that first AfD and how it went and my searches at News, Books, Highbeam and WP:INDAFD simply found nothing actually better for notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same as last time. The article reads like an advertisement, prompting me to tag it as such. But that is strictly a content issue. At AfD, all we consider is notability. Under WP:GNG, notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Those sources clearly exist, as demonstrated by the Business Standard and Quartz articles. Msnicki (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Business Standard
Business Standard
Mint
Mint
The Times of India
Horses Can Fly

Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. How much coverage is needed before people keep wasting time trying to delete rather than improve this article? A feature-length movie based on a series of 253 books? The sources provided unquestionably demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure Comment - I originally closed as Keep due to sources being shown and the fact nom hadn't seemingly followed before ... however someone disagreed and I really cannot be arsed for another round at ANI so I've just reopened it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Case (baseball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as WP:NCOLLATH specifies "College [...] coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." and coverage like this and this and this all go well beyond mere statistics and routine coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky. Sufficient coverage from independent sources exists. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euvester Simpson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; minor coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; no question she was a minor participant in the Civil Rights movement, but appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO is an "Additional criteria" of Wikipedia:Notability (people). "Additional criteria" states, "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Euvester Simpson was among the group involved in the Winona torture and prisoner abuse incident, her name is mentioned in Google books, Google Scholar, and Google news. The article is a start class article that only needs development. Mitchumch (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article already has excellent referencing that shows that she was a notable activist in the civil rights movement, including books published by two university presses. My Google Books search produced literally dozens of books that discuss her. Calling her a "minor foot soldier" is deeply disrespectful and unsupported by reliable sources. I encourage the nominator to withdraw this belittling remark. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The fact that someone gave her an award means that they recognised her as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't a notable award? This has nothing to do with what this person did to advance the Civil Rights Movement, it has to do with whether this person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. There were many hard-working, courageous foot soldiers in the movement, and many, like Simpson, have been mentioned with a sentence or two in a book. Does this make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article, or would readers of Wikipedia be better served to learn about this person from within an existing article? Simpson's contributions to the movement could easily be added to the Fannie Lou Hamer article, and perhaps be more widely read if it was there. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is best served by having the maximum number of well-referenced biographies of demonstrably notable people, even if some people pigeonhole them (in this case) as "civil rights footsoldiers". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this, and these...[10][11][12]. Learn some history friend. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SSTflyer 03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Gershwin[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable or merge with ~~George Gershwin or Ira Gershwin~~ Leopold Godowsky, Jr. for same reason. Quis separabit? 01:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Leopold Godowsky, Jr. per WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituaries in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Variety etc. show she has sufficient notability in her own right. Cole Porter "designed a show for her at the storied nightclub Les Ambassadeurs", and she cut an album to "wide acclaim". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with dated banner asking for improved research and referencing. Looks like there's more about her that just hasn't been included here. VanEman (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs discography AdrianHeadingley —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate sources mentioned and whether they establish notability SSTflyer 03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The major-media news obituaries noted above (there's also this in The Independent) and other coverage such as [13] establish her individual notability both for her role within the Gershwin family and for her own activities as a painter and performer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This nomination had some formatting errors, so I have reformatted it. The discusion is now located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dementia Research Centre (2nd nomination). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia Research Centre[edit]

Nominated because the article contains no evidence that the Centre has any intrinsic notability; all the citations are internal and do not demonstrate any achievements that cannot be attributed to its staff or to its parent department or institution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validcharm (talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SaleCycle[edit]

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

Spammy article for a non-notable company. Declined 3 times at AFC, but created anyway without addressing concerns. Contested prod. Bradv 00:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I don't agree with the creator's tactics in by creating the page after 3 failed attempts at WP:AFC, the subject is notable. Page needs some work though if it is to keep. Meatsgains (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article should not be treated as Spam gratuitously. Please refer to the talk page to see what happened in the AFC and come up with a thorough opinion based on all the facts. I added the {{notability|Companies}} template at the moment of the publication thinking it was an unambiguous way of addressing the main concern. As I understand, there is still a lot of debate on notability determination: please focus the debate in decide about it and not in a presumption of non-notability for this kind of companies because those aren't guidelines. I think this contestation maybe was raised because of my behavior instead of the article's Notability. This could invalidate the original reasons to Nominate the article for deletion and and this debate would be taking place in the TalkPage. Edelmoral (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very weak sourcing for this article does not establish notability, and the AfC reviewers User:SwisterTwister and User:Eteethan rightly rejected it, three times. ~~I am sorry for Edelmoral's work on the draft but the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I believe it's still too soon as I mentioned at AfC. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Drum
The Chronicle
The Chronicle
Sunderland Echo
Travel & Leisure Close-Up

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate sources provided, and whether they establish notability SSTflyer 02:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 02:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ <(striking duplicate !vote) - along with these sources, the subject also meets WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND (fulfilling the WP:ORG#Primary_criteria) with: Edelmoral (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Journal -> Regional Coverage (North East England)
The Chronicle -> Regional Coverage (North East England)
MediaPost Communications -> National Coverage(USA) and International
MediaPost Communications -> National Coverage(USA) and International
The Guardian -> National Coverage(UK) and International

Please note that I have struck your duplicate !vote, you only get one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a democratic election or a popularity contest (WP:WIKINOTVOTE), so isn't a "vote", is my position in the debate. We're here triying to reach a WP:CON. Edelmoral (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why we say "!vote" ("not-vote"); my point is that you may not say keep or delete in boldface more than once, it's the long-standing rule for everybody at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm actually convinced by the sources so I'm changing my !vote to Keep Just one of those per person, mind.Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Anthony Bradbury. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutionary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and also qualifies for deletion per WP:NEO. (Note that the previous deleted article under this name was about a different topic, a company). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional effort by the person who created the term, he's clearly trying to make "fetch" happen. JamesG5 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A neologism which has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Of course, people promoting the term use it a lot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SKCRIT #1 (withdrawn by nom with no support). —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Prof. Vinzelts[edit]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No rationale given by nominator. stronbolt++ (talk) Stronbolt++ (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Speedy keep "Withdrawn by nominator" DR. DANIEOL OBUOBI talk The article is highly for Education purposes, as it contains notable information about an potential member of the United Nations Dr. Daniel Obuobi 03:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIEL OBUOBI (talk • contribs) Dr. Daniel Obuobi 03:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martha Speaks (TV series). JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Peters[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable performer. Fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martha Speaks perhaps for now as that would be her longest TV show where she was a main character, no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "help" banner are brand new. I would leave it with help banners attached for now and give it some time. no urgency. VanEman (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this vote is not actually suggesting how this can be improved for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martha Speaks per SwisterTwister. She isn't notable enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. WP:ENT specifies "Has had significant roles in multiple notables films, television shows....". She has had a major role in Martha Speaks, and an ensemble cast role in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. All other roles are either uncredited or minor. To be clear, I think she is close to notability, but not quite. I suspect she will get there soon. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martha Speaks. Not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG, and I agree with Chrisw80 that she is close to passing WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martha Speaks (TV series). WP:TOOSOON, will likely pass in the future with more credits to her name. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sadly for university students, most dormitories are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Sandstein 09:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towers Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable dorm. All current references are non-independent. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show why this particular dorm is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it could also be expanded and moved to Halls of residence at Loughsborough University or the like. See Category:Halls of residence in the United Kingdom. Or is there some standard specific to dormitories / residence halls that could be suggested? --do ncr am 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi doncram, what's your rationale for your keep !vote? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to return. Maybe "Halls of residence" is also too narrow. The general problem is that there is a general, continuing pressure on Wikipedia for creation of articles on university buildings, because they loom large to potential student writers (our future...sigh). Supply (allowance to expand coverage) needs to meet, sort of, the demand, or odd things happen, like too-narrow articles emerge (perhaps this single dormitory building is one), and we're stuck with either crushing goodwill and initiative or accepting not-great topics padded with minutiae so they can seem article-worthy. Some balance can be achieved by creating a list-article that covers multiple buildings giving some appeasement but where coverage inflation can then be fought as a matter of editing. You have to see that there is a vast Category:University and college buildings including Category:Lists of university and college buildings and Category:Buildings and structures by university or college etc. etc. already. Category:Buildings and structures of Loughborough University (currently a redlink) is overdue.

Reviewing Category:Loughborough University for buildings and structures articles, I see Burleigh Hall, Loughborough Students' Union, Pilkington Library and also some articles like National Cricket Performance Centre and Centre for Renewable Energy Systems Technology that might be dual articles about an academic department and its building(s). How about 1) moving the Towers Hall article, the weakest of them all IMHO, to List of Loughsborough University buildings and structures, 2) editing the current material down into one section and 3) roughing out an intro and other sections perhaps organized geographically (e.g. group "East Park" ones together) starting with mini-sections linking to the already-existing articles? That gives recent and arriving local authors something to develop. This goes towards parity at other universities, doesn't offend by outright deleting anyone's work, and in the list context it seems fair to cut down the detail about this one building. I say keep the strong sentence

The building is a Locally Listed Building of important interest, its description on Charnwood Borough Council's record states that it is a "severe ‘modern’ high rise block comprising 2 towers of 22 and 18 storeys linked by a central access tower" and is significant for its "cold, grey modular pre-cast concrete construction".

and the floor layout picture, drop the duplicative verbiage about layout, edit down the rest. :) That's my two cents, I think translating to a "Keep, but rename and refocus into a list" vote. --do ncr am 06:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yikes, I didn't see subsection Loughborough University#Student halls with its table of 16 residences hiding in the university article's "Student Life" section. I say sweep that into the list-article, add a photos column, so all students feel represented (don't I sound patronizing?), limit all description of Towers Hall to the space of one largish box in a "Details" or "Description" or "Comments" column. --do ncr am 06:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as I'm not confident this would be best moved to the university article itself as it's simply a hall. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the university article is not a suitable merge target...no mention, or practically no mention, is appropriate there. But a {{main}}-type link from the "Campus" section to a separate List of buildings and structures of Loughborough University is fine. --do ncr am 06:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:GEOFEAT. No officially assigned status of cultural heritage or national heritage at a national level, no significant coverage in third-party sources to establish historical importance, and not general infrastructure. I don't see any content that is useful for merging into the main encyclopedia article beyond what's already there. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the Keep vote, from what I comprehend, is not suggesting this actually be kept and improved but instead moved to an article. Summarily, this is still questionable for the necessary improvements for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magic Tree House (series). General consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Tide in Hawaii[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD with the same rationale was removed by article creator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: needs some better sourcing, but it's notable. VanEman (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has some fairly weak sourcing, but it placed on two notable bestseller lists and received a review from the Horn Book Guide. It's not a lot and I'm not altogether convinced that this couldn't be included in the main article, but this would technically be enough to pass on that basis alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magic Tree House (series) as this would be best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as made bestseller lists and reviews such as Horn book guide, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as I can find several Magic Tree House books on the New York Times bestseller list and it's not clear why this is special. Connor Behan (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 90 percent of the sources covering this book are actually about the larger series and only mention this particular book in passing. Also, GNG for books suggests that editors use common sense about when a book merits its own article and says, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." In this case, since the author has written a few dozen children's books in the same series, it makes sense to group them all into one article unless one particular book obtains some special additional notability which this one does not seem to have. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series. Not finding enough on my searches to support an independent article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Kreth[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. No coverage in reliable, non self-published sourced except for this one article. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Has not been nominated or won a well-known and significant award or honor; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Austin Chronicle article you cite is extremely persuasive. Persuaded me that it would be a cinch to find more RS. It was.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, what little is written about him, but not notable. VanEman (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast when a career begins before most newspapers were online, you have to search beyond google/google news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable. Added a couple of articles form major dailies to the article. Also see Wired; A Romance, a 2003 book by Gary Wolf, published by Random House.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete E.M.Gregory I'm rather surprised that you find those references substantial. He is named on two pages of the Gary Wolf book, and not much is said about him. The NYTimes article has a one-line quote from him. In addition, one of the references is to his book on his publisher's page, which doesn't work toward notability. I did find this: "Will Kreth: a Wired hand moves over to Prodigy" by Morrison, Jim. Marketing Computers, 09/1995, Volume 15, Issue 8.(EBSCOHost) -- However, the article is only a couple of lines long. Other than that, I found a few articles by him. That's all. LaMona (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Beyond not finding anything in-depth from reliable independent sources using the search engines, I agree with LaMona's assessment of the sources found by E.M.Gregory. In addition, I used the wonderful Newspapers.com license I got through WP, and came up with zero references in any newspapers to Kreth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how being on the ground floor of Wired, so to speak, means anything notable. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could relist it to death but it's pointless - 2 weeks of it has only gained 2 !keeps so pointless doing a third, Consensus is they meet GNG (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Sneck[edit]

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

Analysis of sources at The Language reference desk suggests that while there are some RS, there's no in-depth coverage of this person. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already quickly seeing nice source coverage, including an edited work by subject, at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. In addition, this film Small Happiness is dedicated to Bertha Sneck OCLC 82203089, and the book The Dead Suffered Too english language edition was edited by Bertha Sneck OCLC 37259485. — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if can be improved as I would've also actually suggested Drafting instead to allow time for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets WP:GNG criteria. Article needs clean-up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmlarson. Needs a lot of cleanup, but clearly GNG. (Why keep relisting? It's adequate to keep, no need to remove to draft space). Montanabw ^(talk) 22:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Migration Alliance[edit]

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

Promotional article with no good third party references for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete not in depth third party coverage. The best I could find was small mentions confirming its existence. LibStar (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bradley[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail the guidelines for general notability. Recommending deletion as I was unable to locate evidence of significant coverage about this individual from reliable publications. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any in depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Sciutto[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the lesser standard NACTOR John from Idegon (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing acceptable at all for any applicable notability, not yet compelling for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyone (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Delete: While she doesn't appear to have strong claims against NACTOR, I note that she has had two weddings in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/style/miss-sciutto-marries-t-d-hooper-2d.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/style/weddings-nellie-sciutto-christopher-reeg.html), and wonder given her various roles in fashion/lifestyle presentation/reportage/expertise -- for instance she was one of E's Red Carpet interviewers for the 2011 Oscars -- whether she might have met notability requirements for celebrity/personality instead at some period in time, in which case sources would be offline fashion/gossip magazines. That said, notability appears marginal at best. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely doesn't meet notability standards. Not everyone can have an article. NikolaiHo 02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Salish people and salmon[edit]

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

The only contribution by this user, I believe that this is a case of WP:NOTESSAY Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I'm not seeing any glaring issues that would fall afoul of WP:NOTESSAY. It's well-sourced at least, though there may still be WP:OR. I'll have to look more in-depth. clpo13_(talk) 07:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nothing that can't be cleaned up. It's a notable enough topic per WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article seems well enough sourced to be notable, and is not essaylike. Some sections seem rather thinly sourced and might indeed contain original research, but the overall tone is encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it is presented from a First Nations standpoint which isn't usually the case for an encyclopedia, but which is more appropriate for this subject than a 'neutral' Eurocentric tone. It seems properly sourced and it is obviously a notable subject. Curiocurio (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a student project page. They've done quite a good job except for forgetting to link to it from other pages. I'm the instructor; I'll add a few links. Rosieredfield (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. The problem with this article is summed up neatly by User:Curiocurio who argues above that the article is "presented from a First Nations standpoint which is... more appropriate for this subject than a 'neutral'" voice. Precisely. The article, with the exception of a few nods to sourcing, speaks in a timeless voice, the voice, that is, of a non-linear cosmology attributed to indigenous peoples by anthropologists, a voice in which timeless attitudes ("Salmon are seen by the Coast Salish peoples are beings similar to people but spiritually superior.") are asserted without regard for the NPOV fact that, statistically, contemporary Salish have about the same proportion of skeptics, scientists, evangelical Christians, the religiously indifferent, trendy new-agers and so forth as does the general population. Who knows if any of them believes that salmon are "spiritually superior"? Article not only fails to distinguish Salish attitudes and beliefs by era, it fails to distinguish among the distinct Salish peoples. This is like writing about "Europeans;" it can be done, but an NPOV article would point out that among Salish as among Europeans, different groups speak distinct languages, eat different foods, preserve the fish they catch in different ways and so forth. And it totally fails to encounter the fact that foodways, folkways, language and belief systems change over time. "Salish" itself is a concept and ethnonym imposed by Western culture on a a group of several distinctive indigenous peoples at a particular date. This article, in short, is neither NPOV nor is it encyclopedia-worthy. Moreover since using Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX to speak in an imagined and timeless "native" voice appears to be the intention of the article creator, it needs to be deleted. WP:NOTSOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm just not understanding the delete' rationale above. What is a POV about discussing the diet and sociology of a particular people? That clearly isn't a POV, that's just a fact. If there is sufficient information available, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss. None of the above are policy reasons to delete, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources clearly show this is a notable subject. Keep. End of. JMWt (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While NPOV, SOAPBOX, and ESSAY may be an issue, AFD is not cleanup and that can be addressed by editing the article rather than deleting it. Nobody has presented an argument as to why it fails WP:GNG or anything else that is actually grounds for deletion instead of cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Trimble[edit]

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

Fails both WP:Author and WP:Prof. Trimble has no substantial body of work that has been reviewed in multiple independent sources neither is she notable as an academic. An internet search produces only the second cited source and this concedes she has not written much poetry. The other two offered sources simply quote her. NotAJF (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. User:NotAJF started the nomination at the talk page but did not create this page. I'm copying their comments here and placing the log entry. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred: I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye. The reporting editor has made eleven edits only, prior to bringing this case, all of a minor nature to the same article. I suggest that was in order to reach autoconfirmed status- without which he could not launch this. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything that meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR either. Department chair at an institution with a fairly mediocre reputation. I found a website with one of her poems on it, but no independent significant coverage of her work. She was a fellow of the Cave Canem Foundation, but it seems that this simply refers to being admitted to a retreat, and hundreds of African American poets have done the same. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real notability claim either and lots of WP:OR. Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I don't care whether this article is deleted or not, but the statement that there's "lots of WP:OR" is rather odd. You think I rang her up and interviewed her? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, turbo. I made no statement about your motivation, as you are clearly implying. What I referred to was WP:OR content: non-obvious information having no citation, such as her employment history ("she headed the Department of Languages and Literature at Huntingdon College"), is ipso facto WP:OR. You can remove this if you wish...it's a peripheral issue. The real problem is lack of notability: there are only a few citations and they have only trivial mentions of Trimble (including one that calls her "prestigious" using scare quotes). Moreover, the standard sources don't show any impact of her work, e.g. WorldCat lists her new book (no holdings), her dissertation (1 holding), and her book "Marty and the Million Man March" (2 holdings). This is not the fodder of WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't think you were questioning my motivation- I just couldn't see how OR got into the article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have grave suspicions about this nominator; this nomination and the edits leading up to it seem trollish. I can't really defend this article tooth and nail though I will try and beef it up. In the meantime, thanks to Xanthomelanoussprog for writing it up in the first place. Agricola44, Xantetc. is right: that's not original research. The nominator's comment that "some references just cite her"--yeah, maybe, but they also establish various biographical facts, which is what we do here. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Julian L. McPhillips misspoke in his autobiography when he said she was chair of the English Department. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing better for the applicable notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brandon School Division. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valleyview Centennial School (Brandon, Manitoba)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Redirected, according to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but creator declined. ubiquity (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To potential closers, please let this AFD run the standard course of a week and do not close before 15 April. As the article creator is a new editor, they may learn from this process and I have invited them to look for sources and to participate here. --do ncr am 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey let's try to make this constructive. The creator of the article appears to be brand new to Wikipedia, and deserves some support, and it's not necessary to rush to crush a pretty innocent starter article about an elementary school. Note there is no an emergency here, there is not a wp:BLP violation, and it really does not hurt anyone that the article exists. It was started with "Valleyview Centennial school is an elementary school in Brandon, Manitoba. It is for grades K to 6", which is fine, right? I mean no one contests the accuracy of that.

Okay then, what can be done? For one, the article could be improved. Has the deletion nominator performed wp:BEFORE and looked for sources that might provide useable information? We can at least attempt to look in on-line sources. I wonder who has access to a literature search that includes newspapers of Canada and specifically of Manitoba. To the creator, do you have other material to add? In particular do you have anything published about the school, such as a history of it, or a history of the area which includes coverage of the school?

Second, the so-far-suggested alternative was to redirect the article to Brandon, Manitoba#Education. The guideline (or essay?) wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not dictate that that is the correct redirect target in this case. Would a better alternative be possible? Any related article could possibly be a redirect target or it could be a useful link to include in the article itself, if the article survives this process. I think many elementary and middle school names often have been redirected to school district articles, where the school is mentioned. The link target mentions 3 separate high schools; perhaps one alternative is to mention the elementary school in the article for its high school, and to redirect to there. The link target mentions a "Brandon School Division #40", what is that? --do ncr am 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disk space is cheap. Let's not bite the newcomers, instead coach a little and find creative solutions.VanEman (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article, Brandon School Division ([14]). (ETA: It already exists.) There is no reason to have a separate article on this elementary school, and no individual notability is shown.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I found nothing that comes close to meeting WP:GNG, and it fails WP:NSCHOOL. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a redirect is the most generous we can be. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Bavaj[edit]

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

does not meet academic notability criteria Sansculotte93 (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (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/2016 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria not met in the article:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

There is no indication of this in the article.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

The awards mentioned are all doctoral and research fellowships, which do not qualify as 'highly prestigious'

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

Fellowship of the Royal Historical Society does not seem to meet this criteria. Fellowship of the HEA is commonplace in UK HE institutions.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No indication of this.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

No

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

No

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

No

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

No Sansculotte93 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Fellowships of R Hist Soc imply some recognition by his peers of his standing as a historian. The Society also has memberships, which are less prestigious. However my main reason for keeping is a significant output of academic history books. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Publishing books is necessary, but what counts is that they be noted by others. WP:Too Soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Editors and administrators may want to consider the following evidence: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.62.227 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — 86.182.62.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/riccardobavaj.html
^ http://st-andrews.academia.edu/RiccardoBavaj
^ https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/pls/web/docs/F31284/programme_information_p.pdf
^ http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=BavajGermany
^ http://www.kulturbuchtipps.de/archives/1681
^ https://www.freiheit.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/01/14/online2-15morgenstern-bavaj.pdf
^ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bavaj+ambivalenz&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=jdUZV9aVJYudgAajp7SIDw

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and I'm not seeing anything else convincing. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FRHistS is too unselective for notability and no other indication of notability under WP:GNG or WP:PROF is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (American band)[edit]

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

No sourcing to indicate notability. It was just about to be deleted via prod but then a driveby, mass de-prodder removed it without making improvements. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to bundle in the band members articles, but am bungling the template. Would appreciate a fix. They are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dugan McNeill and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Donaldson. Former member Yanni has his own career and article, and seems notable. Drummer Charlie Adams (drummer) might be notable for his charity work and work with other musicians. But if for any reason this band article is kept, I think all of these but Yanni should be merged into it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the band is notable for their innovative drum set, also article claims their albums charted. The book referenced in the article seems to be a reliable source to support WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a view on the other articles on Dugan McNeill, and Johnny Donaldson.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I'm simply finding nothing else better and the article is overall still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in Yanni in Words (cited), [15], [16], [17]. ~Kvng (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient indicia of notability, several band members when on to other relative fame, the 70s being pre-internet era, most material will be older sources. Good example of watching your recentism... just because they aren't easy to Google doesn't mean a lack of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the individual members seem notable, and as Montanabw said above, the majority of reliable sources will be in print media because of when they were active. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadigan Kural[edit]

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

The film was not even released. No any coverage and fails Film notability A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2016 (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)

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Nadigan Kural M.G.C. Chandran M.G.C. Sukumar A. Jagannathan Saira Banu M.N. Nambiar M.C. Brothers

Delete for failing WP:NF. Understanding that even an unreleased film might meet inclusion criteria of WP:NFF (paragraph 3), I gave the thing a face-lift per MOS:FILM. Sadly, pre-internet Indian films are difficult to source, and it never being released makes it more difficult. While the cast and crew are sourcable (even with some now deceased), I could not find suitable coverage for this 1981 project. If someone comes forward with Tamil-language sources, ping me. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails every notability guideline. Searches turn up nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Expanding on MichaelQSchmidt's comments, WP:NFF would allow for an article if the failure to be distributed was notable in itself. But the article tells us only that the failure to distribute was for "several reasons", without sourcing the statement or even telling us what those reasons were. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Ghana News Agency. "Prof. Vinzelts and Kalybos Begin Peace Tour (New York Summit)". Ghana News Agency. Retrieved 2016-04-16.

[2] ttp://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/riccardobavaj.html

[3] ttp://st-andrews.academia.edu/RiccardoBavaj

[4] ttps://www.humboldt-foundation.de/pls/web/docs/F31284/programme_information_p.pdf

[5] ttp://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=BavajGermany

[6] ttp://www.kulturbuchtipps.de/archives/1681

[7] ttps://www.freiheit.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/01/14/online2-15morgenstern-bavaj.pdf

[8] ttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bavaj+ambivalenz&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=jdUZV9aVJYudgAajp7SIDw

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]