Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 April	18 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Ocean[edit]

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

The issue with this organization is it's notability and the quaity of it's sources. One (Yahoo) is a mirror of the other source (takepart), the other (Orlando Sentinel) is a passing mention. Other than it's own website, this leaves the . In all fails WP:NCORP. Donnie Park (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate since my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Music1201 ^talk 03:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is more coverage available: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I'm undecided whether this is sufficient for a standalone article or whether it should be merged into Seaworld which is the natural place for it, but might be controversial since they deny any role in the site beyond providing initial funding. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links make it seem that it's all about SeaWorld, less of the blog; therefore I wouldn't be surprised if it get merged considering the notability of the group is overshadowed by the theme park. Donnie Park (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inline sources provided shows this is clearly notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't be rescued from its WP:POV. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor sourcing and questionable notability. Also, isn't written in an NPOV. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— I don't see poor sourcing and NPOV issues as reasons for wholesale deletion, but the lack of strong coverage, even taking in Donnie's finds above, lead me to believe it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:34, 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IUOMA[edit]

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

No sources, and purely promotional TJH2018 talk 23:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines. Darwinian Ape^talk 05:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity article (see note below). Bishonen | talk 19:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note. The creator is now named User:Ruud Janssen Breda, originally created as User:Iuoma. Both names show a COI with respect to this article (Ruud Janssen is mentioned in the article as the founder of the organization). The user has also edited the article Ruud Janssen, which is presumably about himself. I've warned him about COI editing. So have other people, but he may have thought the problem went away with the name change. I hope he stops editing them now, and starts proposing changes on the talkpages. Bishonen | talk 19:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. JumpiMaus (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually suggesting the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 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" 10:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Hurley IV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; aside unsourced parts, no reliable WP:THIRDPARTY source are passing mentions, none of those assert why he is notable. In all Wikipedia is not WP:LINKEDIN. Donnie Park (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 18 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, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I has already gone through WP:BEFORE but not got round to nominating. I've checked again and only been able to find very brief mentions e.g. [5] [6]. Note that the staugustine.com source currently cited is not independent as it was written by "PETER WILLOTT, Staff MARINELAND" - the article being about the subject's appointment at Marineland. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'm having great difficulty finding any notable references. Not suprising, considering the COI of the author. -- RM 02:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not understanding how this is actually solidly independently notable at this time, there's nothing else convincing. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 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" 10:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hutchins[edit]

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

All of the cited source are WP:PRIMARY (written by Hutchins himself and no other), no other sources. Looking up on google, I can't find anything else other than that of the late INXS singer (Michael Hutchence) not to be confused with. Fails WP:GNG, no reliable WP:THIRDPARTY source to back it up other than books by him. Donnie Park (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could find many sources on Michael Hutchins the zoologist. However this article needs a clean up! Also all references need to be improved in article. However, not sure if Hutchins is 100% notable, so delete might be necesarry.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is stated in the nomination, WP:GNG is not fulfilled; a Google search for "Michael Hutchins zoologist" turns up quite a few hits (as EllsworthSchmittendorf pointed out), but nothing notable enough (or non-primary enough) to validate this article's existence. We must remember that getting search results is not sufficient criteria for inclusion without many of those results being reliable, neutral, and/or third-party. Additionally, a copyright violation check shows that large portions this article are copied from Mr. Michael Hutchins' Linkedin page, which just about kills any chance (however slim) that this article is non-COI. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 18 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, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?. Searching for M Hutchins (which is the name he publishes under) gives a lot of cites on GS, but I am not sure which ones are his. Would the nominator do a citation analysis and tell us, for example, how many cites are his, and what his h-index is? This will enable a determination of whether he passes or fails WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: I've had a look at the citations for a few publications given in the references and this with 27 was the most cited. Others are mostly < 20 citations e.g. 16 14. This and thiswhich according to the article were "seminal papers on zoo research program design ... served as a model for other zoological institutions worldwide" have been cited 2 and 18 times respectively. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this work, on the basis of which I favor Delete. Also the article makes little attempt to be consistent with Wikipedia's conventions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per my note above, WP:ACADEMIC is not met. I have searched factiva to see if there are sufficient sources to satisfy WP:BIO but only found mentions e.g. [7] [8] that are of no use for demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as this is currently not easily comprehensible and transparent to successfully pin solid notability. Delete for now at best and restart later if better, SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 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. There would be scope for a relist, but I think the debate is so hopelessly messed up by the socking that it would benefit more from a clean start to the AFD. There is therefore no prejudice against immediate renomination, but I would suggest anyone deciding whether to do so should consider first the work the User:DGG has done improving the article. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Scarlat[edit]

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

Deceptively sourced article. References are to YouTube, Scribd, dependent sources, or show that the subject has written some books. However, not a single source discusses the subject (or his books) in-depth (or even in-passing). Some references do not even mention the subject. No evidence that this meets WP:BIO (or WP:ACADEMIC for that matter). Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Please do NOT delete page. The page was modified to reflect the following facts:

1. The document image of Doctor Honoris Causa - Universitatea Tehnica de Constructii Bucuresti, Romania 2007 - this by itself should suffice to document Adrian Scarlat was an exceptional person in the profession of civil engineering as considered by the University of Bucharest, Romania.

2.The document image of the Awarded 1999 “Distinguished Civil Engineer” by the Association of Engineers and Architects, Israel - which by itself should suffice to document Adrian Scarlat was an exceptional person in the profession of civil engineering - as considered by the Israeli Association of Civil Engineers and Architects

3. The special Congress in the Memory of Two Notable Civil Engineers (Scarlat and Stern) that have recently passed away (Israeli Association of Civil Engineers April 2015 - 265 attendees- published in the Israeli professional journal of Civil Engineers in August 2015)

4. Adrian Scarlat appeared on Israeli TV national news (reference #6 and #7) with an outstanding engineering solution (named 'Cage') for an acute earthquake engineering problem (saving kids' lives in schools during an earthquake) - it is my understanding that this fact (appearing on a National TV News show) is enough for noting that a person is of biographical value

5. Adrian Scarlat was mentioned in a whole chapter in a book titled "Personalities in Romanian Civil Engineering" - ref #1 - this by itself should suffice noting Adrian Scarlat was an exceptional person in the civil engineering profession.

Hope the above is enough evidence that Adrian Scarlat is a person worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration. Mayscarlat (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Mayscarlat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~I oppose deletion since I knew Adrian Scarlat and I took the time and actually read the Wikipedia policies on bios of deceased people.~~

I would like to attract your attention to the fact that the books referenced are NOT self published (CRC, Taylor & Francis, etc.) - thus should be considered good "secondary sources" by Wikipedia.

The above together with the fact that Adrian Scarlat was the past Chairman of the Israeli Association for Earthquake Engineering and the de-facto creator of the Israeli Standard for new and existing buildings seismic engineering - should be enough for Wikipedia to have a page mentioning the person, as a noteworthy professional.

With your permission I'd like to digress a bit:

The "cage' experiment detailed on the Israeli TV (ref. 6 & 7) was considered revolutionary in its engineering principles and being relatively not-expensive, is being considered for implementation by the Jerusalem municipality at the moment - in the city and other areas in the Jordan valley - all considered high-risk for a seismic catastrophe. Even if you do not understand the language of the TV piece - you can still get a translator - please take a moment and just see with your own eyes the person (I think Scarlat was in his eighties at the time !) , the explosion simulating the destruction caused by an earthquake and then the mannequins on the floors, that simulate school children during such a catastrophe. This 'cage' experiment (appears on YouTube from different TV channels and perspectives), was considered a huge engineering success (just watch how many people including reps from IDF, the Jerusalem mayor and others were present, interviewed, etc) - is only one of many examples of this person capabilities in civil engineering.

There are some references on the page that are not in English - in Romanian and some are in Hebrew. I'd suggest before deleting the page on Adrian Scarlat, you ask other Wikipedia editor colleagues, fluent in these languages to actually take a look and let you know whether these references are relevant or not.

Saying that "not a single source discusses the subject or his books in-depth or even in-passing" - is just not true nor fair to the subject at hand.

Then there is the Doctor Honoris Causa bestowed by his alma mater - The Technical University of Bucharest, Romania. As mentioned in this discussion by mayscarlat - this fact alone should be enough evidence for the Wikipedia editors about Scarlat worthiness as a professional.

Last year I was one of those that participated in a special congress "in memoriam" of 2 noteworthy civil engineers - Stern & Scarlat. There were more than 200 attendees at this one day professional congress. I can assure you - the Israeli Association of Civil Engineers does not bestow this kind of honor to other engineers it doesn't think as "worthy".

While I admit I was asked by family members that have submitted the original page to Wikipedia to intervene on his behalf and dissuade you from deleting the page - it is actually an honour for me to 'testify' on Scarlat reputation.

Dr. Scarlat was truly an outstanding person in the domain of civil engineering in general and seismic engineering specifically in Israel, Romania, Kenya, Iran, Turkey, Japan and numerous other countries and he is missed by many of his former students and colleagues. Myself included.

~~Respectfully yours,~~ Neotoren (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Neotoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment All this may very well be true. However, we need reliable secundary sources that establish these claims and discuss the subject in depth (see WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ACADEMIC). --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ I oppose the deletion of this page due to allegedly lack of reliable secondary sources: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (Wikipedia rules) All the books published by Scarlat have been vetted by the reputable peer-reviewed sources. These books have NOT been self-published. Thus, the books should be considered "reliable secondary sources".

"News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact " (Wikipedia rules) The news piece on the outstanding "cage" experiment is referred on several YouTube links, and I understand that YouTube may not be considered a "reliable source" - BUT - it was actually aired on the Israeli National TV channel 2. According to Wikipedia the Israeli channel 2 is respectable and reliable source and it has its own Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_2_(Israel). Thus the news piece should be considered reliable secondary sources.

The Doctor Honoris Causa (awarded to Scarlat by the University of Bucharest) is by definition the result of a "peer-reviewed" process and the University of Bucharest Romania is an accredited university with its own page on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bucharest. Thus the Doctor Honoris Causa by University of Bucharest should be considered a "reliable source".

The Association of Engineers and Architects awarded Adrian Scarlat the 1999 “Distinguished Civil Engineer”. This association is by definition a "peer-reviewed" group of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Engineers_in_Israel) thus should be considered a reliable secondary source - according to Wikipedia rules.

The Congress in memoriam mentioned above, by the same association - is by definition "peer-reviewed" and thus should be considered a reliable source.

Thus, to summarize the above - according to Wikipedia rules - the most important achievements and awards of Scarlat are supported by "reliable sources".

~~Sincerely~~ Neotoren (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears the above two editors have a COI with this person (and serious question about sockpuppeting.) As nominator has pointed out, none of the numerous sources in the article are sufficient, as they are either not reliable or do not discuss this person in depth. Article reads like a memorial page by a friend or family member. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the article (I went through it) and I still found it questionable for noticeably better thus I have to suggest Deleting for now and then Draft if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an existing draft at Draft:Adrian Scarlat. I suspect the current article was copied from it. clpo13_(talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~. Can you please mention which references specifically quoted above are "not reliable or do not discuss this person in depth" ? Is it the whole chapter in the book (#1) ? Are the books Scarlat wrote not reliable ? Is the Doctor Honoris Causa from a non-reliable source ? Is the TV piece on national TV - not reliable source ? Or maybe there are difficulties in translating Romanian / Hebrew languages into English language the issue ? If that is the case I found Google Translator to do a great job in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotoren (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Neotoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Duplicate vote struck. Each editor can vote only once, but can comment as much as they like. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS citations don't make WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

~~What is a GS citation ?~~ Neotoren (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)— Neotoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Look at WP:Prof. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The book referenced as #1 ref - is not a Google Search. In this book which can be found at http://www.agir.ro/carte/personalitati-romanesti-in-constructii-editia--a-ii-a-110526.html there is a whole chapter dedicated to Scarlat (Noticeability)

Then there are all the books Scarlat actually authored: some are in Romanian and some are in English ... These are not self published books and not Google Search references: http://www.amazon.com/Statica-construct%C3%8C-iilor-structuri-nedeterminate/dp/B0007J4QJK (Romanian) or http://www.amazon.com/Approximate-Methods-Structural-Seismic-Design/dp/0419187502/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 (English) The news and Doctor Honoris Causa are not GS. The Israeli TV Channel 2 News reference should be considered reliable and the Doctor Honoris Causa photocopy should be considered reliable.

Can someone please explain why aren't these references I've mentioned - considered "not reliable" ? Why aren't the books authored considered "reliable" ? Is it because of the language - being not English ? How is a Doctor Honoris Causa - considered not relevant ? Not noticeable ? doesn't speak about a person in depth ? Isn't that a contradiction in terms ? Why the national Israeli TV channel 2 considered "not reliable source" ? Why is the Israeli Association of Civil Engineering considered "not reliable" ?

Neotoren (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)— Neotoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The only verifiable news source mentioned in haaretz.com does not mention him at all. I agreed with nominator that all the reference does not support claim for notability. Also, taking into account he is supposed to be notable in Israel, I can confirm, there is nothing in Hebrew that may help to establish the notability. All articles I found either obituary or links to lists of conferences participants or advertisement of company he worked with. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is well-established. He is indeed mentioned in Haaretz as a civil engineering expert and helped to write the building standards in the sphere of earthquake stability. See here [9]. No reason to delete an article about a person who has made notable contributions in his field just because someone claims to "know" him.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link you provide is what we call an "in-passing mention", not the in-depth coverage that is needed for GNG/BIO/ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Notability is established by the Romanian and Hebrew references. True the Haaretz reference is only mentioning the involvement of Israeli engineers in Iran and thus maybe this ref should be removed. Other than this references are reliable and do support notability. Akitof (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Akitof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Notability is well supported by the references (Romanian, Hebrew and English)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRobinson65 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — DanielRobinson65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi DanielRobinson65 I didn't find any relevant reference in Hebrew. Could you please post the references you found here? Thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion is grossly unsatisfactory, and isn't a reasonable basic for any solid conclusion. A GScholar search turns up nontrivial results, and the commentary I see there on his books suggests standing in his field indicating notability. But nobody's really analyzing matters like that, which should be central. But the article proponents aren't Wikipedians, for the most part, and aren't making the sort of arguments that ordinarily suffice to keep an article. The opponents are, frankly, overreacting to this, and responding more to failure to conform to Wikipedian social norms than the substantive arguments. I suspect it would be best to close this as "no consensus" aand let things simmer for a few months, in hopes informed content editing would make things clearer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My GS search based on the link above shows negligible citations. What did yours give? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)based on the link above .[reply]

Running the search without enclosing the name in quotes generates a lot of spurious hits, but also legit hits, like this one [10], that the link above misses. I don't know how systemic a glitch this is, but it's not the first time I've seen it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even doing it your way the citations are totally inadequate. We normally look for (for starters) around 1000 cites, although that will vary vary with field of study. The hit you give is to something written by him, not about him, which is the necessary feature of citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

not under WP:PROF. WP:PROF is met by showing someone an expert in their field, which is usually shown for scientists by the citation to their published work. If they are high enough, nothing else is needed. WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comment It is a systematic glitch--without using quotes it looks also for articles with authors where one authors name contains Adrian and another Scarlet, and then goes on to list articles where the two words appear anywhere. Additionally, using quotes and the full names "Adrian Scarlet" will almost always be incomplete because some articles will have only the initials. -- the best search is generally "A Scarlet". DGG ( talk )
Delete - Person is accomplished, and is a working engineer. Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and as been pointed out by other editors, their scholarly work doesn't rise to the level of passing WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note:. Neotoren, DanielRobinson65, and Akitof are Confirmed socks of Mayscarlat. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mayscarlat.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not notable under conventional thresholds of WP:PROF. As the subject is an engineer, WoS probably gives a better assessment of his research work. A targeted query ("AUTHOR: (scarlat a*) Refined by: RESEARCH AREAS: (CONSTRUCTION BUILDING TECHNOLOGY OR ENGINEERING) Timespan: All years. Search language=Auto") shows 8 papers with citation counts: 3, 1, 1, 0, 0, ... As for books, WorldCat shows his "Approximate methods in structural seismic design" is held by ~150 institutions and that he has several other books in the Romanian language, whose holdings are in the single digits. Finally, we do not conventionally accept "trivial mentions" and such, even in mainstream periodicals, as demonstration of notability. Unless there's something else we're missing, this analysis seems fairly conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep I made a major cleanup of the article. Engineers can be notable without publishing jjournal articles but it tends to rely on awards and book publications. I think the books show notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that engineers can be notable without publishing journal articles: I checked WoS only because this path was being debated above, but it's clearly a dead-end. As for books, it is difficult to see how a single book having ~150 holdings demonstrates notability. This is probably pretty typical for a mainstream engineering text and I think it'd be a different discussion if he had several such books. But, for single texts, notability (to me) is something more like >1000 holdings, e.g. any of Timoshenko's, or Landau & Lifshitz Fluids, or Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 19:11, 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 redirect to Koch Industries. While there is no consensus for deletion, there is consensus that there is not a sufficient basis for an article. The page is therefore redirected, and consensus will have to determine whether and what content to merge where to from the history. (This closure undoes, after user talk page discussion, a previous "no consensus" closure by me.) Sandstein 07:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Koch[edit]

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

There are no sources. Its not notable. And it was created by a single-purpose user, Factorhk, who has been active entirely to vandalize Koch-related articles with POV changes. Therefore I am concerned that the creation of this article serves as a means for future vandalism. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:22, 31 March 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 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry, but a look at the "news" links coverage shows that he does meet GNG, independent of the traffic accident incident. Also, in reading the above statement "nothing at all for solid independent notability" so far from the case that I have to ask: did you actually click on the "news" link directly above and look? I am sympathetic to the POV magnet concern, and of course we need to keep BLP concerns in mind, but he does seem to be an independently notable member of the Koch business family. Editorial issues, vandalism and such can be met through normal editing, warnings, AIV, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so one source. That still doesn't address notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have an article on a man who back when he was 16 killed someone who was crossing the street, that at the time only got noted in the local press. He is now the owner of a subsidiary company of his father's, but we have no evidence that anyone takes notice of him for such. No indepedent notability, and this looks like it was written as an attack page, especially since the fact he was only 16 when the accident occured was left out. Such being done by a new, inexperienced driver is perceived much differently than if he had killed someone when he was in his twenties. The article stinks of an attack page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have one source that is a local paper about the vehicular homicide, that is not enough to establish notability, and may only mention him because his father is notable. The other is an article on his father, that as far as I can tell only mentions he is the son of his father. None of the sources even establish the claim he is head of a subsidiary of Koch Industries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The Fortune magazine article expressly says he is being groomed for that, and then there are at least three stories in the Wichita Business Journal including this and this. All easily discoverable at the news link above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. SSTflyer 00:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Chase Koch, who has been appointed to run a business with billions of dollars in annual revenue by his father, and is also heir (with his sister) to a $50 billion fortune, is clearly a notable figure. Koch Fertiliser is a multi-billion dollar business with operations across the United States. Chase Koch clearly meets the general notability guideline--Plainswin (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plainswin, the article creator Factorhk and Arenwils (voted below) are all the same person. Arenwils has been accepted as their only account and I have unstruck that vote below. -- GB fan 10:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:BLP1E. Subject lacks notability outside of one incident that took place when he was 16 years old. Being the president of a subsidiary is not in itself notable. Meatsgains (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLAR to Koch_Industries#Koch_Ag_.26_Energy_Solutions. Koch Fertilizer is a subsidiary of a subsidiary. At this stage of Chase's career he is notable only as a CEO of a big company. No doubt his noteworthiness will increase with time. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Subjects fails notability guidelines per WP:BIO and WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know where all the "1 event" stuff is coming from, I just clicked on the news link and found dozens of articles suitable to show passage of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, heir to a $43 billion fortune, a serious corporate executive in his own right, and being groomed as the CEO of the second largest private corporation in the United States. Arenwils (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DaltonCastle suggests that there are no sources. There are lots of sourses. DaltonCastle suggests that Koch is not notable. He is obviously notable. DaltonCastle seems to be very keen that Koch's page and that of his sister Elizabeth be deleted, the Kochs are known to be extremely interested in privacy, a connection between the two does not seem out of the question.

Restored comments from Arenwils. This account has been accepted as the primary account of the article creator Factorhk. The user has three accounts those two along with Pllainswin. Leaving the comment from Planned on struck above as they only get one highlighted vote. -- GB fan 10:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is under investigation for sock puppetry. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuating that other users are tools of the Kochs is a serious accusation. Please do not make such accusations without solid evidence, lest it be considered a personal attack. GAB^Hello! 20:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. Borderline case, but I did not find quite enough to suggest independent notability. He may be the president of a company, but there does not seem to be too much substantial coverage of him, considering most of the sources simply refer to him in the context of his famous relatives. GAB^Hello! 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. Merge with Koch Industries, as per below. GAB^Hello! 19:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Koch Industries, which apart from the 1E that's attracting all the debate above, is his only claim to fame - and as an appointed executive as a family member in a family business that doesn't stand out as notability, and can be mentioned in the article about the business. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we were to merge the page, rather than delete it, the only notable information that could be added to Koch Industries' page would be that Chase Koch is president of Koch Fertilizer. Meatsgains (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article itself is still actually questionable for the necessary solid independent notability and the article is currently not seeming confident to Keep or Merge thus I believe Delete is best until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability is not inherited. All coverage I could find had to do with family ties or trivial business transactions, such as land purchases; none were extensive about the subject. The fact that he runs Koch Fertilizer might appear relevant; the Koch Industries article includes a subsection titled Koch Ag & Energy Solutions which has a small paragraph dedicated to the fertilizer company. This bit of information (him being president) could be added there, but I see no point in including other biographical content at this stage. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard for the extremely rich to manage to not be notable. They leave a big footprint.

That said, the traffic offence should go. It's way past UNDUE to have it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of Chase Koch in the Fortune article (link):
But there is one young up-and-comer at Koch who generates more speculation than anybody: Charles Chase Koch.
Charles Koch’s son, known as Chase, inherited his father’s sense of fierce competition, say those who know him, and was a nationally ranked tennis player by the time he was 12. Now 36, Chase studied business at Texas A&M and joined Koch Industries in his mid-twenties. It appears that he is being groomed for leadership. Chase has shadowed senior executives and other employees in different divisions of Koch since being hired. He is now a vice president of Koch’s agronomics division, and in early 2014 he will be promoted to president of Koch Fertilizer, helping to guide the company’s expansion efforts. The company declined to make Chase available for an interview for this story.
An article from The Wichita Eagle is titled "Buyer of 70 acres is newlywed Chase Koch". It notes that Chase Koch was employed at his family's Koch Industries, he bought 70 acres near 21st and Greenwich from Bruce and Sharon Brown for a little more than $3 million, that he plans to keep the property residential, and that in June 2010 he was a newlywed.
The articles from the Wichita Business Journal linked by Shawn in Montreal as well as this one which is titled "Chase Koch to lead Salvation Army’s Mission of Hope campaign" are short but help contribute to notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
A merge to Koch Industries likely would be unable to include the Fortune article's information about Chase Koch's being "a nationally ranked tennis player by the time he was 12", his studying business at Texas A&M, and his business background.
Cunard (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Fortune article might be helpful towards establishing notability, but you need to look at the big picture. One decent yet partial source doesn't cut the mark per WP:GNG. The Wichita Eagle has a circulation of about 90k, and that sort of coverage (land purchases or any other trivia) is precisely what constitutes minor coverage that is not extensive. I don't see why him being a tennis player is relevant, regardless of the source. I also fail to understand how being rich is tantamount to being notable. Importantly, I think you are both confused: the Fortune article is about his father, who is also called Charles; the article only contains the single paragraph about Chase being president of the fertilizer arm. He clearly fails general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:34, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonboard 410c[edit]

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

Advertising Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very sloppy promotion at that. Without notable use case or industry wide adoption it would run aground of being too technical for inclusion. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, this is just advertising for a technical product. I might have CSD'd it. GAB^Hello! 21:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sachin 17:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I am not clear on why this is a advertising material. On the same line there are many other pages which may fall in this category of deletion. Why are those articles existing? Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PandaBoard, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeagleBoard. Talking about industry-wide adoption, this will evolve over the period of time. Let me understand your actual concern to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare (talk • contribs)

While it may be an essay, you might want to look at WP:OSE. GAB^Hello! 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently actually suggests the needed notability improvements....at least basically. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 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" 11:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Ruhaili[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no improvement on previous version. Still fails criteria. Spiderone 10:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 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" 11:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob L. Harris[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable entertainer. Possible merge to son, notable actor Ed Harris. Quis separabit? 19:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only had minor roles, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Nom please note this is my 40th delete vote. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor roles. not notable. Bruriyah (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ITSA -- CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 22:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 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" 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darshana Banik[edit]

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

I don't believe that this passes WP:NMODEL/NACTOR. No multiple, significant roles as an actress, and the only sources I can find are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, picture sites, directories and social media. I think that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as two sources I have added to article including Times of India confirm she has a prominent role in a primetime Indian tv series, also telegraph shows she is a very popular model, also won a Miss Photogenic Award for models which seems of note as it received press coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point about "multiple, significant" acting roles stands – the impression given is that the subject of the article is still very much up-and-coming. And winning what appears to be a new (less than five years old), regional, college student beauty pageant (at least according to this) is very weak grounds for keeping the article. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also relies on original research in at least two places – neither of the sources in the "Television" section states that the subject appeared in Byomkesh Bakshi, and the claim that she has appeared in "short films" (plural) is completely unsupported (source 2 gives one credit only). Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 18:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make some very good points, but I still think the combination of being a prominent model with having a meaty role in a primetime series pushes her just over the notability hurdle. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If she were truly "prominent" I think that there would be far more significant coverage online. The sources that are currently present in the article seem to be the best that the web has to offer, and they are, in order: a two-and-a-half-line description (which mentions modelling work but gives no specifics), a few lines in which the subject discusses herself (so not entirely reliable), and two passing mentions of her one significant TV role (which don't even give the name of her character). I'm not sure that the series itself is that notable either – I can find little information about it other than what's in the last two sources. As the subject fails all three points of WP:ENTERTAINER (no multiple roles in notable works, no "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" and no large fan following – certainly not on the basis of what we have here), the article should be deleted. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 00:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the needed notability improvements and there's nothing to suggest at least minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG requires that notability be demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the topic in detal. Those sources simply do not exist. I have examined the sources cited and found that three of the four merely mention the subject's name, giving absolutely no other information about her, and the remaining source appears to be a short interview, which is unhelpful per Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after several days at AfD, this stub is still poorly sourced. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a badly sourced stub which NMODEL. Hasn't had any significant roles as an actor or as a model. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 03:24, 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 tagged A7; we're in snow land too. —SpacemanSpiff 07:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Chetal[edit]

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

Contested prod, a actor/model that has questionable notability (was deleted before also, which that was also a autobio) Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This version is slightly longer than the one that I speedy-deleted but is no less underwhelming as regards demonstrating significance/notability. No reliable sources that I can see. Grand total of 44 Google hits, including duplicates and entries that may not relate to this person. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely zero evidence of notability. None cited in the article and none to be found by searching. Msnicki (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and notability guidelines Jethwarp (talk) 16:50, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Gary L. Francione[edit]

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

Have looked through Google News and Google Scholar for WP:RS. Can't find anything more than a passing mention in an RS. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Empamazing (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep For a start, meets criterion #5 of WP:NACADEMICS - "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. " Edwardx (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I hadn't encountered that page when I did the readings about the notability criteria. Good to know! Empamazing (talk) 18:36, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orenair Flight 2554[edit]

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

This event is unusual, but is not so uncommon that it needs an article. It does not meet the criteria of WP:EVENTCRITERIA (no lasting effect, not widely reported in news) or the notability guidelines of the Aviation WikiProject. AHeneen (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - routine engine failure, nothing to see here. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a really common occurance handled safely not worth a mention in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty article, but very ordinary Leondz (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability????? mundane engine failure properly handled with NO consequences--Petebutt (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - occurs commonly around the world, almost every day. No unusual outcomes here, clearly not notable. SempreVolando (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as always, this should be deleted as there's no notability. The only abnormal thing is that the aircraft hasn't actually flown since the incident A340swazzen (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely for any necessary improvements, unlikely to become a blooming larger article. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 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. Following a rewrite, earlier deletion arguments may no longer apply. Renominate if still deemed deficient. Sandstein 08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild animal suffering[edit]

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

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

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

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

Original research. Most of the directly relevant sources are from a few non-notable people: Oscar Horta, Brian Tomasik, Adriano Mannino. This does not appear to be an existing subject in the academic literature. Pawg14 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several mainstream articles entirely about the topic, including in the NYT, Quartz, and Vox. There's also a lot of academic literature, much of which is cited in the article. The non-notability of some source-authors or their lack of being WP:RS isn't a good reason to say the entire article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Empamazing (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~I added the Vox and Quartz articles, so that might help with the notability concern. Empamazing (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)~~ (strike !vote by now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article requires heavy cleanup at the very least. "Opponents of wild animal suffering" being the first and largest section? Which simply contains quotes from random people? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I look at this article and I wince. At the moment, it is in such bad shape I have difficulty telling if an article should even exist in Wikipedia. To start with, exactly what is the topic? Is there even a widely accepted term called "wild animal suffering", and if so, where are the reliable sources that provide an accepted definition? Lacking that, it's hard to say what belongs in the article. But OK, let's say we get past that issue. Next is Mr. Magoo's point. Why is there a very large section of quotes from opponents of animal suffering? Unless there are reliable sources agreeing that most people are aginst it, there's WP:UNDUE to consider. There's also original reserach thrown in. I don't know how I'd go about fixing it up, other than to start over -- assuming there's a valid Wikipedia topic buried somewhere in there. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is good coverage in mainstream WP:RS. The article does have some issues, but WP:TNT does not apply here. Edwardx (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TNT absolutely applies here. This article is written from the point of view of negative utilitarians who want to either destroy the natural world, or eliminate all suffering through futuristic techno-magic (see abolitionism (bioethics)). The references are mostly to non-RS pseudoscience, and WP:FRINGE certainly needs to be considered. This is not the basis for an article on the topic, if this even is notable as a topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the purpose of the article may not be clear, I recommend looking at this, cited in the lede, to get an idea of what this is really about. Also from the same author: "However, many animal advocates also strongly defend wildlife, in spite of the immense amounts of animal suffering it contains. Some animal supporters are environmentalists because they think ecological preservation best advances animal welfare, while others hold an additional moral view that nature is intrinsically valuable. It's troubling that spreading the animal movement risks creating more defenders of wildlife who may cause more animal suffering than they prevent," and Habitat Destruction, Not Preservation, Generally Reduces Wild-Animal Suffering. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this early version and note that the article cites the main proponents of these fringe ideas - Tomasik, Donnelly, and David Pearce (philosopher), who have been among the main contributors to this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not organized in a way that makes his obvious, but some sections of the article are describing why wild animal suffering is bad, and others are describing why wild animal suffering might be okay. This should alleviate some of your concern that this might be a one-sided article. I think it might be helpful for someone to rewrite the section headings to collect arguments against wild animal suffering and separate them from the arguments for why wild animal suffering might be morally permissible. — Eric Herboso 20:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Eric Herboso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Edit: I am NOT a single purpose account, as can be easily seen in my edit history. I am not removing the SPA notice because I'd like to highlight that someone is seemingly indiscriminately marking accounts as SPA when they are, in fact, not. — Eric Herboso 09:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Eric, you have previously indicated that you formerly worked with Animal Charity Evaluators, a dubious charity evaluator (accused of conflicted interests and pseudoscience by academics) which promotes this idea. Note the essay in the last link relies heavily on Tomasik, the author of the papers I linked in my previous comment and a former board member of ACE. This group is also associated with the idiosyncratic philosopher David Pearce and the others cited in this article. Can you provide concrete evidence that "wild animal suffering" is a notable topic independent of this cluster of interesting people? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of going on a tangent, I think that's a pretty unfair characterization of ACE. Those critics level far stronger criticisms at other animal protection groups (just look in the pages surrounding the page of that book that discusses ACE), and the book just criticizes ACE because (i) it's "interconnected" with other groups, (ii) it focuses on farmed animal advocacy, (iii) they focus on more than just "vegan" tactics (e.g. welfare reform). Hardly strong critiques. Also, your "pseudoscience" citation doesn't even critique ACE beyond saying it uses weak evidence. It acknowledges, "there is no credible, peer-reviewed quantitative scientific evidence to indicate that any organization is more effective than any other," so it's not even claiming that ACE is ignoring strong evidence, just that the evidence in the field is generally weak. I've mentioned this to you before, but I really think you should focus on substance instead of just the fact that some "academics" have made some claims. Also, there have been multiple WP:RS cited for "wild animal suffering." Sure, you can draw connections between most of the people who have written about it. You can do that with many things that are still notable. It's a small world. Tempo mage (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Tempo mage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Please, let's not drag in random off-wiki disputes here. NeatGrey (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not off-wiki, and it does have some bearing on whether Wild animal suffering is notable and worth keeping. But I agree it's tangential and probably not worth discussing further. Tempo mage (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)— Tempo mage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Glancing through the sources, I've gone and removed a bunch which looked like random blogs, but there's still a total of 43 sources listed and the majority look reliable. That's not conclusive proof the topic is notable, but I think the burden of proof is now on people favoring deletion, to explain what's wrong with all the existing sources. The arguments to that effect so far have been disagreements with the article's content, but problems with an article usually aren't a justification for deleting the article. See the policies at WP:IMPERFECT, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:NOTPAPER, and the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" WP:IDLI, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:EASYTARGET, WP:UNKNOWNHERE, WP:ADHOM. NeatGrey (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify why you deleted the links from Foundational Research Institute and Animal Ethics? While these aren't WP:RS, I don't see why they aren't good citations (and why the claims they back up shouldn't be included). I feel like that took away a fair bit of the substantive content from the article, given that these nonprofits are some of the leading research groups in the field. It seems standard Wikipedia practice to include cites from websites like these, but I am pretty new to this. Tempo mage (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)— Tempo mage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Sure. It's a core policy that everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in reliable sources. If these organizations are serious research groups, they'll have published their arguments in journals, academic conferences, books by reputable publishers, or other places that are considered reliable. The content can then be re-introduced, with cites to these sources, and in much more detail than the short bits I deleted. If these same claims are supported by other reliable sources, again, they can be re-introduced in much more detail with cites to those sources. In that case, leaving the old content in wouldn't help much, since the other sources would be much better anyway and since the bits I deleted were so short. On the other hand, if there are no reliable sources which support these claims/arguments, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia, because they don't meet the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. NeatGrey (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm surprised I've seen so many non-RS cited on Wikipedia, given that this is a policy, but WP:VERIFIABILITY does seem to confirm that, at least, if the claims are challenged. Maybe challenging is just pretty infrequent? Anyway, thanks! Tempo mage (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@NeatGrey: You left a bunch of WP:FRINGE sources that are connected to ACE in some way, some of them self-published, as well as a lot that don't seem to directly address the topic as such. Most of the article is still OR, as it was written by someone who interpreted all academic discussion of human intervention in nature as being about this idea of quantifying the negative utility experienced by animals and using it as a reason to support the destruction of habitats, in order to save animals from existence. Can you clarify which sources specifically establish the notability of "wild animal suffering" as an academic topic? --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Haven't checked if these are in the article itself, but from a quick Google, there appear to be sources in peer-reviewed academic journals here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and a book by Oxford University Press here. NeatGrey (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are not reliably published. The book, Zoopolis by Susan Donaldson is, and so is the article by Sozmen (your 1st link). The article by Kirkwood and Sainsbury is about treatment and rehabilitation of wildlife. I'm not sure whether or not the commentary on Ng's paper qualifies - those are published without review by HSUS. There's really no coherent topic here though - it would be synthesis to try to work these together. Perhaps "wild animal welfare" could be a topic. However, such an article wouldn't include the fringe ideas on which the present article was based, and WP:TNT applies here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy1339: Yes, I’ve worked with Animal Charity Evaluators. I’ll put aside your characterization of ACE, since we obviously have differing opinions on whether the research ACE does is worthwhile. Instead, I will point out that the issue is irrelevant, as the topic of “Wild Animal Suffering” has been written about in several scholarly sources that have nothing whatsoever to do with the cluster of people around ACE. There can be no doubt about this because ‘’the published research is in disagreement over this issue’’. A google scholar search for “wild animal suffering” brings up 93 results; removing mentions of ACE and Tomasik brings it down to 66. Even without “that cluster of people”, the topic of wild animal suffering is clearly one that is going on in academic circles. — Eric Herboso 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of self-published stuff and junk journals, also lots of passing mentions. GHITS doesn't cut it, especially for a fringe topic. Mind you, nobody's arguing that wild animal suffering doesn't exist, but we don't have an article on "wild animal obesity" either. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't find the accusations of pseudoscience or fringe convincing (what's the evidence? that you disagree with them?), or the accusations of non-notability (see WP:RS listed above or cited in the article, which nobody has contested), even though I do think the article is in a poor state in terms of organization and emphasis. Tempo mage (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)— Tempo mage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep When a friend of the music composer John Cage once asked him, "But don't you think there's too much suffering in the world?" Cage replied, "No, I think there's just the right amount." Maybe most people would agree with Cage; but it's hard to argue that one of the greatest sources of suffering in the world isn't worth a Wikipedia entry. --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article falls under WP:FRINGE, but that's not an argument for deletion. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on quack cancer cures, after all. Authors of sources aren't required to be notable themselves, and in fact most journalists aren't notable. NeatGrey (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not original research; that would imply that the persons coming up with the concept wrote the wikipedia article. But the very first listed proponent of this idea is JS Mill, who's been dead for quite a while now. This article describes a philosophical issue that's alive in the literature today. Sure, it's not mainstream, but neither are articles like the scale relativity and transactional interpretation interpretations of quantum mechanics. I vote keep, though I strongly recommend the sections be rearranged to make it easier to see at a glance that there are two sides to this issue. — Eric Herboso 20:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- John Stuart Mill wasn't a "proponent of this idea". He briefly mentioned that there's suffering in nature. It doesn't meet the requirement for "significant coverage". Mentioning that a certain species of fish is blue and has stripes doesn't warrant a Wikipedia list "species of fish that are blue and have stripes". The existence of something does not alone make it a worthy topic for an entry. Pawg14 (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)— Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Much of Mill's essay is about exactly this idea, and even if it weren't, I think the blurb in the article is significant coverage, especially given the historic importance of the essay. Tempo mage (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Suggestion: keep the article but make it much shorter and more focused. Rename to something like "Humanitarian intervention in nature". Only include people of direct relevance, no Dawkins or Mill. Include opposing viewpoints. Pawg14 (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)— Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You mean write a different article? That's why I cited WP:TNT. I would not object to a move if someone made such a dramatic revision. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a less bad idea than complete deletion to me, but seems worse than keeping the article because (i) I think Dawkins/Mill are relevant - they explicitly endorse the idea that there is a large amount of suffering in nature and this suffering is morally relevant (which is exactly the idea of Wild Animal Suffering), (ii) I think the current article does include opposing viewpoints (see the "Potential conflict between..." section), although I think everyone agrees the organization of the article should be improved, (iii) "humanitarian" refers to human welfare, and I think a title that evaded that, like "Intervention to reduce wild animal suffering," would just be narrowing the issue too much, since much of the information is just about the presence of that suffering and its moral qualities as opposed to intervention itself. Tempo mage (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

- Calling Mill and Dawkins "opponents of wild animal suffering" and saying that they view the suffering as "morally relevant" is a stretch. At most I'd say that each expressed dismay at one point about the amount of suffering in nature. But the quotes were cherrypicked out of much longer pieces, and don't meet the criteria for "significant coverage". 03:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Pawg14 (talk)— Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi everyone. I made some extensive edits to the article, trying to address some of the concerns raised in this thread. In particular, I revised the initial paragraphs and rewrote the first section. This section could be expanded at some later date to incorporate some of the material I left out. If folks here think further changes should be made, please feel free to leave your suggestions below. Thank you, everyone, for your feedback! Pablo Stafforini (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, looks much better. However, it still needs to be better organized. Some of these sections should be condensed. More importantly, the article is still incredibly biased. I still feel that the article should be moved to "intervention in nature" or something, because that's what it's really about. And it needs opposing viewpoints!Pawg14 (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)— Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - In what other ways is the article biased, besides a lack of opposing viewpoints? As for moving the article to "intervention in nature": this would seem to miss the main point, i.e. acknowledging the existence of wild animal suffering, both as a natural phenomenon and philosophical topic of discussion. Practical applications (possible interventions, moral justifications, etc.) are tangential in this view. I wouldn't object to moving the article under a new title like "Suffering in nature", though. Adrianrorheim (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)— Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - As mentioned before, the existence of a phenomenon does not in itself warrant a Wikipedia article. The (limited) philosophical discussion of it has centered around interventions. If you are interested in suffering as it relates to the problem of evil, then I'd direct you to, well, the Wikipedia article "problem of evil". Pawg14 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)— Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      - I agree that a phenomenon's existence in itself is insufficient grounds for an article, but the extent of suffering in nature has been a matter of scholarly discussion for at least 150 years. In any case, I've reorganized the arguments and added a section on the extent of the phenomenon itself. Hopefully this will resolve much of the disagreement over content. Adrianrorheim (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)— Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        The problem of evil belongs to the philosophy of religion. By contrast, distinctly secular writers such as Richard Dawkins acknowledge the seriousness of free-living animal suffering. ["The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so." Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (1995)] Is such an immense source of suffering really too unimportant to merit an entry in Wikipedia? A defensible case can be made that human interventions in the rest of the living world tend to do more harm than good – and will always continue to do so. Either way, I'm not sure balance for the entry requires equal prominence to the view that there is negligible suffering in Nature - merely to affirm that most people favour the status quo.--Davidcpearce (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        Dave, you're making a moral argument, not citing reliable sources. You've consistently used Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, which is not what Wikipedia is. The Dawkins quote was merely to demonstrate a feature of natural selection, which is covered in God's utility function, though that article is admittedly at least as bad as this one. I actually agree that the suffering in nature is morally important, but I'm able to set aside my personal beliefs and be an objective editor. Pawg14 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)— Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        The existence of immense suffering in the living world is not a moral argument. Its coverage doesn't require balance except insofar as there are credible sources that dispute it. What does require scrupulous balance, as you say, is any discussion of advocacy - whether of "rewilding", compassionate biology (cf. Peter Singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrhBJlxKqyA) or the conservation of an approximation of the status quo.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        
        "Few or no other edits"(?) Before this sudden rash of deletion proposals from a new editor who has now reverted to a previous username, my immediately preceding edits were on Giulio Regeni, ‎Pál Prónay, Jonas Savimbi, Otto Ohlendorf, Switzerland during the World Wars, Quantum superposition, the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown... (etc)--Davidcpearce (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now. I added another line in the introduction to make it more balanced. Additional moderate cleanup is needed.Pawg14 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Glad we were able to reach an agreement. The clause you added looks good, and I agree that the article still needs moderate cleanup. I suggest removing it as from deletion and instead place a cleanup banner at the top. Adrianrorheim (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)— Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and improve. Make it a redirect to Cruelty to animals. Too poor content right now. ~~These subjects are not exactly the same, and I am sure some literature can be found, but this page in current state is terrible.~~ My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Definition of Cruelty to animals: "[...]the intentional infliction by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." I.e. it has nothing to do with the intentional and unintentional suffering inflicted on non-human animals by other non-human animals, natural disasters, hunger, disease etc. in wild ecosystems, which is what this article is about. In what ways would it make more sense to redirect to a completely different, only somewhat related article, than to keep and improve on this one? Adrianrorheim (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and improve. I will move this article from deletion to cleanup unless anyone disagrees. Adrianrorheim (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Few or no other edits? This account is nearly 10 years old, and this is literally the first time I have made any edits to this topic. Adrianrorheim (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Few or no other edits"(?) Before this sudden rash of deletion proposals from a new editor who has now reverted to a previous username, my immediately preceding edits were on Giulio Regeni, ‎Pál Prónay, Jonas Savimbi, Otto Ohlendorf, Switzerland during the World Wars, Quantum superposition, the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown... (etc)--Davidcpearce (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm ok with this proposal, though I'd still prefer the article be moved to a different, more focused page. Lrieber (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (aka Pawg14)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claims are clearly false. For example, the source Nature Red in Tooth and Claw was written by a professor and published by a university press. The topic is quite notable and our editing policy applies. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That would seem to fall under problem of evil. My issue with this article is that it's unclear what it's supposed to be about.Lrieber (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) (aka Pawg14)[reply]
  - The problem of evil is only one instance of this topic. Much in the same way that animal cruelty deserves its own article instead of being a mere subcategory under cruelty, wild animal suffering is sufficiently distinct from problem of evil to warrant its own article. That being said, much work remains to be done with this article in its current state; but again, I struggle to see how this is more than a cleanup issue at this point. Adrianrorheim (talk) 08:04, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been quoted as having used Wikipedia[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN because "celebrities who have used Wikipedia" has not been discussed as a group or set in independent reliable sources. SSTflyer 16:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 16:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 16:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable trivia. Pburka (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List not notable. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Given that good articles are assumed to have proper and reliable sources (direct quotations or otherwise), this is more simply a "List of people who have used Wikipedia." An unimportant list regarding a non-notable, unencyclopedic fact. Or perhaps we want a "List of people who have been quoted as having used Google" and "List of people who have been quoted as having used YouTube" too? That sounds delightful. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly was a reasonable concept in 2005, but in 2016 you'd have to list people who haven't used Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECT and Mr. Magoo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a little self important. I doubt such a list would be relevant in any context for other encyclopedias or knowledge bases, is there a People who use JSTOR article? How about Brittanica? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP namespace. Indiscriminate list of trivia that probably interest some, but may be an inappropriate amount of self-references.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list of trivia.--Staberinde (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rubbish. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as although amusing, this is still questionable for noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 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 merge to Sheffield Supertram. Sandstein 12:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rotherham Parkgate railway station[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. The only citations are one saying that it would cost £53m and there's no funding and one saying that a firm of consultants suggested it, which ends "Senior council officers are said to be behind the proposals and commissioners and councillors and have stated that they would like to progress the study to the next stage. This involves establishing the feasibility of a new station at Parkgate, identifying funding sources, developing a business case to present to the Government, and discussing the commercial case with train operating companies and Network Rail." In other words, it's not gonna happen. Blythwood (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will happen as the tram-train is now under construction and there are plenty of news reports about so stop trying to delete articles that ARE true. Suffolk24 —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely ridiculous, Rotherham Parkgate railway station was already mentioned on wikipedia on at least two South Yorkshire related articles. Also, it is a completely notable subject and will almost certainly open in 2017. Read the sources carefully. Roscomoner (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep -- The article says that one tram has been delivered. It is a difficult issue where to draw the line between the wishlist and a project. A wishlist idea may warrant one article on the whole project. Once it is under construction or (at least) approved and funded it may be appropriate to have articles on stations (but not tram stops in the streets where these are similar to bus stops. How far has construction got? My searching only indicated that it was planned. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May be useful soon Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel kenneth: See WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - we create articles for railway stations that exist, have existed or verifiably will exist. We do not create articles for stations that, subject to funding, might get built. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The station is proposed and is being discussed but is to happen sometime in the future as part of the Sheffield Tram-Train so why can't it just be proposed. Suffolk24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffolk24 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the details into the future section of Sheffield Supertram, keeping a redirect for possible expansion if/when it happens...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jokulhlaup and WP:CRYSTAL. clpo13_(talk) 05:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this seems best, future planned and nothing yet for a confidently better independent article. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - not enough for its own article. Merge to the Sheffield article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Management Nagpur[edit]

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

Looks like a advertisement, notability questionable as it only has 55 students according to the article. PROD removed. Laber□^T 15:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it would probably be a service to the community if the nominator read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and withdrew this AfD. Biwom (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:GNG, thanks to sources such as this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this does not appear to be a degree-awarding institution. Although it claims its diploma is equivalent to an MBA it almost certainly isn't (otherwise it would be called an MBA!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is really strange for a elite institute... --Laber□^T 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check #24 and #62, for all intents and purposes the PG Diploma is considered an MBA. The nomenclature is more to do with the accreditation system in India -- an MBA can only be offered by a university while a PGDM (or variants) can be offered by accredited institutes not affiliated to a university. It's also recognized as an MBA equivalent by US B-schools that allow students to do a term at IIMs (see Booth @ University of Chicago for e.g. —SpacemanSpiff 01:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep IIM Nagpur is among the new IIMs that started functioning in 2015 itself. Since it started functioning recently, there would be less coverage. Nevertheless it still is a part of IIM institutes that are considered top business schools in India. About PG Diploma, All IIMs run this 2 year Post Graduate Program in Management which is a 2 year course, and all award a Diploma instead of MBA degree. PGP Diploma may not be EQUIVALENT to MBA in strictest sense, but this program is as prestigious and sought after in India, like any other MBA from other Business Schools. ^[1] ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is pretty new and the article isn't even a year old. It's more like a stub that I would expect will expand as coverage does. I think there's enough coverage devoted to the school to keep it for now. RockyMtChai (talk) 19:51, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 Men (magazine)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. There are currently 4 sources in the article. One is an interview with Sophia Neophitou, the editor in chief, and mentions the magazine in-passing. The next two are from the magazine's own website and the last is a cover with a little bit of info (publisher, paper size, and such). Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for would be, if this is not acceptable in terms of notability. Then may I ask why its sister magazine (10 Magazine UK) is allowed? As I see not a lot of difference between the two?

Thank you for you comments, please understand I am new to the Wiki community and I am still learning the ropes. Ana Edge (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like that one isn't really notable either. In any case, this is not a valid argument in this discussion, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing yet suggesting a better notably improved article, unfortunately. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 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" 11:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gojin Motors[edit]

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

Only refs are passing mentions in press releases. No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG requires that notability be demonstrated by multiple reliable independent sources addressing the topic in detail. I looked at those cited in the article and presented at the previous AfD. Basically, all we have here are a few one-line mentions. I cannot understand how this was kept last time. That should not be the result this time. Simply not notable. Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing imaginably better for the independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adana derby[edit]

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

Non-notable sports match/event. Appears to lack coverage to meet WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You people are ridiculous, is there a reason you are all so hell-bent on deleting this?. How many sources would you like? How many pictures would you like? Didn't even give me a chance to contest the previous deletion, I changed the article considerably, added a tons of sources and yet still no-one seems to like it. How many Turkish newspapers and magazines would you like? It got patrolled successfully twice with comment "nice article". And before anyone says none of these sources are credible: Hürriyet, Eurosport, FourFourTwo, Sabah (newspaper), Milliyet and TRT Haber all seem good sources to me. Not saying it's perfect, but certinly meets WP:GNG, for a start Googles searches for "Adana derbi" comes up with 515,000 results, "Adana derby": 372,000 results Abcmaxx (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the community decides it is notable, the article will survive the AfD. BTW - using quotes, there are only 113 Google hits for "Adana derby" and 126 for "Adana derbi". This includes any duplication. reddogsix (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-point That point is irrelevant because Turkish grammar would mean you'd have to add in "Adana derbisi" search which gives 88,700 results to get a full picture, of course still duplication. By contrast, M66 derby gets way less than that with or without quotes for example, and I think you mean 113 000 and 126 000 not 113 and 126 Abcmaxx (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you are the one that brought up the English versions. BTW - "Adana derbisi" only shows 150 hits. The numbers with quotes are 113 and 126. reddogsix (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again, I think you mean thousands, or you are using Google wrong [11]
Comment Want to point out that the articles I included aren't just Team A v Team B played. They include pre-match build up, manager comments, fans riots etc. etc. so it's more than just routine match happening.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that the line of debate above is particularly helpful. Firstly, Pre-match build up, manager comments, fans riots, etc are precisely what I would expect to see from routine coverage and match reportng. Secondly, Ghits is not really a reliable means of assessing notability. Given that this has only recently been deleted through AfD, what is needed is a comprehensive review of the new sources that have been added or were not discussed in detail last time. Working on the basis that there is no need to consider sources present when the first AfD was concluded as there is clear consensus from that discussion that the sources contained in that version were insufficient for GNG. I'm undecided at the moment based on the following as there is some stuff but not really a great deal:

Eurosport - Mentions the word derby but is nothing more than a pre-match build up articles with a few stats. Nothing in this that could be used to add any significant content to this article
hurriyet - doesn't mention the notion of a derby at all. There was some violence between fans. This means nothing in the context of this article. I think it is OR to draw the conclusion that violence = rivalry
fanatik.com - This is essentially exactly the same brief coverage of violence in the previous source, it cannot be use to assert GNG therefore
sabah.com mentions the word derby but doesn't elaborate in any way beyond reoutine pre-match talk. Nothing specific on the notion of a derby.
fourfourtwo - is an article of significant length specifically dealing with the notion of a derby, supports GNG
presshaber article specifically discussing bespoke securtiy arrangments required for this match. Supports GNG as notes special requirements needed for this match

@Abcmaxx: for future reference, it is not particularly helpful to recreate and recently deleted article and just dump a few more bare URLs into the article, it would be helpful if during the course of the AfD you could use any content in those refs to build up the article with additional sourced prose since brief comments like "violence is not uncommon" do not need four sources and it really shouldn't be the responsibility of other editors to have to review the sources you add.

reply I'm not sure what else would you want; both clubs receive quite a lot of coverage in literature and so on (I added two books as sources too), what is there to football other than pre-match build up, manager comments, fan reactions? By that point any match would fail because every pre-match talk is "routine". My point was it's not just a load of stats. I never said the article was perfect, but please remember Wiki editing is voluntary hobby not a full time job. I didn't just "dump a few bare URL's", I re-structured the article and added more sources which no-one else seems to bother doing. If you devoted more time to actually improving the article rather than trying to delete any article you found a hole to pick this could become a top entry Abcmaxx (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing rivalries in particular there is often much more. I would compare this article to Old firm. You will see there not only the sort of sources you have used here that deal with specific matches and instances of fan trouble that are minor in the grand scheme of things, but also specific sources and books that are dedicated to discussing the notion of the rivalry in a wider context. This is what you need to show to indicate a rivalry is notable, significant discussion of it as a concept in itself. Pulling together disparate sources that mention the odd bit of fan trouble, use the word "derby" but don't discuss it as a concept, pre-match articles that discuss and individual game but not a wider context, etc and saying that there is therefore a widely reported notion of rivalry is merely synthesis not showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous I wouldn't compare to the Old Firm, the Big Three derbies would be the equivalent of that. This more comparable to A62 derby for example; two historic clubs not in the top flight have a long historic geographical rivalry. "Odd bit of fan trouble"; it stops being "odd bit" when it happens nearly every single match. "Use the word "derby" but don't discuss it as a concept"; no idea what you mean by this but if it's hailed as a big derby consistently before and after every match, that proves a notion of rivalry. There's even pictures in the article showing special supplements in newspapers about the derby! Having an article saying 1461 Trabzon-Trabzonspor is a derby and then seeing it as a rivalry that would be WP:SYNTH, this not that at all.. According to you if there isn't hundreds of academic research on it it cannot be a rivalry? Also you're subjecting this to a much bigger scrutiny than comparable articles; apart from 5-6 top rivalries in the world none of the articles would meet your ludicrously harsh and unnecessary scrutiny. Somehow we all seem to acknowledge lesser derbies in the UK and make articles about them on much less than here. I think for someone who doesn't speak any Turkish I've done a remarkable job getting this to this level. If you spent more time contributing to Wiki you might even know what's that like rather than trying to sh*t all over other people's efforts to the point one questions what is the point of contributing on any subject that's not extensively covered by 6 million sources, newspapers (but only ones you like), books by professors (but only from the top uni's), word for word quotes of what you want that source to say (telepathy not a problem), and on subjects/parts of the world that only the over-zealous "AfD crew" feel familiar with Abcmaxx (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think your ad hominems add to the argument, though they are remarkably aggressive when considering that they are aimed at someone who not only declined the second speedy request as I felt there was a chance of GNG but has also clearly noted that they are undecided about things at the moment. As I noted above, I would suggest that you spend your time in this discussion arguing from the pov of the sources and the duration of the AfD expanding the article with more sourced prose from the references there and further if you can to help bolster your views. Oh, and by the way you might like to look here before you start abusing other editors, but why let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh? Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - nothing has changed since a few days, topic remains non-notable, re-creation was disruptive (pure and simple) given that @Abcmaxx: participated in last AFD and has been here long enough to follow proper DRV procedures. At most there should have been a request for userfication. Giant Snowman 17:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not the best article, but I took a quick look through it and it seems well sourced and satisfies WP:NRIVALRY. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply on procedural grounds. The first AfD was closed as delete on 4/16 (I did not participate, but did watch, as I was curious to what the outcome would be). The proper course of action, as pointed out by GiantSnowman, would have been DRV, although I can see nothing wrong with the prior close. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As before, this still does not meet the general notability guideline. While there is certainly more coverage, I would not categorise it as significant, since most of it is routine coverage one would expect of a high level football match. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable as I mentioned at the first AfD this month. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the opinions are based on the previous AfD and that everyone is a little butthurt that they didn't get their way beforehand. I really don't know what would do you want more from a derby article Abcmaxx (talk) 06:45, 27 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" 11:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hibbins[edit]

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

Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. I don't believe the sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul De Roy[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and artist, making no strong claim of notability per our inclusion standards for either occupation and citing no reliable source coverage to support it. As written this is effectively just "Paul De Roy is a writer and artist who exists", the referencing is exclusively to primary sources like his own website and his own publishing company, and on a Google search I'm finding nothing that would improve the sourcing or the notability at all. Also likely WP:COI of some kind, as the article was created by an editor whose username was "Bram De Roy". I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody actually can locate better RS coverage than I've been able to, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. The link from the books goes to the site of a self-publishing company. The article's creator is Bram De Roy, so COI is probable and Bram De Roy should probably cease editing the article as s/he has since this was nominated for deletion. It is plausible that there are suitable sources in Norwegian media, but they are not visible to me when I search. LaMona (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found a bit more information in Dutch, but it is still not sufficient to establish notability. His work is in a number of public collections, he has won a several awards, none of them notable in themselves, and he has exhibited his work, albeit not in a museum or gallery that would satisfy WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 21:36, 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 Speedy Keep as I would've frankly commented myself but the nominator unfortunately has not clarified exactly how they feel this over 1,000 words article with sources is "questionable" thus Keeping for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin tithe[edit]

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

notability problem Erftyhujk (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC) (categories)[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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not in question according to my (brief) search: [12], [13], [14], [15]. The article could use some inline citations, but that's no reason to delete. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources. Some inline referencing added. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can't just say "notability problem" and not expand, especially with something that is clearly notable. And why would you nominate an article for deletion as your first ever edit? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In my view, as part of the financial measures taken in England to raise money to fund a crusade, it is certainly notable. Richard I sold off whatever property he could to raise funds for the crusade. The definition of time immemorial is when he left for the crusade. This is because later generations did not want to enquire into royal fundraising of that period. If a person could show his right from immediately after, it was unquestionable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 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 speedy deleted by User:Mike V, per Wikipedia:CSD#G5. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedic topic. So most people who oppose him are going to have a dig and make unfavourable comparisons. That's barely newsworthy let alone a notable WP topic. Nthep (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You might have speedied it as an indirect attack page, Nthep. I think I recognize the creator, I'm pretty sure we've seen him before. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Borderline IMO and I don't recognise the user. Nthep (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: Well, take a look at The Nazi Hunter, who is presumed to be in turn a sock of Kingshowman. The Nazi Hunter had a lot of fun creating Short-Fingered vulgarian, "discussing" it, and then watching the long, serious back-and-forth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian. You're an admin, so you can compare the mocking edit summaries the two accounts used in creating the two articles.[16][17] Similar mood, similar trolling articles, right? I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong; just that I hope this AfD gets dealt with more briskly than the other one. It's too easy for trolls to waste our time here. Anyway, I've asked a CU. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Not a sock I've come across before. let's see what the CU says. Nthep (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any WP:N for this and I wouldn't be surprised if the article creator is someone else. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I will start an SPI. --Laber□^T 15:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI started. --Laber□^T 16:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Laberkiste. A Checkuser has blocked Nobleman Attempting To Secure A Husband For His Least-Marriageable Daughter as a "likely" match with The Nazi Hunter (himself a sock) and has deleted the article as block evasion. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 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 withdrawn by nominator. I will withdraw this, but the article as original written had no encyclopedic value and I will not retract that view. I needs a 100% rewrite. Non-adin closure. Safiel (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shafqat Emmanuel and Shagfuta Kausar blasphemy case[edit]

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

PROD was declined with the explanation of this being a notable topic. However, absent a complete rewrite, this article should be deleted as being a 100% original research and opinion essay. If the article is kept, it should still be nuked to kill the current content and edit history and rewritten as a stub. The current content is entirely unacceptable. In any event, people get ****** over in that part of the world all the time. While a source has been dug up, I don't see what makes these people's tale of woe any different from the multitude of other people who have gotten similarly ****** by a religious government. Safiel (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take exception to your deletion rationale. In particular, "In any event, people get ****** over in that part of the world all the time" and "I don't see what makes these people's tale of woe any different from the multitude of other people who have gotten similarly ****** by a religious government". This rationale seems pretty unconvincing and racist. AusLondonder (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, but ridiculous and semi-racist rationale for deletion. I see no reason for deletion here.BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both above comments, Keep this article, there is definitely room for improvement but subject is notable, as far as I see. Nom's rationale for deletion is neither professional nor NPOV Sheepythemouse (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Plenty of independent RS, even though the language could really stand to be cleaned up and improved. It appears to have been written by a non-native English speaker, which is certainly no cause for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the nominator of the discretionary sanctions active in the area, as well as placed an appropriate talk page notice. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 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 Procedural close. Article has been moved to draft space by article creator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vignesh Anand[edit]

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

I can't read Tamil but the other supposed references are mainly to YouTube apart from one that doesn't mention him, so probably no independ third-party refs.

Despite the long list of films, this self-penned article seems to be the equivalent of e-publishing, making non-notable shorts. I don't think assistant editor in one proper film meets our notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the non-YouTube references: I used Google Translate on the Tamil source at http://www.chennaicitynews.net/cinema/%E0%AE%9F%E0%AF%80-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%9F%E0%AF%88-%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%9C%E0%AE%BE-2-16011/ and I couldn't find any reference to Vignesh Anand -- which makes sense since it was a short article, and he was just an assistant editor. The second source is in English, and also doesn't mention him. This leaves him with, at best, minor participation in one film (the other films have not yet been released), plus a number of short films. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:11, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GYM[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets: not even mentioned in the FA-rated Sega Genesis article. czar 04:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most video game emulators fail our notability standards, let alone a sound format for one (that exists only as a redirect itself.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, at the very least, something like a generic Video game music file formats article that also covers the obsolete ones. "Notability" guidelines are kinda worthless for extremely relevant but semi-obscure subcultures like the video game music preservation scene. You'll never find a "reliable source", like a big news site, covering it. The GYM format has had its history in this scene, and just because it's an obsolete format doesn't mean its existence doesn't deserve note. Are we going to go about and delete everything that becomes obsolete now? Can we please stop with the ridiculous deletionism? Hell, even VGM (file format) seems to be a target of "notability guidelines" when it's an incredibly popular file format, on the context it exists in. — LucasVB | Talk 05:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of reliable, secondary sources. It doesn't exist to preserve "semi-obscure" subcultures/scenes. There are plenty of other websites for that. The notability guideline explains this, if you'll take a look. czar 05:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid CZAR is right. It's irrelevant whether GYM is obsolete -- but it's very relevant as to whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find evidence of reliable sources with significant coverage. There were lots of hits for "Genesis YM2612", but the ones I examined just mentioned it peripherally, and for the most part would not fulfill WP:RS. If LucasVB is correct in saying that we'll never find a reliable source, that indeed means the article should be deleted (although I should note that a "big news site" isn't the only type of reliable source). No reliable source means no content, and no article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to General José María Yáñez International Airport (as the sole topic with "GYM" as an abbreviation or more specifically, airport code) as no coverage and unlikely to have any more coverage. Esquivalience ^t 15:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to General José María Yáñez International Airport); not a notable file format. I found one mention of GYM in a forum discussion, that's it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yamaha YM2612 as this file format is specific to this sound chip. ~Kvng (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But "GYM" isn't mentioned there once. The airport acronym would appear to be the better redirect target of the two. czar 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK then merge the content into Yamaha YM2612 and then redirect GYN to the airport. The point is that the article should not just be deleted. The details can be worked out after AfD has closed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you merge when there's zero sources to verify any of the content? Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quality of the material is compatible with the current state of Yamaha YM2612. ~Kvng (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're a big proponent of merging further unsourced material to a largely unsourced article? Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping unsourced material as per WP:UNSOURCED. Unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... the link supports Serge's point, not yours. The latter claim is a red herring—no one is arguing that position. We're apparently not getting through here so I see no reason to continue. czar 18:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. UNSOURCED (more commonly referred to as WP:BURDEN) is actually saying that if someone is challenging content (myself, majority of the AFD's participants), then its the BURDEN of the person who wants to keep it (Kvng) to provide sourcing, or it shouldn't be included. So basically, if content is challenged and cannot be sourced, then it shouldn't be included. Which is my argument here. I'll stop as well though, as I can't imagine a closing Admin would advocate in favor of merging content that cannot be sourced. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Participants here have challenged whether the subject is notable enough for a stand-alone article and I appreciate that. I don't think this subject meets WP:GNG but if there's a reasonable merge target, we're obliged look at that as an alternative to deletion.

I don't see that anyone has challenged existence of the subject or the coverage of it and that's what WP:BURDEN is about. If you beleive there's an error in the article we can discuss that (typically on the article's talk page) and we look for references to demonstrate whether or not changes need to be made to it. It would be easier to have discussion separate from AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? How do you not see this this entire exchange as challenging the content? Do you need a formal declaration or something? Alright, here it is. If there isn't a single source documenting these facts, then Wikipedia should not be documenting it either. Please provide a source verifying anything you'd want to merge, because I haven't seen anything that verifies anything in the article. I don't know what of this is real, or just made up. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please assume good faith, I am not kidding you. Here's the official manual on the file format. This should be adequate to satisfy WP:V for this information. ~Kvng (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read that source, you'd see that it's a clone of the Wikipedia article. (Was "Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press" not a dead giveaway?) This is a waste of time. czar 11:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 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 per discussion. "merge" not appropriate. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gens Sound Record[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets: GYM is up for deletion too and neither is mentioned in the FA-rated Sega Genesis article. czar 04:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, at the very least, something like a generic Video game music file formats article that also covers the obsolete ones like this one. "Notability" guidelines are kinda worthless for extremely relevant but semi-obscure subcultures like the video game music preservation scene. You'll never find a "reliable source", like a big news site, covering it. The Gens Sound Record format has had its very short history in this scene, and just because it's an obsolete format that didn't catch on doesn't mean its existence doesn't deserve note. Are we going to go about and delete everything that becomes obsolete now? Can we please stop with the ridiculous deletionism? Hell, even VGM (file format) seems to be a target of "notability guidelines" when it's an incredibly popular file format, on the context it exists in. — LucasVB | Talk 05:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GYM czar 18:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable file format, not backed up by WP:VG/RS'es, unable to find a single one on the custom Google search engine. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yamaha YM2612 as this file format is specific to this sound chip. ~Kvng (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this file format isn't even mentioned there once. czar 01:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean by merge. Add some information about the file formats associated with the the chip into Yamaha YM2612. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...but nothing in the article has sources, so there's nothing to merge. We don't keep unreferenced content. czar 18:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable file format. I had already PROD'd this, but then the template was removed. DrDevilFX (talk) 06:21, 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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Software 2.0[edit]

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

Neologism. --Michael White^T·C 04:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Invented term. No evidence that it has any currency whatsoever. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a term like this is possible, Wikipedia doesn't predict the future and is not for anything made up one day. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly referenced neologism. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this term. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, this appears to be a tie-in for an advertisement for the author's (now defunct?) company, per their user page. Advert neologism nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete "<noun> 2.0" was a fashion for a while, but it needs sources and some evidence of shared use, not just stuff-I-made-up-one-day. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 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 Deleted as G12 (Copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue participation[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 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. Michig (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Jeremy[edit]

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

Actor who falls under way too soon, he could be notable someday. No reliable references either. Also it seems all the edits are single purpose accounts. Wgolf (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, nothing much of interest found via searches. Wishing Mr. Jeremy luck, but now is not really the time. GAB^Hello! 02:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER or any solid independent notability frankly. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't yet have any real indication of passing WP:NACTOR, or any real independent references at all. Can't pass WP:GNG, falls under WP:TOOSOON. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Maia[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR, and no indication of reliable source coverage about her -- this amounts to "writer who exists", and the sourcing is entirely of the primary variety with no media coverage shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails GNG as the sourcing is wholly inadequate. GAB^Hello! 02:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing at all to suggest the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero WP:RS cited or to be found anywhere. I looked. I think that says it all. Msnicki (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, should this article be deleted for WP:COPYVIO? The article is almost a verbatim copy from the bio page of the website listed in the article under "Personal website" section. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 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. The "keep" opinions are merely assertions of notability, but do not address the sources (or the lack thereof), and do not cite any potentially relevant sources. Sandstein 08:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rich get richer (statistics)[edit]

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

No references and hopelessly vague. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the rationale: 6 years and noone could provide any source. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a well-known property of the Dirichlet, CRP and Pitman–Yor prior distributions used in Bayesian statistics, especially, Bayesian clustering. See, for instance, An Alternative Prior Process for Nonparametric Bayesian Clustering. I'll see if I can help. --Mark viking (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This search for "rich get richer" and Dirichlet seems to indicate that the phrase is indeed commonly used in this sense.[18] I don't know what standard to use to tell when a common teaching phrase for a set of concepts becomes notable in itself. Chris vLS (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable, it just needs to be cleaned up. See WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to be a part of Wikipedia.Zedopuppy (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC) (Note: blocked user). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are not finding anything outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ We have The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If this is only an unnotable part of say the Dirichlet process then a mention of this should be there and what do you know, there already is. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I were however able to find many sources when I searched for "rich get richer dirichlet"; which also seemed to mention the effect not simply as a part of Dirichlet, but the Chinese restaurant process was often mentioned instead, like in our article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Is this a statistics article? Hard to tell without references. I've posted a note about this AfD on the WikiProject Statistics Talkpage. Maybe a project member can fix this article. – S. Rich (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:ThePlatypusofDoom, just clean it up. Benwing (talk) 23:28, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Harutyunyan (actor)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:Notability. Also, it cites IMDb and no other reliable sources seem available. Amccann421 (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article meet WP:GNG. Levon Harutyunyan has 2 awards.--Harut (talk) 22:00, 2016 (UTC)

Delete As per Amccann421; noting too that the only other source cited is insufficient on its own _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Harut (talk) 23:00, 2016 (UTC) (The user has clarified their comments below)

Why and how? SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harut is the author of the article. Understandably, he wants to keep. His rationale appears on the talk page: "because he is very popular armenian actor and has his own page in imdb.com. Armenians often see him on TV". ubiquity (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this has signs of solid independent notability for a solidly acceptable article yet. Too soon perhaps, SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well known Armenian television actor, article has 4 reliable sources. He has acted more than 15 films, and 5 performances in "Metro" theater. The article meet WP:GNG. Levon Harutyunyan has 2 awards. --Harut (talk) 23:00, 2016 (UTC)
Keep as has received at least one national Albanian award for best actor [19] which contributes to meeting WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see where in that link it mentions the award. Also, is that link from a reputable, independent source? ubiquity (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its a google translation, it says he won a KS Stanislavsky Award for 1992/3 for best actor although its not a great translation. The award seems to be notable, awarded by Russia to actors of the world. The website is that of a production company and also claims to be an encyclopedia if you follow the about us link..Atlantic306 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 04:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Questionable notability IMO. Wgolf (talk) 03:16, 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 Burn Notice (season 3). Content is available if anyone wants to merge. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends and Family (Burn Notice)[edit]

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

Non-notable on its own, should be redirected back to Burn Notice JMHamo (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as needed as there's simply nothing to actually suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Burn Notice: doesn't have notability on its own (and doesn't assert notability either). All I could find is the IMDb page, which is of course insufficient. Relevant guideline is WP:EPISODE, which basically supports what I'm saying. I'd say merge into Burn Notice (season 3)#Episodes, but the content already exists there, additionally making this page redundant.
Redirect or merge to Burn Notice (season 3). Non notable as a stand alone episode. Few sources.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Burn Notice (season 3): Not enough sources to support this episode being notable enough for its own page. It should be redirected to the page on the season that it is a part of instead of redirecting to the show page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing sourced to merge. Burn Notice (season 3) would be the obvious merge target if it was worthwhile, but this is similarly afflicted with an unsourced plot summary. The title is no use as a redirect. If it's thought likely that anyone will search for this episode, a dab hatnote at Friends & Family would suffice. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point. I was thinking that parts of the "Plot" section could possibly be salvaged for the Season 3 page, but it is probably better to delete rather than merge as it does not have anything sourced or helpful to add to the merge target. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 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 all. Michig (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irish constitutional referendums, 1968[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are identical, non notable articles]:

It is not notable that two independent events occurred on the same date. Each referendum has it's own article which refers to the other referendum. Lots of stuff happened in 1968 - why should these two events be singled out? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for the same reason as the last AfD; the purpose of the articles is to have a "cover" article for the referendums that year, so that the year can be listed in {{Irish elections}}. Even without this, they are effectively a form of a WP:DAB, as we would have to have some form of disambiguation page for the two referendums on the same date. Also, although the two referendums had separate questions, I don't believe they can be called independent events, as voters would have voted in both at the same time, and there would likely have been crossover in the campaigns for/against them. Number 5 7 23:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query How can there be crossover? Entirely separate questions are asked in most cases. In only one case were multiple questions related to each other. There is no obligation voters to vote in both at the same time; 1 or both could have happened or both could have been spoiled. And so what if they were on the same day? On some days, there were European elections, local elections and referendum questions; does that mean we should create a 3-way intersection? There is no need for a "cover" article. All that's needed is a hatnote in each. Who says we must have a "cover"? What's the link with Irish elections got to do with anything? A referendum is not an election. Nobody gets elected. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the events did not happen in isolation to each other. But anyway, that's a side note in comparison with the main reason to have them: disambiguation. In each of these cases, there were at least two constitutional referendums on the same day, so some form of DAB page is needed for each one (it wouldn't be possible to have Irish constitutional referendum XXXX redirect to one of them as there is no primary topic); in this case it's useful to go beyond a basic DAB page that simply links to the two articles by also providing a brief bit of detail about each one and the results, with the added bonus of also fitting in with the election years template (if you click the link to the template, hopefully you'll understand). Number 5 7 21:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a solution to a problem that does not exist. Firstly, legally, the two events are independent of each other. You don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to grasp that as each is capable of getting a different result and each is capable of attracting different groups of supporters. Secondly, if it's disambiguation you want, create a nice DAB page and a few hatnotes, not this bloated thing that adds no new information. Thirdly, the election years template works fine when there are multiple elections in the same year, this could be the same by using the referendum number as a disambiguator. Also raises the question as to why the template is even adulterated with referendums. A future TfD candidate I think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is one of a series of templates for all countries that includes elections and referendums – see Category:Europe election year templates and ones for the other continents. And of course the referendum questions are legally separate events, but I'm not talking in the legal sense. Whilst these pages may not have any "new information", they are summaries that allow readers to see the results of both/all three refendums in one place and allow comparison of the respective results (e.g. differeces in the numbers voting for/against and in total). Number 5 7 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the Template in a different forum. Their separateness in the legal sense is the only sense that matters. Anything else is just random stuff and coincidence. If all the rerenendums were listified and the results of each summarised, then this would be justifiable. But to select a couple to amalgamate just because they happened to take place on the same day makes no sense. It's just random, coincidental stuff. There is no link. Stop trying to make links where none exist. What about my point 2 above? What about my suggestion in point 3 above? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that they are linked and I've given my rationale, it's your opinion that they aren't. Let's see what others think; I don't see any point in continuing to waste any time here.

With regards to the templates, I'm not really sure that the issue is; they are designed to cover all national votes, whether they are elections or referendums, and I can't recall anyone questioning the logic of this before (and I've been working on elections/referendums for nearly a decade). I'd suggest you raise this at WP:E&R if you really have a problem with it. Cheers, Number 5 7 10:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really even entirely separate in the legal sense? At least in the United Kingdom there is the concept of polls at elections being legally "combined", acknowledging that they are taking place coterminously and thus that there will be a lot of shared administration. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the rationale for keeping in the previous request. Additionally, some of those pages are well-referenced. The others just need some more work, but there are many sources for all of them. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're well referenced - they use the same references as the main articles upon which they are entirely dependent. There is no value add here. There is no, repeat no new info here. What's your reaction to my points 1, 2, 3 above? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some structural need for the articles. It seems to me this issue has already been decided, and you've brought up nothing new to suggest why that should change. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What structural need? Could this need be met using just the two underlying articles? What about my points 1, 2 7 3 above as new rationale? You've not addressed them at all I think. As your only rationale for "keep" was referencing, which has, I think, been debunked, should you not change your vote now or supply new rationale for keeping? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure which points you are referring to. You could number them explicitly if you're going to refer to them like that. I disagree with your premise for nominating them for deletion, and ultimately think that there's no problem with having articles that group them by year and provide a brief overview. I'll reconsider if other people comment with different rationales for deletion or explain yours in a different/more understandable way. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 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 00:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the arguments advanced by the nominator to be dogmatic and pedantic. Constitutional referendums on the same ballot will certainly be discussed side-by-side in the same sources, and the relationships of one to the other will also be discussed. A student of constitutional referendums may well study these year by year. Such articles serve a useful purpose in organizing encyclopedic content and presenting that material to readers in a useful, logical format. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per N57. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 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. Michig (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oranum[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NWEB JMHamo (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." GAB^Hello! 02:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability whatsoever. --Laber□^T 15:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 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" 10:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalks and Skeletons[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage outside of listings at places like Soundcloud. No WP:RSes, seems to fail WP:GNG pretty clearly. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG  Adrian^[232] 00:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP today and found nothing to suggest solid notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of my edits. I have added more references/citations to the article in question. Themusicman57 —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've taken a look at the new sources. Two of them (Shove It and Antiquiet) I had already seen, and I don't think they meet the standards for reliable sources. Neither appears to have proper editorial oversight; rather, they both seem to be blogs (note that both are running on Wordpress). I can't find any sort of staff page for either of them. Looking at Intravenous Magazine, which I hadn't seen, I believe it may have same issues: no real editorial oversight, and it's running on blogger.com. Here's the staff page for that site: [20]. There's at least an editor listed there, but on their write for IVM page, they indicate they don't pay their writers. The last cite you added was for Cleopatra, which, while reliable, is the record label, and therefore not independent. But I'd be interested on other opinions on those sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although a nice job by Themusicman57 on finding additional sourcing, I agree with Torchiest's assessment of those references. My own searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eko Hotels and Suites[edit]

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

The only source that actually references anything in this whole article is source 5 "Kaye Whiteman (2013). Lagos: A Cultural and Literary History Volume 5 of Landscapes of the Imagination. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9781908493897" which indeed states that the hotel was completed in 1977. All other sources do mention the hotel but they do not support the content that they are supposed to reference. Either delete or change to the article's earlier state as a redirect to Chagoury Group. Takeaway (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Are you kidding me? Apart from the fact that this is a well known and one of the most popular hotels in Lagos, it has many sources which are not even cited in the article. I was very sure it passed the general notability criteria before it was created. I suggest that you check the sources properly to support your assertion that they don't refer to anything in the article before considering your nomination for deletion. This article should be kept for the right reasons. You can further butress your point by specifying exactly which of the sources that doesn't describe anything in the article. Eruditescholar (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not doubting the notability of the subject, I am doubting the amount of content for which the few sources seem inadequate:

Ref 1 was poorly chosen as it gave results for a search on Lagos City Hall. After entering a correct search for Eko Hotel, this comes up, mentioning the name and location of the hotel in a somewhat promotional tone but not much else worthy of encyclopaedic interest.
Ref 2 is the tripadvisor review page for the hotel, and it is not really a reliable source.
Ref 3 shows a few lines mentioning the hotel in a promotional way.
Ref 4 is a booking website mentioning the hotel only in a promotional manner.
Ref 5 mentions the hotel in only two lines, to state when, where, and for what it was built, and that it had passed through a few owners since.

I am now wondering where all the content in this article actually comes from because it is very difficult to cull it from these few inadequate sources. The article needs to at least be reduced to what the provided sources actually can support or new reliable sources must be found to support the content. - Takeaway (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like restaurants, hotels are bound to be mentioned in published sources of some form as this is an essential part of generating business. However to be included we need some sources which provide more than the run-of-the-mill reviews and these do not appear to exist. Trip Advisor is obviously of no use for demonstrating that WP:CORP is met. I also share Takeaways concerns about where the content came from as the first version appears to have copied content from this site. e.g. article: "serves sizzling hot barbecues and grills spiced with suya." source: "sizzling hot barbecues and grills spiced with suya are served to your taste." etc. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: @Takeaway, your basis for deletion is still not justified by the description of all these sources. The only reference which looks like a review is the one from trip advisor which should have been an external link. The others are multiple reliable sources irrespective of the extent of coverage of the sources on the subject. Since the subject is notable, what it actually needs is a clean up or rewriting to remove unsourced entries and not a deletion based on unsourced entries. The article is well covered in multiple offline sources not stated here. There really is no need to destroy the article when it only needs improvement to comply with Wikipedia's policies.

Feel free to correct the content you wrote so it complies with the sources. And please find new sources which actually reference the content that you want to keep. It is allowed to do so during an AfD. As for calling a hotel booking website a reliable source of content? I don't think so. - Takeaway (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added to unsourced entries in the article with further corrections to some references and external links. Notwithstanding, there's still room for improvement.Eruditescholar (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartSE: The first version even if it was copied was significantly altered and rewritten to avoid copyright issues and subsequently it has got nothing to do with this AFD discussion. Eruditescholar (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article overall is still questionable, local place and still unlikely better notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: @SwisterTwister Your reason for deletion is apparently not clear. Please, clarify and be specific. What is still questionable about the article and what makes the hotel not notable? Eruditescholar (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: It is very easy for any contributor to just come and hastily opt for Delete in this AFD discussion without taking a closer scrutiny regarding the notability of the subject of this article. This is even more crucial because it looks like the nominator made the right choice using convincing arguments to ensure that this article is deleted. The notability of this hotel is very obvious so I am still wondering why it was even nominated in the first place when it should have been tagged or reviewed for improvement. In order to eliminate unsourced entries, I have made some changes and added several online sources I could find and these sources exclude the many offline sources I couldn’t access. Once again, I am re-iterating my inquiry as I didn’t get any response from my previous one after relevant issues have already been addressed; Can the nominator Takeaway and the contributor SwisterTwister please justify their stance by specifying and reassessing their reason for clinging to the delete option? Eruditescholar (talk)

These local places are not always easy for notability because there will not be a solid enough amount of sources therefore I'm simply not confident this can be better. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: What do you mean by referring to the hotel as a “local place”? Secondly: This hotel has received significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party published sources that are independent of it." Obviously the sources are more than adequate to support the article. All the information about this particular hotel in Lagos were obtained from these very sources which included national newspapers, journals, books. So your statement about the difficulty to ascertain the notability of the hotel is out of the question because the hotel is already notable and well covered in many of the sources. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nomination, most of the promotionally sounding text in the article was not referenced at all when I nominated the article for deletion. You have been busy adding refs in the meantime and the article is now much better sourced. I am satisfied with the article as it now stands, and change my vote to keep. - Takeaway (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expatiating on your reason for nominating the article for deletion. I am grateful for the fact that you have acknowledged the notability of the article's subject amidst contrary expectations. The saving grace of this article is that all entries which look promotional are supported with multiple reliable citations. Although I hope this AfD goes in the right direction, I have assumed good faith and left the rest for the closing admin to decide on the stance of its presence in Wikipedia. Eruditescholar (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Eko Hotel is clearly the most popular hotel in Lagos State. If it's not on Wiki, then no W/African hotel should even be on Wiki. Award ceremonies and notable events always takes place there. Ulabcie (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the nominator effectively withdrew, !voting to keep the article later in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 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. Michig (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Muldoon[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only sources are the author's own work and a random webpage. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Identifying what is a "reliable source" may be problematic when the subject matter is something like astral projection, but a quick look at GBooks indicates that Muldoon was important to the topic; this book calls him "the greatest astral traveller, at least by his own accounts, who ever lived". Other examples: [21][22][23]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of this subject is assured due to his influence on L. Ron Hubbard who founded the Church of Scientology as documented by the Princeton University publication The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion^[2] wherein Muldoon is referenced. ^[3] Picomtn (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/iim-nagpur-a-hit-among-cat-applicants-iim-a-faculty-to-teach/
^ http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9515.html
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=sylvan+muldoon+aleister+crowley&source=bl&ots=vL3bBlUHEP&sig=sMq7jGjUqzJDXYBGXR7AXReWqaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjslJzD1JXMAhXCKiYKHX9fDIwQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=sylvan%20muldoon%20aleister%20crowley&f=false

Note I've rewritten this entire article and as time goes by I'll fix up the references into their proper format...but would appreciate any help others could give. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Note to Edward321: Per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE please do more legwork before making deletion noms when there are alternatives to deletion. ATD and BEFORE are WP policies, which you have usurped. This BLP subject is notable and worthy of a WP article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree with User:Checkingfax. I've also mentioned to the nominator on his talk page that I see a problem with most of his recent nominations. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Hi, Edward321. Notability has been established. Please withdraw your AfD nom. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some reliable references were found. HealthyGirl (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hi @Amatulic: Are you able to close this discussion now? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 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) 06:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodstopping[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are anything but reliable. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a bona fide, documented folk medicine practice, attested in more serious works like [24] and [25], and apparently it's also known in Norway [26]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources provided above. GAB^Hello! 02:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – See WP:NEXIST. Meets WP:GNG: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] (subscription required), [32]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup and as mentioned above, there are reliable sources out there even if the article needs work. Smartyllama (talk) 12:52, 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.

[1] ttp://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/iim-nagpur-a-hit-among-cat-applicants-iim-a-faculty-to-teach/

[2] ttp://press.princeton.edu/titles/9515.html

[3] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=sylvan+muldoon+aleister+crowley&source=bl&ots=vL3bBlUHEP&sig=sMq7jGjUqzJDXYBGXR7AXReWqaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjslJzD1JXMAhXCKiYKHX9fDIwQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=sylvan%20muldoon%20aleister%20crowley&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]