Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 April	20 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" 09:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Object-centered high-level reference ontology[edit]

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

Is this theory notable? Currently the article is based on two sources: first is the paper of the author of the theory and therefore is not independent, and second is some kind of lecture slides with unknown reliability. Scholar and book search can find some mentions of this theory in other articles, but not enough to judge its notability. The Russian version of this page is suggested for deletation. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a hoax (but I fear it may not be). Unsourced anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- It is sourced. And there are further sources that show up on google scholar. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sourced. It's just babble anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Delete, unpromising OCHRE search results (found only other stuff), nothing about OCHRE on dewiki for this alleged invention by a German scholar. –Be..anyone 💩 07:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS sources and not shown to be notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on Wikipedia, essence precedes existence. And essence is lacking here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. This is plainly original research, which we do not publish. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 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 Deleted from mainspace (as shown at the now deleted page) and the name has been changed, thus this is unlikely needed to continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Torpedoes[edit]

title changed to Nuclear torpedo

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (added search FeatherPluma (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious essay. Note also that it has issues beyond that; e.g. "Since the early 1940’s when the Soviets had successfully engineered their own form of a nuclear bomb (...)" looks like a conspiracy theory of some sort (more prosaically, it's a typo). Maybe the "T-5 torpedo" has some material to merge, but I am not quite sure this is the same as this one. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article there was at nomination has significantly changed. It has been moved to Nuclear torpedo and significantly edited by FeatherPluma (congratulations to him!). While its current state is still a sorry sight and heavy trimming is in order, the case for an article about nuclear torpedos (and not "the history of nuclear torpedos") is fairly clearly a keep. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was not clear: I strongly oppose leaving a redirect from the essay-like title to the new article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This new article has a core of useful referenced content that enhances the encyclopedia. The content, by a group of new contributors in a class project, was indeed essay-style, and there were some fact errors. These have been partially addressed by edits after AfD nomination. Further style improvement and reference checking is easily possible. A carefully selected and corrected subset is very much worth keeping, with the article renamed to nuclear torpedo. The present disambiguation page, Nuclear torpedoes, was originally set up to redirect to the Mark 45 torpedo only. It later acquired 2 redlinks (to non-existing pages; redlinks generally can be useful but they are against disambiguation page policy) and 1 redirect to a hopelessly generic Soviet nuclear weapons article, that has less than 1 line about the Soviet nuclear torpedoes being addressed in this new article. Hence I recommend merging the (fairly useless) disambiguation page to this article, or deleting it, and I also recommend further cleaning up this new article to get to conventional style and referenced content. (The definitional boundaries of this weapon class from cruise missiles and submarine-launched land-attack missiles etc. will need to be explained very briefly.) [initial comment: FeatherPluma (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)] [updated, and may amend again after further review; also, agree with User:PRehse below FeatherPluma (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Comment Less likely to dismiss this completely even though the writing style is painfully essay-like. There is a whole lot of un-necessary repetition and detail and the article as a whole should take into account existing articles and the disambiguation page.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to User:FeatherPluma for taking this article into the realm of the acceptable - I wonder what thanks he gets from the original author. The article has been moved to a better title Nuclear Torpedo and I recommend the original title The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Torpedoes be Deleted as it smells of the original essay intent without providing any use as a search term.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Nuclear torpedo" is a reasonable topic for an article, but needs a lot of chopping into shape ( Digressions, poor phrasing, repetition. ) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed with P. Rehse that not only is this a keeper that includes non-redundant coverage of significant Cold War munitions topics, User:FeatherPluma did a fine job making chicken salad out of chicken, er, non-salad. Subject matter can be easily integrated with other Cold War articles without duplication and with enhancement of existing WP content. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 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" 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Brian[edit]

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

Contested prod. Film director with questionable notability who has only done one film that is rather obscure. Wgolf (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable promotional page for a 'director' very, very early in his career. WP:TOOSOON HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability, no support. reddogsix (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly nothing at all actually convincing of applicable notability, Delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its WP:TOOSOON with only one credit. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:19, 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 lack of notability --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of None[edit]

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

There's no assertion of notability for this band. All of the references are self-published. I've nominated the article for speedy deletion and PROD but there are motherfuckers who declined them. Sixth o f March 22:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate since there's nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND for lack of available independent sources.- Mr X 01:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The article does not contain a credible claim of significance and so falls under CSD A7. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this should be deleted as this is a band of a person of note who has an entry in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Syjuco — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipsAhoyAndKraftCaramels (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ChipsAhoyAndKraftCaramels: Firstly, notability is not inherited: The works of a person of note are not themselves inherently notable. Secondly, the article on Maxine Syjuco was authored by the same user who created the article in question. Thirdly, by your contribution history, you appear to be a single-purpose account: I am inclined to believe that you are a sock puppet of that same author. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Erick Shepherd: I thought attacking users was not allowed :) Anyway, admins or whomever can check my IP address versus the author's and you'll find I am not a sock puppet of any sort. Point taken on notability not being inherited, that's fair enough. As for the sources, there are a few sources there which are from noted publications/sites like the Philippine Star. Frankly, I don't care too much whether or not the page gets deleted - but I have followed this band from their days as Utakan in the art band scene so I know them and in my humble opinion, think this page should be retained. If Wikipedia decides it's not worth saving I will respect that but I do think there is room for civilized discussion.

That's why I removed the A7 tag; that is a credible claim of significance. "Inherited notability" has nothing to do with it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ChipsAhoyAndKraftCaramels: I am not trying to attack you, merely stating my impressions. A newly created account whose fist edit is to comment on an AfD is rather atypical and strikes me as a red flag. If I am mistaken, then I apologize — but for the moment, I maintain my suspicions. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Adam9007: Thanks for the clarification. I am new to this, am not completely aware of the policies. I just signed up because upon googling Utakan (was wondering what they were up to these days) I saw this page, and saw it was for deletion. As someone who was (still is?) a fan of this band, I thought it didn't seem right that it be tagged for deletion so I added sources and joined the discussion. So, yes, I joined Wikipedia just for this. Now, again, if this page is not deemed a proper page by Wikipedia then I will respect the decision. Though, I can actually find more articles for sure about the band Utakan, and since it has evolved into Jack of None - I think the page might be worth retaining, as Utakan had valid buzz in the art band scene and got coverage from legit publications. Just my humble opinion :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipsAhoyAndKraftCaramels (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 April 2016

To editor Erick Shepherd: Thanks for the response. I did somehow feel attacked at first but now I think I can see where you are coming from - I would probably have the same suspicions if I were you. Just a fan trying to share my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipsAhoyAndKraftCaramels (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2016‎

To editor ChipsAhoyAndKraftCaramels: Again, my apologies. If you know of good sources under Utakan, you're more than welcome to incorporate them into the article! Hit me up if you need any help! --Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Erick Shepherd: Thank you! :) I sincerely appreciate the offer. I'll try adding in more sources, and just might take you up on that offer.

Redirect to Maxine Syjuco were the band is already covered. Whilst that article is currently atrociously sourced it can be improved. [1] [2] [3]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dog and Arabella[edit]

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

TV show with questionable notability. I'm having trouble finding ANY sources for this show as well. Wgolf (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all. Absolutely no way to verify this, let alone establish notability, so it must go. -- RM 22:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same experience here, I found no sources. LaMona (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I see nothing for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD A7 and CSD G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmedrome[edit]

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

Historywiki11 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent references, so fails WP:GNG and others. -- RM 22:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability found. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:02, 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 merge to Geryon (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorson (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This is a minor character that currently fails to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep or merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge this to Geryon (Dungeons & Dragons), actually. Chiefly Geryon's minion. bd2412 T 20:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geryon (Dungeons & Dragons). I was going to say Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) too initially, but after more research, Geryon is the better target. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geryon (Dungeons & Dragons)#Vassals. I agree that this seems to be the best target. I'm not sure exactly what we'd merge; some of it is sourced, but to merge content from primary sources would probably be undue weight in Geryon's article. I don't see anything useful on Google Books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. As usual, the just-returned nominator with a long track record of disruption is presenting an unresearched nomination with a generic rationale rather than making a reasonable effort to address legitimate content issues. This is really a debate over how the subject should be covered (independent article, list, discussed in a broader subject), not a genuine deletion discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Geryon, per the above. Interesting that target isn't even wikilinked in the present version of the article... Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge instead as this is still questionably solid for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no coverage by reliable sources. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, Gorson needs to demonstrate notability independent of the D&D franchise. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:11, 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 merge to Language interpretation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation (linguistics)[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 11#Interpretation (version 2) for the full context. If I'm needed further, please ping me. BDD (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess the issue is whether the content merits an article of its own that is distinct from Language interpretation, and maybe Interpretation (philosophy). I don't have an opinion, but if the content is to be discarded, I think it would be more sensible to keep the page as a redirect to the dab section Interpretation#Language. Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Language interpretation if there is anything not already included there. There is discussion of the topic within linguistics, but it's the same topic. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - isn't this AfD a bit more than "procedural"? This used to be a redirect but it looks to me that the RfD discussion was procedural and the "article" version is the thing being nominated for real. And it does not seem like the RfD discussion ended with a consensus on that. Pinging Steel1943, nominator at RfD. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I'm trying to undrstand your query of me. Are you asking me how it ended up here? Just trying to figure this out since I am the nomimator of that discussion, not the closer of it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wanted to make sure that the current AfD is an actual article for discussion nomination, not a complex way to get some edit history deleted and then restore a redirect. Maybe that's a PEBKAC problem on my side, but I really did not find it clear. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think BDD is the person you're looking for to answer that question. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's procedural on my part. Some editors felt that this page would better be discussed for deletion as an article rather than a redirect due to its history. It previously went through an informal procedure called deletion through redirection (not true deletion), and the RfD effectively reversed that. --BDD (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Language interpretation as this seems closely linked to that and this is still questionable for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 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 Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REAL S.O.A.K[edit]

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

Seems to lack any coverage in reliable and independent sources, based on 0 relevant GNews and GBooks hits, thus the subject fails WP:GNG. This article was WP:A7 speedy deleted a few days ago. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per WP:A7 agreed. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Just removed a big chunk of copyvio too. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't check but I suspect that the AFC submitted by the creator was the same, and that was rejected. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007 term opinions of the New Jersey Supreme Court[edit]

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

Nominating per WP:LISTCRUFT. This is a one-off list of a single year of NJ Supreme Court decisions, with no suggestion of notability. Brianga (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this court has not been a leader in developing new law since the 1950s. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing solid for a convincing separate article and I'm not convinced this can currently be improved. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 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" 13:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Bear[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (per WP:ROUTINE). Fails WP:NHOCKEY and is very much WP:TOOSOON Yosemiter (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails all criteria listed, plus WP:NOTCRYSTAL. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undistinguished NN amateur player, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 19:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.--Michiquito (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NHOCKEY at this point. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Jones (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (per WP:ROUTINE) and WP:NHOCKEY Yosemiter (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undistinguished NN amateur player, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 19:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this one. I am seeing a number of stories about him [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. But given the state of the current article, not much would be lost by deleting and starting from scratch (if someone wanted to), and the information in the current article is already covered in his father's article, so I would probably suggest for now to Redirect to Popeye Jones#Personal. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly and then Redirect as there's nothing suggesting the necessary independent notability improvements for Caleb's article. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 April 2016‎

Geraneia Tunnel[edit]

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

Merge with Motorway 8 (Greece) TimothyJosephWood 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 April 2016‎

Efpalinos Tunnel[edit]

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

Merge with Motorway 8 (Greece). TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First, there are multiple tunnels named "Efpalinos Tunnel". In addition to the notable highway tunnel the current article is about there an ancient aqueduct, widely admired, still safe to visit, near Samos. There is no tactful way to say this. That this nomination doesn't address the multiple tunnel issue very strongly suggests to me that there has been a serious failure to comply with WP:BEFORE here. Please! Comply with WP:BEFORE!

Second, merging small articles on notable topics into larger related articles, just because the article is currently small, or currently poorly referenced, is always a bad idea, when there are multiple credible merge targets. That is the case here. The nomination suggests this article on a notable topic be merged into the article on the roadway it is on. But, someone could suggest, that it could be merged into an article on Tunnels in Greece, or Tunnels in Europe. Shoehorning the notable topic into one of the other articles, on a related topic, means that some of the material necessary to properly cover it will be off-topic in the article it is merged into. The most detailed coverage of the tunnel belongs in an article on the tunnel. All of the articles it is related to should provide a bit of context surrounding their wikilink to the article on the tunnel.

We are not always smarter than our readers. Why should we second guess them, second guess how their interests are related? Why should we force them to only access our information through larger multi-topic articles that dole out information in the order that makes sense to us?

Both the current roadway tunnel, and the 2000 year old aqueduct tunnel, merit standalone articles. Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No rationale for merge presented in nomination. fish&karate 21:13, 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" 13:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact Air[edit]

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

Not notable flight school. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it is more than just a flight school, it nevertheless fails to meet the guidelines for company notability; and by extension the general notability guidelines YSSYguy (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG no cited sources outside the company website and the govt listing of aircraft. No significant coverage in third party sources. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -no third-party coverage about the company so it seems to just be purely promotional for its flight school Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 April 2016‎

Aithra Tunnel[edit]

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

Needs merged into Motorway 8 (Greece). TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 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 delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q4OS[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The only thing even close to a third party source is this. A single review from a site that makes a point to review as much as they can does not meet WP:GNG, and most certainly does not meet WP:NSOFT. The PROD was contested, citing the source above as well as a Softpedia review, but Softpedia is not a third-party source; they host the software in question and thus not unaffiliated with the software, as consensus has previously shown. Aoidh (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this still questionable because my searches only found some links at News but nothing else outstandingly better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. I'd like to stay neutral in this but I vehemently disagree with the statements "Softpedia is not a third-party source", "not unaffiliated with the software" and especially "as consensus has previously shown". Softpedia is a web mirror and independent reviewer. It is used in Featured Articles too. As far as WP:N is concerned, Softpedia can both host and adore Q4OS and retain its status as reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Softpedia says "You can download Q4OS 1.4.3 right now from Softpedia" it brings into question the claim that it has nothing to do with Q4OS. Regardless, it takes more than a questionable Softpedia review and another run-of-the-mill review to create notability. - Aoidh (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying that the only web mirrors are evil web mirrors that have ulterior motives. RealNetworks made the same assumption when it sued Hilbrand Edskes for hosting a link. Of course, the UN court judge dismissed this assumption and made RealNetworks pay €48,000 in damages.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying any such thing. Not being independent of a subject does not make the source "evil" or have "ulterior motives". It just makes it insufficient to establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made it worse. Now you are saying all websites that host something are connected to that thing in such a way makes their opinion worthless. i.e. if I have a file on my computer, I am in cahoots with its creator. AFAIK, a web mirror can even receive money for mirroring a file and still be independent from the subject itself. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also not what I said, nor is your example relevant to what I'm saying. I've explained why it's not an independent source, but you're arguing against things I've never said. - Aoidh (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the last two message, we have established that evil web mirrors with ulterior motivations are not the only mirrors and hosting alone does not imply affiliation. So, what connects the dots? The thing that carries Softpedia away from unaffiliated mirrors and makes it a "not unaffiliated" mirror. What is it? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta be honest, I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. You're talking about "evil web mirrors with ulterior motives" and arguing against that, but I've certainly said nothing even close to that. I've explained why it's not independent of the software, you're going on about "evil" things instead of addressing what I said. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I generally agree that one review alone, be it in Softpedia, PC Magazine, PC World, Computerworld, Ars Technica or The Verge, is far from sufficient to establish notability. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: [10], [11] ~Kvng (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires multiple sources, and two routine reviews, one of which is of questionable independent from the subject (at best) does not meet that requirement. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT indicates reviews can be used to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can be. I highly doubt that the software "...has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources" given that these two reviews say nothing of the sort. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, AfD != Cleanup. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned cleanup in any capacity, that's not the issue. It wasn't sent to AfD because of a need for cleanup, it was sent for lack of notability. That's not something cleaning up the article will help. - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of high quality sources. I cannot find any relevant hits on Google Books or Google Scholar. Google News returns some not very prestigious sources such as Softpedia and LinuxInsider, but no mentions in the more established IT industry trade press, no mentions in the academic journals or conference proceedings. Linux distributions are a dime a dozen (it is so easy to start a new one simply by forking an existing one), so I think a higher bar of notability should apply to minor Linux distributions, and I don't believe this distribution meets that bar. I think a good test (but maybe not a decisive test) for the notability of Linux distributions is whether LWN.net covers them in depth (i.e. any coverage beyond mention on the LWN Linux Distributions List, which aims to be exhaustive and hence isn't a good indicator of notability) – and this distribution fails that test. SJK (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now, I couldn't find any reliable sources apart from the reviews (which are blogs anyway). I would like someone to move it to either my userspace or the draft space, I may be able to improve it. It needs more than just sources, it is promotional as well as the fact it looks like a machine translation. If it was neutral and well written, I would have voted Keep- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my comment above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ekong Jimmy Effiong[edit]

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

I just stumbled on this article and realized that it neither meets the notability or verifiability criteria. It subsequently fails the general notability criteria. None of the sources listed in the article describes the subject in anyway. A search for his name brings out nothing significant. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:06, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability and none of this suggests any better. Asking Wikicology for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete as this person is notable in his own part of the world. That a subject is not popular on Google is not enough reason to yank it off Wikipedia. The article cites sources from local tabloids which do not have proactive internet activities. Thank crafts (talk) 21:10, 09 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Thinkcrafts: Although there isn't an explicit requirement that a certain subject has X amount of results on a Google search, a Google search is very useful in ascertaining the notability and coverage of a subject. Please see WP:BIO, WP:TEACHER, and WP:POLITICIAN to get an understanding of our notability guidelines. In particular, local politicians who may receive local coverage does not mean they are automatically notabile. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Thank crafts: Inasmuch as offline reliable sources in print are as useful as online sources when citing articles on Wikipedia, you will justify your reason for keeping this article by revealing any evidence of these sources. If he is really notable, then establish his notability by adding the sources in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: must qualify under WP:GNG, which does not appear to be the case. Quis separabit? 01:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough as a politician [yet]. Uhooep (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article creator should provide more sources including from Nigerian ones to prove notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ... and failing those sources having already been demonstrated to exist, an article cannot be sustained, per WP:V and the GNG, especially since this is a BLP. Ravenswing 05:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources, including in print, demonstrate notability AusLondonder (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Frank (User Page) (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any Nigerian Wikipedian contributor is very much needed in this AFD discussion because I happen to be the only one besides the creator.

Other contributors: Please note that the article was initially not added to the Nigerian wikiproject since it's creation. The article is well written with many wiki links but on a closer scrutiny, the subject is not notable. It's deceptive in appearance. A search for his publications online is also a futile effort. Most Wikipedia articles solely sourced from printed works usually also have at least pieces of information on the Internet. This case shouldn't be an exception. The creator is yet to respond to my offline sources request. I deem it pertinent that things should be done the right way. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further analysis of the stated references reveals that this source from Eagle newspaper is just a passing mention. The only offline reference which might be reliable is the one from the state's local newspaper: The Pioneer Newspaper which has its official website here. Notwithstanding, this should at least be verifiable via alternate means and it is not even manageable or sufficient to ascertain notability. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Eruditescholar: I do not know what you want exactly. According to the rules, I understand that availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability, yet “sources do not have to be available online or written in English.” In this case, am I supposed to personally get copies of the sources quoted in this article across to you for verifiability? How did you carry out your closer scrutiny without the sources? Where in the extant rules does it state that one of the sources must be online?

You have concluded that the only offline reference which might be reliable is the one from the state’s local newspaper – reason being that perhaps because it has a website. But could that be how editorial integrity is adjudged?

Note that the article here is not about a Nigerian national figure and you should not expect to see stories about him splashed all over the national dailies online. More so, not all stories printed in national dailies in Nigeria make the online version of the papers.

For the records, this figure is one of the three classroom teachers who rose from that position to being appointed a permanent secretary in Akwa Ibom state. He is also a winner of the Best Public Servant Award – the biggest award in the state of Akwa Ibom, Nigeria. That the award is not publicised online does not make it less notable. How I’m I supposed to get sources from local radio, tv and newspapers online to convince you if by merely quoting them you are not satisfied?

@GabeIglesia: and @Uhooep: Please note that this figure here is not a politician but a civil servant. Thank crafts (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinkcrafts: In my opinion, the subject of the article fails WP:TEACHER and WP:GNG. His stated achievements on the article do not exceed his state (Akwa Ibom) which suggests that he is not known on a national level by most Nigerians. And the stated references are not even sufficient to cite the article. Verifiability is used to ensure veracity of articles on Wikipedia. The website of Pioneer magazine confirms the existence of the source; Unfortunately, it ends just there. Offline sources should have at least ways of verifying that they exist either through book index numbers or related websites and publications. That is not even the case with the remaining stated offline references. Eruditescholar (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Current sourcing does not meet notability guidelines, as with other editors, my searches turned up nothing, and without more sourcing from those who have off-line availability, no choice but to delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as evidently created with self-promotional intent, and little in the way of convincing sources. Sandstein 17:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic to the difficulty of finding sources that meet WP:RS, when the article subject is in an area not as well covered by internet sites, nor major newspapers. If it were a close call, I might vote otherwise. However, it seems clear that the current local sources don't meet Wikipedia requirements. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs serious work. But I was still leaning toward weak keep, as subject almost barely passed WP:BASIC, because of passing mentions in presumably reliable sources. But the heavy reliance on "The Story of Ekong Jimmy Effiong”, which appears to be nothing more than a profile in a blog, is inadequate; and his name does not even show up in a WorldCat search as an author on any of the publications listed in the article. So no notability can be reliably established by any standard. X4n6 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above. Clubjustin (talk) 05:56, 1 May 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; award for "assistant coach of the year" qualifies as notable under NCOLLATH. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Embick[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Hasn't played for a fully pro club nor has he coached a fully pro club, plus he hasn't received significant coverage. Therefore, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to have won a national award per WP:NCOLLATH, the NSCAA Assistant Coach of the Year, which seems to be the soccer equivalent of the AFCA Assistant Coach of the Year, so he would appear to qualify under the "the equivalent in another sport" clause of WP:NCOLLATH. That award cited, in part, his influence on the Akron Zips establishing Division I (NCAA) records "with 11 consecutive shutouts and a 39-game unbeaten streak at home" --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes GNG. Joeykai (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, has no achievements as a professional and has not won a major award as a college coach. Does not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 17:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does meet GNG. Joeykai (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Ahecht. VanEman (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet both WP:NCOLLATH (due to award win) and GNG. Also, the Akron Zips men's soccer program is a major program similar to programs like Quinnipiac Bobcats men's ice hockey, Johns Hopkins Blue Jays men's lacrosse, Cal State Fullerton Titans baseball - programs outside of football and basketball that are well followed and flagship programs at those schools. The coaches of these programs would be notable due to the coverage the programs receive. RonSigPi (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reading the article and the other user's comments here I think this article barely meets the notability requirements based on the subject's coaching career and awards. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH criteria. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to be going the "Keep" path and I see nothing seriously needed for deletion. At best, this can be reconsidered later if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 April 2016‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" 19:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biofuel Research Journal[edit]

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

Please note the extensive discussion on the talk page of the article, where the article creator (Meisam tab, who claims not to be the editor-in-chief of this journal, Meisam Tabatabaei) claims that the journal's inclusion in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) is enough to meet WP:NJournals. However, as far as I can see from ESCI's inclusion criteria, these are similar to those of DOAJ, which also does not contribute to notability. Note that the final paragraph of the introduction to ESCI's criteria states: "The Web of Science Core Collection Journal Selection Process now includes those criteria that Editorial Development applies to journals evaluated and selected (or rejected) for the ESCI. The Journal Selection Process for the central focus of Core Collection, namely, SCIE, SSCI and AHCI, remains fundamentally unchanged and consistent. SCIE, SSCI and AHCI continue to define the highly selective and central focus of Core Collection." (My bolding). Thomson Reuters here clearly makes a distinction between the highly selective databases SCI, SSCI, and AHCI, on the one hand, and ESCI on the other hand. In sum, I maintain that this is relatively new journal is not notable, as it is not indexed in any selective databases and has no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Emerging Sources Citation Index in my opinion does not show notability. It is explicitly and deliberately a "second-tier" index for those journals that do not yet qualify for Science Citation Index. The term we usually use for subjects in that sort of status is "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable enough, but maybe in the future. This form of self-promotion needs to stop, and all edits by Meisam Tabatabaei need to be examined due to the obvious COI. We also need to be patient and gentle with an editor who has unwittingly run afoul of our COI policy. They should stick to using the talk pages of any articles they are related to, and not do direct editing on them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Randykitty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "not yet" at best, though I would not hold my breath.

If anyone gets confused by the userspace redirects, the author changed his username. A plausible reason is stated here (IMO it stretches credulity, but WP:AGF). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a suicide pact. The extreme degree of promotion and knowledge makes believing that there is no COI far beyond any stretch of credulity. New editors need to learn our ways of dealing with such a COI and stick to using the talk page for anything remotely controversial or promotional. If that is followed, there will be less likelihood of future problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor said to have close knowledge of Meisam Tabatabaei, so that is an admission of COI. However it might be true that he chose "Meisam Tab" as a username despite being someone else, though it seems unplausible to me. Frankly, who cares anyways? The article will get deleted and that's it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as still questionable for the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 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. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Colony Shastripuram[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The settlement has received passing mention in reliable sources that cannot be considered significant coverage. (Note: I'd tagged this article for speedy deletion which was reverted by ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.) Ciridae (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom had tagged the article for speedy deletion as spam/excessively promotional, which was frankly absurd and gives little confidence that their curaory comment about sourcing is correct -- especially since it's contradicted by the very first article in the External Links section. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apologies for not mentioning this earlier. A page with a similar title, Kings colony shastripuram, by the same author was speedy deleted under the G11 criteria. Ciridae (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:NGEO. Also, how on Earth could this ever meet the WP:CSD? AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder:, how on earth does this satisfy WP:NGEO? How is this of any historic, social, economic, or architectural importance and where are the reliable sources for them? Please note that notability in this case cannot be inherited from events. Ciridae (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we thinking of the same notability guideline? The one I'm talking about states "legally recognised, populated places are presumed to be notable" AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder:, it seems we aren't. Are you talking about WP:GEOLAND? Because I think WP:GEOFEAT should apply, especially Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments. This is a colony of private residences and a non-notable one at that. Ciridae (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is simply a "building" or a "residence". You are correct is is a colony of private residences, just like any other neighbourhood. It therefore meets WP:GEOLAND as a "legally recognised, populated place". Here is an article in The Hindu about the neighbourhood. AusLondonder (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article contributes to notability in any manner. Local problems with power, roads etc are normal and this says absolutely nothing about the colony in question (no inherited notability). And I'd still say WP:GEOFEAT will apply here over WP:GEOLAND, since it explicitly covers private residences. And even if GEOLAND applies, this would fall under populated places without legal recognition since it is a housing development and legal recognition is not sourced here. But anyways, these are rather fine points under policy. Ciridae (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point to be honest. Most neighbourhoods consist of private residences. That's the norm. AusLondonder (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I wanted to comment sooner but was also eager to see if anyone else said something. Delete at best because this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources (and other apparent coverage from reliable sources like The Hindu) are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND's test for neighborhoods, and given the way our coverage of Hyderabad is structured (with more than 200 articles in Category:Neighbourhoods of Hyderabad, India), I don't think it would benefit the encyclopedia to delete a sourced and sourceable article about this particular neighborhood, nor is it feasible to merge this into a broader article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best, since I'm noticing this is noticeably troubled by votes, I'm willing to change to Keep as this can be improved if needed and reconsider later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think the key to interpreting WP:GEOLAND is the phrase: "legally recognised, populated place", as AusLondonder pointed out. However, I come to the opposite conclusion, since there is no sourcing to show that it is a "legally recognized" place. I can't find it on any census documentation. Therefore it falls to the second category, "Populated places without legal recognition". And in this instance, the coverage in the Hindu seems to indicate that it, just barely, passes WP:GNG. Unlike corporations, which require more than local coverage to show notability, neighborhoods may only have local notability. That seems to be the case in this instance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 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 minimal discussion, but no dissent.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon India[edit]

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

Article created by a blocked sock. PRODded with reason " Spammy article, no in-depth independent reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG.". Expired PROD removed by Kvng with reason "potentially controversial deletion, see talk" (referring to a comment on the talk page by mentioned sock). PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. (Also, rather promotional in tone.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

María Gonllegos[edit]

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

Participant in a pageant that was deemed not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent (2nd nomination)) The Banner talk 12:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only considering the pageant is not currently notable, nothing else imagines any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Let's first see if there are more sources pointing to notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, one should be checking to see if there are more sources before voting, but that's just me. Her stage name of "Lupita Gonzalez" (which is cited in the article) has an eyepopping total of 868 Google News hits, many of which involve her being an accomplished athlete as well, a number of which helpfully include the full "Maria Guadalupe González" name for doublechecking. Honestly, Google Translate is your friend ... Ravenswing 04:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while news does return over 800 hits for Lupita Gonzalez, none of those appear to be about this particular aka of María Gonllegos. The Pan American runner does not appear to be the same person, and there is nothing in any of the articles to connect the two. Most of the 800 hits are for other people with this same name. The commonality of her aka makes researching under that difficult, but there does not appear to be, and none have been proffered, the type of in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG, and under her real name there is virtually zero coverage. Btw, there is nothing to indicate, other than its mention in the article, which is uncited, that Gonllegos does go by an aka. Even the one source about her as an entertainer uses Gonllegos, not Gonzales. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 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. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Beck (professor)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; the previous AFD was challenged by administrator User:JzG, who argued that Edward Beck the person is not notable because most of the citations discuss Scholars for Peace in the Middle East with only passing references to Beck, and boldly redirected it to the organization's article. This action was, however, undone by User:GB fan, who insisted that it be discussed.

I agree with this position, but am taking it to AFD once more just so we can be perfectly clear on this. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 19 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) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with redirect: The article does not show any notability for this person that is distinct from his founding of SPME. The article is more about the organization than about the person. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment see AN/I [12] Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Peter.Hurd has stated, an editor presumably the subject has raised a request to have the article concernging them deleted. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reasonably requested by the subject, whether it is an article or a redirect. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect. Any relevant information about Beck can be woven into the organization article, and the title should be redirected to that article. Agree with the OP that Beck does not appear to be notable outside of organization. --Jayron 32 14:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the organization article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged it a few days ago for notability, unaware that there had been a recent AfD on the page that resulted in keep until the tag was promptly removed. Looking at that previous discussion, the sources offered and complete lack of any other sources I could find, I simply do not see evidence of notability. Under WP:GNG, multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail are required to establish notability. You cannot become notable by writing about yourself or your ideas. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED. You cannot become notable just because you are somehow connected to something else that is notable. The sources have to be independent and secondary and they have to actually be about you, offering their own thinking or analysis. That just doesn't exist here.

Of most concern to me is the uncritical acceptance of the sources cited. Some don't even appear to exist. For example, sources #4, #8 and #9 are Highbeam citations. Through my university, I have Highbeam. Guess what? Those articles simply can't be found on Highbeam. (I tried several variations on title, author, publisher, etc. Nothing.) Similarly, the only mention of the subject in source #10, the Inside Higher Ed page, is in an anonymous comment. The rest of the sources are either obviously WP:PRIMARY, e.g., source #2, his resume, or nearly impossible check (I was not, e.g., able to find any of them at newspapers.com). Not one source offers even a quote to help us guess what they report.

Sorry to have to say this, but I think we're being scammed. I don't believe any of the sources offered are actually helpful. I don't trust any of them. Further, I note that my own searches turned up nothing and that, in addition, when I checked Google Scholar [13], only two citations turned up with a total of only 182 citations. (In academia, the threshold is about 1000 citations.) His work has simply not had the impact that might allow a presumption of notability under WP:PROFESSOR.

This appears to be a clear delete and I have no idea why it was kept last time. This individual may be a very nice gentleman but so far as I can tell, he is simply not notable. Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization is notable, the individual is not. Carrite (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as I'm not convinced this is currently satisfying the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request from article subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 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 merge and redirect. Because the consensus appears to have coalesced around merging, I have redirect the article to Subbotniks. All the contribution history is still available in Qaraimits, so material from it can be merged into Subbotniks as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qaraimits[edit]

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

There has been a discussion on the article talk page about deleting this article, and it needs to be held here. I have moved the discussion here. Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of this word in Russian -means like Karaim . While Karaim/Karaite is spelled with "K" the same speling of Karaimit may be better used here. But why we need to invent new English word ? The google search shows that there is no such word in English. The more common name of this Sect is Subbotniks.But it may create some disambig because this name used for all three sects of Ethnic Russians considering Old Testament.So this article need to be renamed or changed (due it small size) to sub-article of Subbotniks were all 3 sects need to be mentioned Неполканов (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you make a proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That way, there can be a proper and fair discussion.

My preference would be to merge it into the article on the Subbotniks. We need to use words to describe these people that are used in reliable English-language sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the deletion of this article and the moving of any RS information that is relevant to the English WP to the Subbotniks article. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Караимиты has never been translated into English before is no basis to delete or rename the article. But you are free to make your proposals as long as they are in line with wiki policies go ahead. Proposals by Meat-Puppet teams are usually rejected but let's see if you can manage to dupe anyone.YuHuw (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing an argument here which is relevant to an AfD - as far as I know, arguments about the way foreign words are transliterated into English are not really valid in this kind of discussion. I can't tell if Qaraimits and Subbotniks are the same. So I'd vote keep on the basis that no valid argument is being offered, possibly also suggesting that a bold merge might be most appropriate if all participants agree that these two pages are describing the same thing. JMWt (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are not the same thing. Qaraimits are gentiles who live according to the rules for gentiles written in the Torah without reference to the Talmud (if they did that they would be called Noachides). For this reason they are half way between Gentiles and Qaraims being neither one nor the other. Subbotniks on the other hand are nothing but a Russian type of Sabbatarian Christian. At most one could argue that Qaraimits are half way between Subbotniks and Qaraims but only because they had Subbotnik origins, otherwise they would just be half way between Gentiles and Qaraims. But to say that Qaraimits are Subbotniks because of their origin, sigh, one might as well argue that Subbotniks are Russian Orthodox because of their origin. No. YuHuw (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many sects of "Judaizers" around the world, as are the Subbotniks in Russia. All these little distinctions about which type of Jewish traditions each small sect prefers do not justify the creation on the English WP of a stub to accommodate the distinctions based on the preferences of particular WP Users, like the one that created this page. Anybody following the activities of this User will see that this is just a small platform he is creating so that he can start all articles in the English WP that refer Eastern European Karaites. And, in those articles, he will then start arguing that Eastern European Karaites are of gentile, not Karaite origin, as he is doing above. Precisely as his former "incarnation" here on the English WP, Kaz/Budo, did until he was banned. Now, after a couple of years without being able to disturb the history of small Russian sects on the English WP, he has devised a new strategy for editing this area of Wikipedia, which is enlarging the circle of terms surrounding the narrow area where his Caucasian-Muslim little sect exists, until he gets to the Easter European Karaites articles, which are his real only intended target on the English WP. warshy ^(¥¥) 12:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editor again mess everything,Noachides fulfill the 7 precepts of Judaism permitted for gentiles,while жидовствующие do not care what permitted and strive to fulfill all the rules and precepts of the Old Testament. There are 3 different sects of them. Only Molokans between them recognize the gospel.The name that is comon for Karaites between them is Subbotniks. Karaimits is less common name from missioner publications, I brought the RS above but was ignored again and again,The other common name for all kind of жидовствующие is also Subbotnisks,creating some mess because it is also the name for Karaites between them . The only way ro resolve the mess is to merge this article with Subbotnik Jews article.

Summary:

Merge into Subbotniks article ; Неполканов (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is you who does not understand Judaism. They are not fulfilling all the laws of the Old Testament because they reject circumcision. That means they are fulfiling all the rules for non-Jews not for Jews. The same as Noachides are for Rabbinical Judaism. Qaraimits are just Karaite Judaism's equivalent to Orthodox Judaism's Noachides. Meanwhile Subbotniks (Russian Sabbatarians) are Christians (even if some might be Unitarian Christians), Qaraimits are not. You clearly have no understanding of the issue. Meanwhile could I draw User:Liz's perspective (since you already asked him to drop it [14] on the ongoing ad-hominem against me, please, even after my vindication [15]? Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind this request for deletion by those three extremely close friends. YuHuw (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it could be better to understand for the reader in case we use K instead Q (or unlike), and emerge the whole Karaim/Qaraim community together with Crimean_Karaites, in order to present Qaraimism better. Manaviko (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting we merge Crimean Karaites with Qaraimits together under an article entitled Qaraimism, it might seem like a good idea on the surface level, but might lead to endless edit conflicts too and that would probably cause blood to be spilled (humor) because Qaraimits have a positive view on Jesus while Karaite Jews do not. Karaite Jews would be very angry about trying to bring Qaraimits and Karaims and Qaraimism and Karaite Judaism all together under one roof. Like trying to mix Cypriot Turks and Cypriot Greeks together as simply Cypriots. YuHuw (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Subbotniks article . WP:NEO says that "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted... Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English." That applies to this article. The word "Qaraimits" has no usage in the English language outside of Wikipedia and sites that get their content from Wikipedia. The justification used for creating it was that there is a word "Караимиты" in Russian (see Справочник по ересям, сектам и расколам by С. В. Булгаков). "Караимиты" would be written in Latin script as "Karaimits" not "Qaraimits". But reliable sources in the English language do not call them that. The Subbotniks, by Velvl Chernin, p8 calls them "Karaite Subbotniks". There is a chapter in Holy Dissent (edited by Glenn Dynner), by Nicholas Breyfogle, about the Subbotniks - this says that the religious beliefs of the Subbotniks varied widely (p359), and that many embraced Judaism in its entirety, and that there was a split between Talmudists and Karaites (p373). The chapter has no special name for Subbotniks who followed Karaite Judaism. It does mention many of the names that Tsarist officials used for Subbotniks - neither "Karaimits" nor "Qaraimits" are mentioned. All Subbotniks should be covered by one article, because much of the information in reliable sources applies to all. Since the subject is covered in English language scholarly sources, we should stick to English-language names existing in reliable, published sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support this position completely. I could not have argued this better. warshy ^(¥¥) 12:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested because this may be best connected to that article. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I get the feeling that this is a religious denomination, which we would normally keep. It may be that it needs renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Subbotniks article . As per Toddy1's argument above. This is just a particular variety of Russian Judaizers, not significant in terms of numbers, and not worthy of standing on its own as a separate neologism in the English WP. It is an irrelevant distraction to the field of religious sects in Russian history. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are so many streams of Judaizers, this one is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Subbotniks article . As per Toddy1's argument above. This is just a particular variety of Russian Judaizers, not significant in terms of numbers, and not worthy of standing on its own as a separate neologism in the English WP. It is an irrelevant distraction to the field of religious sects in Russian history. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable, no need to merge either. TiberiasTiberias (talk) 15:56, 28 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese animation[edit]

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

There's nothing to this article. It's a shell with a small list of studios and animators, none of who are notable. Can't see what use this article is in its current form - and has been like this for 4 years. Time to get rid? Rayman60 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{Expand Vietnamese|Hoạt hình Việt Nam|date=April 2016}}. With the benefit of Goggle Translation, we see a much more well-developed article. Lacking in inline citations, yes, but I'm not convinced that a main article on Vietnam's animation industry is as non-notable as suggested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did since see that a number of countries have articles which inclined me to think there could be scope for this article, but only 14 countries have one in that template (with the surprising omission of the UK, who have an article on the history but not of current animation). That raises the question why don't we have 200+ such articles, where is the animation industry of Swaziland and Nicaragua for example? This is why I had a little doubt about whether this article only existed because someone bothered to make it and no-one bothered for the other countries....anyway AfD'd it for opinions from those who may know better than I do. Rayman60 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm just not seeing a persuasive, policy-based argument, nor do I have anything to say about the relative merits of Vietnam's animation sector vs. that of, say Swaziland. Nor do I think I need to. Just to point out that Wikipedia:ITDOESNTEXIST is an argument to be avoided here. And every article only exists because someone bothered to make it. Vietnamese animation seems to me to be in need of expansion, incorporating sourced content from its Vietnamese wiki article, not deletion. Template:Interlanguage link could also be used to convert some of those redlinks to blue links to the Vietnam project, I daresay, but that would take some work. Anyway, WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:IMPATIENT also applies regarding the small size or current state of the article. And as with his nomination for the list of Vietnamese films, this apparent assumption of their inherent non-notability is odd and possibly an example of the kind of WP:Systemic bias we're trying to counter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For one thing, the corresponding article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia [16] is pretty substantial, so don't be fooled by this article's early stages. As for WP:GNG (which is I guess the policy the nominator is arguing under?), I found quite a few sources of admittedly varying quality ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], for example). Can't see a compelling argument for deletion, even though the article needs work. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve if it can happen. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 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" 19:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hidetoshi Wakamatsu[edit]

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

Non-notable academic; article entirely based on a single non-independent source —swpb^T 15:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing in the article that looks like a potential pass of WP:PROF is being editor in chief of the Journal of Automatic Control of Physiological State & Function. But that turns out to be one published by the predatory OMICS Publishing Group so the evidence if anything is negative. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstration of notability in the absence of any in-depth coverage or third-party sourcing. --DAJF (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to edit the Wakamatsu.It added a reference today.--9LIMITS (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency (record producer)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Music notability for composers etc. Worked on one successful track but apart from that their career has been shrouded in mediocrity - most of the artists they work with aren't notable either by virtue of not having their own articles. SPAs and COIs have defied earlier concerns about excessive discography. Article is somewhat biographical, not neutral and promotional in tone (appreciate those aren't AfD concerns) Rayman60 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria for a music professional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not immediately clear of solid independent notability, delete for now until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the commonality of the name makes researching difficult, but I could find nothing to show there is the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources which shows that he passes WP:GNG. Certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 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, for now. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OruxMaps[edit]

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

Notability of the subject is not proven. T v x1 12:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep: among GPS cognoscenti, OruxMaps is among the most prominent mapping applications for outdoor use, and a general Google search turns up plenty of links. But agreed: few of these meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. That's true with the sector, as well: a few other GPS apps that make use of OpenStreetMap data are widely used and discussed among a narrow cadre, but not much covered by conventional secondary sources. My take: the entry is stub-worthy. Barte (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the article it is " rapidly increasing in popularity". I interpret that as not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Agrawal[edit]

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

Though this article meets the CSD G11, but it was declined by admins many times so Afd is more preferable. This person may have some significant indication of notability, but have hardly any reliable references to support the Wikipedia's policy for notability and verifiability. The article reads like an advertisement and seems to be the promotional — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no supported evidence to establish notability. Possible WP:SELFPROMOTE. Dan arndt (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for the applicable notability, not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there are some nice in-depth pieces about Agrawal, none are about this Agrawal. No in-depth coverage about this particular individual with this name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 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 redirect to Matt Parker. MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Parker Square[edit]

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

Declined PROD. No assertion of notability, assuming we're not counting "The Parker Square caused a lot of Twitter traffic. So it must be good.." The creator has an article, suggest merge to Matt Parker. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that the topic was a day old when I proposed deletion: that confirms my view that the subject is not, at this point, notable. We generally expect significant in-depth coverage to sustain notability, which is simply not possible in this case, probably for months. Wikipedia is not the news. The article is premature by at least months. A "brief trend on Twitter" is miles short of WP:RS and WP:V, and fails WP:GNG. Related neologisms mentioned below are suitable for tweets, not for Wikipedia articles. Notability is not manufactured. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @Acroterion: I have left a neutrally-worded notice of this discussion at Talk:Matt Parker. I strongly believe that this should be a required step whenever a merge is proposed as part of an AfD. Otherwise the likely outcome is that someone at the merge target article objects to the merge and reverts, reversing the consensus of the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The parker square as i wrote in the Notability section of the article, is infact one of the closest attempts at finding a 3x3 Magic Square that contains only perfect square numbers. Simillar to finding the highest prime number and the furthest digit of PI. Finding such a Magic Square is a matmatical competition. As explained in the video i cited at the botom of the parker square article. Aswell the parker square has inturn coined the phrase "Giving it a parker try" or "Giving it a parker square try" meaning to give something a good shot. I intend to add this to the article due to uts breif trend on twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenged (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Zenged (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Parker's square is by no means one of the closest attempts. There have been much closer attempts detailed here. This is simply an attempt at meme creation by Numberphile fans. Dmitry Brant (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Matt Parker. I suspect this "Parker Square" may actually turn out to be notable in the long run, and the attention from Numberphile does weakly argue for notability now, but it isn't enough on its own. Should be revisited in a few years when the notability may be clearer and it it may be possible to write a verifiable article based on reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I belive that if it is notable in th long run it should be kept as its own page as it is a multi section article. Aswell it is linked on Matt Parkers page under the achievements section. There really is no harm in leaving this its own article as it does not provide false information, or any bais. Zenged (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat yourself. See my note above. Dmitry Brant (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept as it's own page. It is the legitimate finding of a well-known mathematician and is one of the closest examples of a 3x3 magic sqaure composed of perfect squares. It is notable in the field of mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.188.49 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — 97.95.188.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Matt Parker. Potential future notability is not grounds for notability now; being a "legitimate finding of a well-known mathematician" (even assuming without granting the latter) is hardly sufficient for a stand-alone article. There are literally thousands of "legitimate findings" by well-known mathematicians every year, yet few have their own page. If this turns out to drive a lot of traffic or develop sufficient independent verifiable reliable sources on it, then it can be separated into its own article. As it is, it does provide bias: it gives undue weight to this subject. It is not currently notable, so it does not currently warrant a stand-alone page. Magidin (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge. A days-old neologism with a single youtube video as its primary source is far too soon to be encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fix Neutrality First then decide. It is basically a meme. It can go big, or not. I think we should wait a week or so. If it gets popular: merge, if not: purge. Andy990525 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybey it would be a good idea to create a wiki page on the search for a 3x3 magic square containing only perfect squares and put this in itZenged (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be supportive of a creating an article magic square of squares based on sources like the following: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. I don't think it should be restricted specifically to 3x3 although that is an important subtopic of this subject. I'm dubious that the Parker square would be worth mentioning within such an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. If it becomes notable we can have an article, but we don't keep articles on the grounds that their subjects may possibly become notable in the future. The king of the sun (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect OK, I hugely love Numberphile, but I don't think we need to make every silly in-joke to a WP article. :-) --Nanite (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if needed but certainly Redirect for now as none of this is suggesting a solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deleting to Matt Parker. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. There is nothing whatsoever notable about this mathematical construct, except being mentioned in a single YouTube video. Dmitry Brant (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Englett[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There a few reliable sources about him, but it seems he is like a passing mention in most of them. I couldn't find a single source discussing the subject in detail. The subject has written a book as well, but there seems to be no independent reviews about the book, and hence WP:AUTHOR would fail as well. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the original author was blocked for abusing multiple accounts to vote at AfDs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JellyfishFilms. Just mentioning for the record in case something similar happens here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No extensive coverage in reliable sources. Blackmane (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not currently convincing of the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This looks and reads exactly like the kind of reformatted quasi-LinkedIn profile that self-promoters are continually pumping out because they think their mere existence automatically entitles them to have Wikipedia articles for public relations purposes. But as always, that's not what we're here for — and none of this suggests or sources any substantive reason why an encyclopedia article about him would be warranted at this time. The sources here are all either video clips of him speaking, or mere namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite, in references which do not have him as their subject — but a person has to be the subject of media coverage, not just a name floating around in coverage of other things, to pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 28 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) 14:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaaz Khan (Pakistani actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC/WP:NACTOR with only a single source about Khan's wife, which only mentions him in passing ("Her husband actor Arbaaz Khan is currently in Shogran for a shoot and was not with his wife at the time of the accident." is the content in its entirety).

It's hard to find sources when Arbaaz Khan (Indian actor) seems to be a bigger name with a lot of press coverage, but I'm not seeing anything, and this article has been tagged as needing sources for three years. McGeddon (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing yet suggesting a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one passing mention and an self submitted details. I had previously flagged this for speedy deletion because of the sock editing but not originally penned by a sock. Nothing notable here . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not reveal any in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Morgan[edit]

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

Brief rationale

See my bullet points:

Sparse appearance in the media (mostly 2011, see sources);
Not eminent and not performing above expectations in his field of interest;
Only locally relevant (see talk);
Low level of activity since 2011;
Famous for only one event (in the second event he was not the main character; just one among the many bloggers who addressed the issue. Got threats as a consequence of his blog? Yeah. Even my gf got stalked once;
This page cannot be made better, because it should not be here in first place;
When proposed for speed deletion in 2011, people voted for him being notable but were fooled by the fact he was on TV, but being on TV may only be a clue of notability and not sufficient evidence for it;

I am also afraid the voting process might be rigged by over-representation due to his mild Internet popularity and fandom. Should his occasional blog followers know about it, they would flood Wikipedia to vote. I thus suggest vote is restricted to only people with Wikipedia activity that occurred prior to 2011. Consequently, I will not notify the author of the article personally. If somebody wants to do it, they are welcome, but I think this would damage the independence and intellectual autonomy of the evaluation process. Thank you all. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long explanation with link to relevant Wikipedia policy page

It is 2016 and the popularity of this person is debatable. The page has already been proposed for speedy deletion, and received massive approval for speed keep. I argue the approval was due to the poor arguments offered by the editor who proposed deletion. I did my own research of Wikipedia's guidelines, and argue this person is, at best, low-profile. My rationale follows:

Sparse appearance: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization, or a local sporting, fundraising or activism event. May have fulfilled non-self-promotional functions based on experience or special knowledge, such as being an expert witness in a legal case. May have authored non-self-promotional publications, such as books or refereed journal articles on scientific, technical, historical, etc., topics. (Source: Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual ). My rationale: this person is no more famous than any witness in any trial. The only difference is that he received occasional media attention because of his activity. Given the randomness by which Main Stream Media choose to follow a story and pay attention to it is due to profit and marketing reasons and not because the person is encyclopaedic. Media attention might be evidence of being encyclopedic but does not entail the property of being encyclopedic (i.e. media attention is not sufficient alone to give this person a page). Conclusion: low-profile at best.
Lack of eminence: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question – academia, like business and politics, can be quite competitive). Such a person may be notable anyway yet still low-profile (e.g., if generally acknowledged to be a preeminent authority in a particular field, or a CEO of a notable but not market-dominant company, etc., but not particularly self-promotional). (Source: Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual ). My rationale: This person is a blog activist who got a couple of successes unmasking hoaxes. Given media attention is clue but not proof of encyclopedic notability (see point above), I would expect this person to have overperformed in the field of activism and science blogging. Guess what? He never performed above the normal activity in his field. Example: My lawyer has a blog, won a lot of trials because he is good at his job, and got featured in a couple of documentaries on being lawyers in my hometown. Yes, he got relevant media attention; yes, he has an internet profile that is quite active; yes, my lawyer was successful in his job. But he is not by any means performing above the expected level of the field in question). Conclusion: low-profile at best.
Believe it or not, in this day and age his actions are merely local even if his voice occasionally crossed the pond between UK and US. As stated in Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual, a high profile individual is required to stand "above locally-significant relevance". I understand some editors might misunderstand international activity for "above-local significance", but in nowadays globalized society, for a blogger and activist to be involved in a campaign in North America is not local. It is an average day. Proof of this is the fact the guy, hadn't had media attention, wouldn't even be here. I argue Wikipedians shall not buy everything Main Stream Media try to sell us as if it was automatically encyclopedic, much in the same way you will not put a product on Wikipedia just because it has been showcased in most of your country's supermarkets. Editors have been misled by BBC into thinking this person is relevant. But the question still stands: without being invited to tell his story to the radio and a TV show, would this person be relevant in his field just because of his actions (and not because of the manufactured shows around him)? I argue we shall all answer "no" to this question. His fame is contingent to media attention and media attention is built on foggy grounds. Conclusion: low profile.
Low level of activity: may have attempted to maintain a high profile unsuccessfully in the past, or successfully for a limited time (and may be notable as a result of either), but has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then. Often allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events. My rationale: he has been involved in two cases of debunking. Fair enough. There are anti-hoax bloggers and websites that are involved in debunking on a daily basis and are notable for their persistent and continuous activity. I argue this person has never been high profile. But even if I admitted he was high profile, it would be only for a couple of episodes. In at least one of those episodes, he was high profile in conjunction with other people... so that he would just receive a mention (maybe a line) in the event's page, but not get a page of his own overall. Conclusion: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_for_only_one_event

Let me recap, for the sake of briefness. This person has:

Sparse appearance in the media (mostly 2011 -- see article sources)
Not eminent (not performing above expectations in his field of interest)
Only locally famous and linked to only a couple of events, and groups. He is not even niche (no: the fact he had an interest in the US medical affairs for a brief period does not make him less 'local')
Low level of activity: famous only for one event (namely, the first one). Article lists a second event, but it is pretty clear, as explained in the very article, that in such second event he was one among the many bloggers involved and was featured in a newspaper and asked for his opinion on the matter. I am sorry he received threats because of that, but this might make you famous for a day, but not notable in any Encyclopaedia. His relevance in the second event is minimal and collective. Not individual. Since then, nobody but his subscribers have heard of him.

When you browse an article like this and you see a lot of issues about its existence, accuracy, relevance, etc... and you wonder: how can I make this article better? Why does this article has so many problem? In this case, the answer is not "more work needs to be done here" but rather this article shouldn't be here in first place. I am regretful to notice that the previous editor who proposed this article for speedy deletion was not informed enough to be able to propose arguments such as mine, which clearly derailed the deletion process. Moreover, speed deletion was proposed back in the days. Nowadays, where is this person's activity record? Nowhere to be found. Of course I can Google something because he's on the Internet. But encyclopedic? Not at all. Everybody voted for SpeedyKeep because he was on the news at the time in which the page was created. 5 years have passed, and this person is utterly non-encyclopaedic. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. Here's some major coverage spread out over several years, anyway: [30] from The Guardian in 2010, [31] from The Guardian in 2011, [32] from The Daily Telegraph in 2015, and [33] from The New Statesman in 2016. Morgan also made international headlines: [34] from Houston Press in the US and [35] from The Sydney Morning Herald in AU. Although the majority of coverage is about two incidents, it's obviously not a case of BLP1E. I'd say he's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)][reply]
- I didn't look closely enough at that SMH article; it's actually syndicated content from The Guardian. Well, it's not as good as I initially thought, but it's still evidence of international attention, I suppose. To make up for that, here's two different stories from Slate: [36] in French and [37] in English. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, notability is not temporary, and he has been covered by many sources. If he was clearly notable then, he's clearly notable now. Also, the closing admin has ways to make sure there's no meatpuppetry when they close it. Banning everyone who registered for Wikipedia in the last five years from participating in this AfD is significant overkill and goes against numerous policies. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps for now as this seems acceptable for now, perhaps reconsider later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Grønnevik Smith[edit]

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

PROD declined by author with no reason given. PROD reason: "Fails WP:NACTOR: while this junior actor may become notable later on, right now, it has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films"." Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for at least minimal independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leading roles in three films, one with a wiki article , passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable with counting Knerten, Knerten and Knerten as three separate films for the purpose of "significant roles". But even so, they do not constitute multiple notable films. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the films is shown to be notable, we need multiple notable listings. Plus the subject is a minor. We should have extra BLP protections for minors, and so I think we should have much better sources before creating an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:NACTOR, and searches did not show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 28 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 Wikt:cold weapon. A clear consensus has been formed. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cold weapon[edit]

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

As wikipedia is not a dictionary. I tried to find citations for the term so it could be transwikied to wiktionary, but everything I could find appeared to be on wikis, and hence not suitable. I suspect the phrase is not really used. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Never heard of cold weapons before, can't find any non-wiki-mirror sources. I suspect that author just made it up by combining the common terms Cold steel and Melee weapons because he thought it sounded cool. If necessary, I would accept a redirect to Melee weapons just to make it go away--RAF910 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with strong prejudice against a redirect unless and until someone finds sources (I did not). Of the former AfDs, one was a delete, one was a "no consensus per lack of comments". The second AfD (June 2014) in particular was a fiasco: PROD was declined per "page already went to AfD" (though it was deleted...?) and then AfD fails per lack of comments. Tigraan (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Viking, below, did find sources (congrats!). Most of those are translations from Eastern sources so one could argue that it is notable in Russian but not in English. (Even if notability of topics is independent of the language, surely notability of terms is not.) ~~But well, redirect, it is cheap and there is little potential of confusion.~~ Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect per discussion below. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest Possible Delete As non notable article in every way. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to melee weapon. It looks like it started out as a Slavic term for melee weapons or non-firearms. Here is a mention in a book from 1876, a Russian book on Third Reich cold weaponry, a definition of a "cold weapon" in some Kosovo legislature (page 3). Also a search for "cold weapon" on Pinterest or Ebay will show hits for melee weapons. Hence, this term is not just made up one day. But neither is it notable; I doubt there is much beyond definitions out there. Accordingly, I would recommend a redirect to melee weapon. --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark viking, or perhaps soft redirect to wiktionary per below. While thin, there does appear to be some reliable support for the term (here is a recent book using the term). —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - redirecting to melee weapon is problematic because ranged weapons such as bows are also "cold weapons" (i.e. lacking explosives). List of premodern combat weapons would be appropriate if the list didn't contain list of premodern combat weapons#Gunpowder weapons. wikt:firearm#Antonyms: "cold weapon" and "white weapon" are red at wikt.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mark Viking's links, the term "cold weapon" is used specifically to refer to melee weapons (and rather modern ones, at that). So (unless there is a source to that effect) deciding to include bows and the like would be at best WP:OR. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Look at page four of that source: "1.33. 'Optic sight' means special equipment for firearms or cold weapons, which is designed as a sight or optical device used to assist aim by guiding the eye and aligning it with a weapon or other item to be pointed. An optic sight may be used to enhance hunting and sport arms used respective authorized purposes, as authorised by the competent body as a shooting or hunting association." Optic sights are not placed on melee weapons.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect might be the best option in that case. I started a page at wiktionary, which can be fleshed out with a couple of quotations from the citations given in this discussion (I added the Kosovo law and the Chinese sword book). —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I read only the definition of "cold weapon" in the same source, which looked like it applied only to melee. Oh well... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? Are you kidding? Just redirect it already.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at best for now as it's seems connected to Melee weapons and this is still questionable for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect to wikt:cold weapon, and Oppose redirecting to melee weapon, per the discussion above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of consensus, I would be happy support a soft redirect to wikt:cold weapon instead. Some sources focus on melee, others just on non-explosive. The point is to give the reader some idea of what cold weapon means. --Mark viking (talk) 03:28, 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. G4, the old AfD was closed less than two days ago. —SpacemanSpiff 04:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A3logics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

From the previous AfD: No actual evidence of notability. References are all routine notices. There is no reason to think the "National Award for Outstanding Entrepreneurship in MSEs Services " is a notable award. From the username and LinkedIn, page creator seems to be the CEO & President of the company. TOW 07:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deleted at AfD on 18 April 2016, recreated by the same editor on 19 April 2016; surely this is a CSD G4 and a WP:SALT? AllyD (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Tuttle[edit]

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

~~Can't find reliable sources covering Will Tuttle, just minor unreliable outlets like VegNews, Animal Rights Zone, and a couple local papers. Empamazing (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)~~ (strike comment by now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. Doesn't seem notable. Looks like the CV of the subject. Alkibiades14 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to support WP:BIO notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His World Peace Diet book was a bestseller on Amazon. Also found mentions in Huffington Post and Democracy Now. Funcrunch (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also IOL. VegNews is the largest vegetarian lifestyle magazine, it appears to have editorial standards and qualify as an RS. That makes at least four weak sources, which to me makes this a borderline keep. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft instead for now as I found nothing convincingly better and this would still need better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per TNT. so promotional that would have to be completely rewritten and notability would be uncertain even then. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just PR material. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. In addition, I agree with Jytdog that even if it did pass notability criteria, the article is so promotional that WP:TNT would apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as purely promotional. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:27, 28 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 - It's about an hour early but this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ang Probinsyano guest stars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is unsourced and it violates WP:LISTCRUFT. Forking out a list of guest cast with no valid sources is really unnecessary. -WayKurat (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs further references. There are already existing sources in the article. The article needs improvement, not deletion. This case was already closed last month yet re-opened. Other TV series articles also lists their guest stars just like List of The Simpsons guest stars. — User:Chinchinhan (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly keep The same reason i given in another AFD. - Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 15:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reason with its creator User:Chinchinhan. Article just needs WP:IMPROVE, no need to delete for WP:LISTCRUFT. - User:Mclovin'tosh (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ang Probinsyano guest cast already the given the reason most of the television are included those guest cast are very important as no source of List of Vampire Ang Daddy Ko guest stars as the fork out the WP:LISTCRUFT. Oripaypaykim (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). Overall consensus is for merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giant frog (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This is just a giant frog. It's not an imaginative monster, and further it does not meet the general notability guideline. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why you feel that way, BOZ? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Monsters don't have to be imaginative. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also assert that it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, Andrew Davidson, because there are no reliable, independent sources about giant frogs in D&D. I said "not imaginative" to highlight that this is no beholder or mind flayer, it's not a monster that was a unique idea. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I vaguely recall that D&D had a large number of "giant" mundane animals as monsters, so perhaps we could put all of those together in a list-type article of Giant animals in Dungeons & Dragons, or the like. bd2412 T 13:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with that, actually. Giant animals as a whole show up fairly often in D&D even if individual ones don't meet the notability guidelines. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeing this and other "giant whatever" monsters into a combined article seems like a reasonable solution. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), and there is only room for a single sentence about this monster in this article, which lists fourteen "giant" monsters (none of which have their own article), so essentially we are deleting this article, unless Howicus and BD2412 would like to immediately start the "giant" article they talked about (if it isn't underway by the time this article gets deleted, there will be no place to merge and so it must merge to the list article instead). Prhartcom (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be cool with merging it to the existing list. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tragically, it is hard to find sources to tie together an article on the use of gigantism in D&D. The best thing I found was Stupid Monsters someone was paid to make, which says "Dungeons and Dragons is also filled with creatures that are monstrous versions of normal animals. From fiendish weasels to dire sloths, most of the animal kingdom is covered." bd2412 T 02:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as no serious needs for deletion but also not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no coverage by reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED, Giant frog needs to demonstrate notability independent of the D&D franchise. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:07, 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. Consensus that the subject does not meet the notability criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Heinrich Wiegand[edit]

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

None of the references mention the subject. The article's author says he wrote it from his personal records, so it may be all correct, but there's no evidence that the subject meets any notability criterion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I saw this article shortly after it was created and assumed that sourcing would follow in due course. But it now seems that there will be no sourcing, because the article's creator says that it is based on his own personal records. In any event, there is no real claim to notability here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as I found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any particular notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Graduate School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Private educational organization. As the article history shows, there seems to be a longtime problem with promotionalism and COI editing (see also AN/I thread). This should lead us to reexamine the organization's notability, as the previous AfD is very old and seems to have had canvassing and socking issues too. To be sure, this apparently isn't a diploma mill but a real school with real faculty, and it is recognized by the Canton of Valais as a "private school of tertiary level" ([38]). But the many cited sources are mostly dead links, and what can be accessed seem to be mostly passing mentions (such as interviews with teachers in which it is mentioned that they are faculty there), or regurgitated press releases. If there is a reliable independent source that covers this school in sufficient detail (which may well exist), then we should keep the article, but as it is the sources appear rather thin. Sandstein 21:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: dead links should be fixed whenever possible (and it's often possible) and anyway their being dead isn't really a reason to consider the article less notable than it would otherwise be. Similarly, COI editing and promotionalism may put in some doubt the genuineness of previous "keep" stances, but since it's WP:NOTVOTE, they would have been judged by their merits, not their count, by the discussion closer, and as such I wouldn't say they somehow influence the article's notability and right to exist. LjL (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, here are two: [39][40]. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source looks acceptable, but the other is just a reproduced press release - we'd need another. Sandstein 09:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In the 10 years since the last AfD (and the fact that this is the third go-round is telling), there should be more sources than the two cited by Vanjagenije that the school is trying to get accredited in Malta. Sources in the article are passing mentions or directory listings. Miniapolis 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Often, and logically, the fact that an article repeatedly passes AfDs as "keep" is only "telling" of the fact that the article has multiple confirmations that it should be kept. LjL (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We accept public and private high schools even without much verification. Sandstein, why wouldn't we here? As long as the thing can be proven to exist, it can easily be argued that this is inherently notable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a guideline stipulating inherent notability for schools. In any case, such guidelines only offer a presumption of notability, which must still be tested through reliable sources if challenged. Sandstein 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily in favor of deletion of this article (I lean towards keeping), but I find your argument strange: generally speaking, notability isn't the same as existence for Wikipedia's purposes, and I'm not sure why this would be different for schools, even if other schools exist. LjL (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think that the problems with the SPA and COI editing of the article indicates that it should be deleted, but that it should be semi-protected on a long-term basis. BMK (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - _ A balanced article about an educational institute that clearly exists and falls within our generally accepted practice for schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)keep[reply]
Keep reluctantly. COI & SPA are not reasons to delete an article. And should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more toruble than it's worth. This is a school of no objectively provable merit and its SEO team are determined that we musthave a hagiography, making the beusiness of maintaning NPOV very tiresome. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble vs worth is not a criterion for deletion; notability and verifiability are. Can we concentrate on those? A simple test: would we keep the article if it weren't for "the school's SEO team"? If yes, then is this a revenge? LjL (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LjL. We have deleted several articles where there was marginal notability at best and there was heavy promotional pressure, and the consensus was that the article was not worth keeping due to the volunteer effort it was taking to maintain the neutrality of the article. I am not saying that is the case here; it is just an increasingly common factor in deletions discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider it a spurious one and not in the spirit of what guidelines about deletion recommend. Deletion is a very extreme measure since it's one of the few things that removes material from most editors' accessibility (since it cannot be retrieved from the history), and taking this route for petty reasons of revenge against disruptive editors or unwillingness to keep an article tidy is dangerous. I'm sure it has been done before, but I'm sure other silly stuff has been done before. LjL (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can consider that as you may; it puts you outside the consensus that is developing. Do not mischaracterize it as "petty revenge"; it is a question of wise use of community resources in presenting the public with articles that provide summaries of accepted knowledge and keeping out abuse of Wikipedia for promotion -- all of that is in NOT; the policy and pillar. There is nothing petty or vengeful in it. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If articles are being deleted not on grounds of lack of notability of verifiability but due to the fact they're being disrupted, that is a self-evidently inappropriate use of the deletion process by my understanding of everything about Wikipedia, so that's how I am characterizing it. There is a discussion about actual notability being started below: that seems a much more worthwhile deletion debate than one based on fixing disruption by more disruption (which deletion of otherwise appropriate articles is). LjL (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LjL again you are not responding to what I am actually saying. What I said was where there was marginal notability at best. If an article is a slamdunk "keep" based on NOTABILITY this argument has not been at play in the past. It has only been used if an article is borderline. If you are at all experienced in Wikipedia, you know that there are quite a few marginal articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I went through the history of the article last night and listed all the SPA and conflicted editors who had multiple edits in a connected contributors template - there were many IP addresses with one or two edits that were clearly promoting EGS/removing criticisms that I didn't list. But there are about 40 there. See Talk:European_Graduate_School. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone show that this meets WP:N? We've got COI editors causing problems and trying to make the place look good. And _that_ has caused our article to turn nearly into a platform for attacking it instead (the accreditation section at the moment has had it's actually verified accreditation removed and nothing but largely irrelevant negative stuff in its place--all done/maintained by admins under full protection). Frankly it's an embarrassment and if this doesn't meet our notability requirements we'd be best off deleting it. I'm leaning toward ~~delete~~ based on WP:N, though if sources show up that count toward WP:N then I'd have to move away from that point. Also, we are almost to the point WP:CSD#G10 applies. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on sources found by Cunard. Still have concerns about the accreditation section. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if sources show up that count toward WP:N then I'd have to move away from that point [of leaning toward deletion] – Hobit (talk · contribs), I've listed several sources below that provide significant coverage about the subject. I agree that the "Accreditation" section is problematic because it contains irrelevant negative material sourced only to primary sources (the accreditation agencies). I'd recommend removing that material if it cannot be sourced to third-party reliable sources.
The "Accreditation" section should include information from this 19 January 2016 article from the Times of Malta, which says, "The EGS was accredited and licensed in Malta as a higher education institution last year, and is also fully accredited under the European Bologna process."
It also does not include information like this 22 June 2015 article from Malta Today, which says, "Already accredited as a university by Switzerland, EGS is now looking to be accredited as a university by Malta, having already received accreditation by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) as a higher education institution in Malta."
I'd like to add this information to the article to make the "Accreditation" section so the article will comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, but I cannot do so because an admin has fully protected the article.
And based on the article's history, an admin removed accreditation information sourced to third-party reliable sources added by another admin but has kept in accreditation information sourced to primary sources.
Cunard (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for evaluating the sources, Hobit (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - school seems unaccredited as well. SQL^{Query me!} 10:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is accredited. That it appears not to be is part of the problem with our article. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any way to ever trust the NPOV of this article unless the "SEO team" leaves it alone, which won't happen. Since WP:NPOV takes precedence over WP:Notability and since the topic is barely notable at best, and we don't seem to have any way to noindex it, toss it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is completely and dangerously wrong: NPOV does not take precedence over notability in a deletion discussion. Saying that an article's topic is notable yet the article itself is currently WP:RUBBISH is specifically an argument that needs to be avoided in deletion discussions. The article is non-neutral? So fix it, don't cut off pieces of an encyclopedia. WP:AFD itself mentions The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either, and surely, an article about a school is not intrinsically POV and can be salvaged. Really, I am starting to be appalled at how many of the deletion arguments here are based on WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than grounded in policy. LjL (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually NPOV beats notability everywhere on Wikipedia because it is one of the five pillars. Inability to cover a subject neutrally is why lack of sources (i.e. failing GNG) is a reason to delete, for example. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LjL, I agree that if an article has fixable NPOV problems, it's usually better to fix the problems than delete the article. For this article, I gave my reasons for believing the NPOV problems are not fixable in practice (I'm not interested in abstract theoretical possibilities). Since I don't think we should be willing to keep such an article permanently, that leaves deletion. Deletion is not irreversible: if someone later manages to write a version that meets our standard of neutrality, there's a few different ways to undo the deletion. This happens sometimes, usually because new sources became available after the deletion that are good enough to support a neutral article. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, and struck my previous vote. This version is never going to be neutral and spam-free, and WP:NPOV trumps WP:GNG. Therefore, I believe we should delete, with no prejudice to a non-conflicted editor writing a neutral tone article in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently lacking sources showing the topic satisfies WP:GNG. The many links are, as described above, dubious mentions. The current fuss about what accreditation in Malta involves shows the ephemeral nature of the school—if a reliable source had even a brief outline of the organization as an educational institution there would be no need to argue over such matters. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only for now as I'm uncertain how to comment thus I'm asking DGG for analysis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

Leone-Ganado, Philip (2016-01-19). "School that spawns activists is to offer courses in Malta". Times of Malta. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.

The article notes:

With the continued controversy surrounding the American University of Malta, a foreign university planning to open its doors in Malta in the coming months has largely slipped under the radar.
European Graduate School president Hubertus von Amelunxen, however, is not at all concerned that the AUM controversy could negatively affect his university – because, as he describes it, the two could hardly be more different.
...
The EGS, which will hold its first residency in Valletta in March, was established in Switzerland in 1994, offering Master’s and doctorate-level degrees from a campus in the remote mountain village of Saas-Fee.
Since then, it has established itself as an unconventional centre for cross-disciplinary study, with a unique focus on collaborative learning and a dedicated commitment to fostering radical social change.
The Occupy Wall Street protests and Spanish political party Podemos, now at the forefront of the European anti-austerity movement, both started their life as projects created by students during the course of their studies.
The EGS faculty, meanwhile, has included such names as French philosopher Jean Baudrillard and Slovenian writer Slavoj Žižek.
...
The EGS was accredited and licensed in Malta as a higher education institution last year, and is also fully accredited under the European Bologna process.
While it will not have a permanent campus in Malta, the EGS plans to set up a long-term presence on the island through a series of one-month residencies, the first taking place in March at Fort St Elmo.
The residency will see high-profile academics including American philosopher Judith Butler and Cameroonian political scientist Achille Mbembe delivering intensive sessions on subjects ranging from politics and philosophy to filmmaking, all while living and working with students.

Dalli, Miriam (2015-06-22). "Swiss grad school seeks university status in Malta: Already accredited as a university by Switzerland, EGS is now looking to be accredited as a university by Malta, having already received accreditation by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education". Malta Today. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.

The article notes:

European Graduate School (EGS) is one of two universities that last year submitted an application, kicking off the process to receive university status in Malta, MaltaToday can confirm.
Already accredited as a university by Switzerland, EGS is now looking to be accredited as a university by Malta, having already received accreditation by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) as a higher education institution in Malta.
Although EGS has no immediate plans to open a dedicated campus in Malta or Gozo, Jennifer Davy – assistant to EGS president Hubertus von Amelunxen – confirmed that a search was being conducted nonetheless.
...
Now MaltaToday is also informed that EGS also intends offering evening lectures for free to the Maltese public: “EGS will bring distinguished faculty in Philosophy, the Arts and Social Theory to Malta, and we welcome an open forum.”
...
EGS’s first residential course in Malta – a compulsory component of its MA and PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought scheduled for Spring 2016 –will start with roughly 50-60 students.

I don't consider this article to be a press release. Although the "About EGS" section at the end of the news article is based on https://developer.egs.edu/administration/about/, the rest of the article is reporting by a journalist.

MacLaughlin, Nina (2003-04-10). "Going the distance: Thanks to an increasing number of distance-learning programs, a college degree might be no further away than your computer". The Phoenix. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.

The article notes:

One of the best examples of that flexibility is the European Graduate School (www.egs.edu) based in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, which offers MAs and PhDs in media and communications and taps the best minds in the field to teach its courses. Instructors include luminaries such as social philosopher Jean Baudrillard; filmmaker David Lynch (Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks); avant-artist-hip-hopper Paul D. Miller; and cult-trash film director John Waters (Hairspray, Pecker). "It’s pretty amazing to be reading a book or watching a film and simultaneously discussing it with the person who wrote or directed it," says Heather Kapplow, who’s currently pursuing her PhD in communication and new-media studies at EGS. And not only are the instructors top-notch, but the students bring international perspective: Kapplow has classmates in Madrid, Tel Aviv, Germany, and Canada, among other countries. The three-year MA program ($14,410) and the four-year PhD program ($15,620) combine Internet-based learning with two intensive three-week summer residencies in Switzerland. Each credit is $330; the total cost factors in travel and lodging expenses for the Saas-Fee summer session.
The EGS Web site offers some insight into the type of student it seeks. For one, "it helps if you’re considered provocative" and have a "keen sense of humor." It’s an education for people who are "disenchanted with an academic system more concerned with the past than the future." The curriculum requires students to be aggressively independent in their thinking in an intensely intellectual environment. EGS discourages "the traditional thesis or dissertation," explains Kapplow. "In addition to a text, you’re expected to make an attempt to bring what you’re learning in the life you’re immersed in to your project, be it through film, fiction, an event, or a Web site." EGS "treats things like the production of artwork, music, or social activism as education," adds Kapplow, "as the praxis end of education. And there’s an assumption that your real life is teaching you things that you could never learn in a classroom."

"So much percolating in the avant mind". Los Angeles Times. 2003-04-20. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.

The article notes:

The media and communications program of the European Graduate School, a 9-year-old institution based in Germany, Switzerland and New York, and offering advanced degrees in a number of specialties, describes itself in expansive terms: "Aiming at creative breakthroughs and theoretical paradigm shifts," its literature says, it brings students together with "visionaries and philosophers of the media world."
On the school's Web site (www.egs.edu), a quick scan of quotes from some of those "visionaries and philosophers" (faculty members range from "black lady of deconstruction" Avital Ronell to New York musician and conceptual artist Paul D. Miller, a.k.a. DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid) gives a kaleidoscopic taste of how minds are working in the avant-media realm:

Borg, Martina (2015-06-09). "Education Minister says foreign universities' identity to remain classified. Swiss-owned European Graduate School will offer an MA and a PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought in VAlletta as from next year". Malta Today. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.

The article notes:

One of the institutions has gone public about its application to offer university level courses in Malta. As from next year, the Swiss privately funded European Graduate School which will offer an MA and a PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought (PAS).
In fact at the end of last month, the European Graduate School / EGS announced its new residency program in Valletta, beginning spring 2016.
In a letter published on the institution’s webpage, president Dr. Hubertus von Amelunxen wrote “it is my pleasure to announce that EGS is now an EU accredited Institution of Higher Education by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education, Malta.”

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow European Graduate School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 'LA Times' source above, this source opens the EGS 'describes itself in expansive terms … … its literature says' The main body is then, in its entirety, explicitly quoting the website. That source proves nothing except that EGS has a website. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: would you consider adding these sources to the article itself, if not already present, and/or elaborating on them on the talk page for this page, instead of keeping this wall of text with full citations here? It is always my opinion that AfD pages should be dedicated to relatively brief opinion statements and debate if necessary, not extensive evidence of the article's notability: that belongs in the article itself, as it should speak for itself. LjL (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reply to this comment. My reply was deleted by Vanjagenije (who failed to restore my comments when restoring a "delete" vote he also removed) who insists on collapsing the quotes here. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments says:

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Vanjagenije failed to get my permission to edit or delete my comments. The guideline further states:

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]".

That Vanjagenije insists on refactoring my comments against my objections and removing my comments that oppose his actions is poor behavior by an admin.

Cunard (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, appears not to be an accredited institution, so it wouldn't even meet the much lower standards at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 3:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
- @Onel5969: Sources are above which seem to be well over the bar of the GNG. Also, it _is_ accredited. It's just our article that indicates it's not. That's untrue, but we've got admins using protection to keep any reference to its accreditation out of the article... Hobit (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well: WP:TNV. And not accusing editors of cover-ups would be a bonus. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNV says Wikipedia is about what reliable sources says, but Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for itself. If other sources state that this school is accredited and it's true that somehow that information is being kept out of the article, then WP:TNV definitely doesn't apply. I don't know if this is the case, but Hobit claims that it's "just our article" (and not reliable sources) indicating it's not accredited, and that there exist "references to its accreditation". If these references exist, they need to be added to the article and accounted for in WP:N assessment. LjL (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Diff where accreditation information was removed while the article was under protection: [41]. Talk page has the details of attempts to get the undisputed accreditation back in. I think my characterization of the situation is accurate. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that diff: which highlights the institution's lack of accreditation. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The diff just shows someone removing the accreditation information. I assume you are aware that removing that information from Wikipedia doesn't suddenly make it not true. [42] shows the accreditation. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The School is accredited in Malta. Accreditation was granted by National Commission for Further and Higher Education, aMaltese Institution legitimate to confer accreditation according to the 2012 revised Education Act [43]. I do not understand why other users still say that this school is not accredited. If the article does not reflect the current EGS accreditation is because the administrator who have looked over the article so far refused to edit it and when a different administrator tried to add the Malta accreditation info he promptly reverted it. The issue is also raised in the EGS talk page. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Claudioalv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete most of the sources brought by Cunard are classic "passing mentions" which do nothing to help a discussion of NOTABILITY - we need sources with substantial discussion of the subject of the article. The issue that has roiled this article for some time now - its accreditation - is a great example of this. I spent a lot of time looking for secondary sources discussing this issue, and all we have are the two pieces from the press in Malta which are really not independent of the question since the accreditation is in Malta. And even those sources don't discuss EGS' moves in Malta in light of recent controversy within Malta about recently lowering their standards for academic institutions (see here); I have no idea how those issues fit (or don't fit) with EGS' presence in Malta. Overall, this is a case where we have an article on a marginally notable subject, that is under a great deal of promotional pressure from the subject of the article; we can't resolve that pressure definitively due to lack of high quality sources and so the disputes are endless time-sucks, so we should just delete this so the editing community can spend its time more productively. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog. I do disagree with you because Malta is a democratic and sovereign country. Your comment implies that degrees conferred in malta are lower standard so each Maltese School should not be recognized. In the same list there is also University of Malta and I think that it is not correct to state that University of Malta is a University and European Graduate School is not. Both are recognized by the same Institution (NCFHE) Claudioalv (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudioalv I specifically disclaimed the meaning you say I am inferring. I wrote: "I have no idea how those issues fit (or don't fit)". Stop mischaracterizing other people. Your arguments also have nothing to do with the criteria of the deletion discussion. I am only replying to you because you are an attorney and have made legal threats against other editors here and I am not putting myself at the same risk. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand when you say I am not putting myself at the same risk. I am spending my free time writing here as I stated in my talk page. My purpose is to raise an argument and not make legal threats. If I did it in the past I apologize and was not my purpose. I just said that your argument was contradictory because there are other University in Malta and Wiki defines them as University. And probably was the same source which say EGS is accredited. That's it. Claudioalv (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument has no contradiction in it and you still don't seem to understand what i actually wrote. And please sign your posts, claudio. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the deletion of EGS article because of lack of notability, according to you there is no substantial discussion in the Maltese sources and you wrote as an example the accreditation issue. I think that if there is "an accreditation issue" is because the administrators who have looked over the article so far do not agree that Maltese Accreditation Institute is a reliable source until a secondary source (an independent publication) says something about the accreditation. It is like if a new accredited school has to find an independent journal to confirm its accreditation, if not Wiki does not recognize it. I do not understand this policy and this is the reason why I replied to you. In fact, as an example, the Maltese Accreditation Institute does recognize University of Malta as a University, but University of Malta Wiki article does not have the same "accreditation issue". Probably (I am just speculating) because the administrators who looked over that article does think the Maltese Accreditation Institute source is a reliable source. Claudioalv (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still are not talking about anything I wrote (I said nothing about "there is no substantial discussion in the Maltese sources") yet you indented your reply as though you were actually talking with me.....If you want to respond to anything that I actually wrote, I would be happy to hear. If you just want to keep making your own arguments, please don't format them as though you are responding to me.

Let me just repeat what I said yet more clearly. This article should be deleted because 1) there are insufficient high quality independent secondary sources with substantial discussion of EGS (it is marginally notable, in our technical language); 2) the article is under substantial pressure from advocates; 3) this creates endless arguments in which the advocates in #2 just repeat their arguments based on weak sources endlessly and we don't have high quality sources (per #1) to resolve these arguments definitively; 4) these endless arguments are a big drain on the precious, limited resource of volunteer time -- time that the volunteer community could otherwise be giving to strongly NOTABLE topics that really need volunteer time. That is what I am saying. Nothing you have written responds to any part of that. Not any part of it. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "The issue that has roiled this article for some time now - its accreditation - is a great example of this" (i.e. Community needs sources with substantial discussion of the subject of the article). I do disagree with you because the issue of its accreditation (or license) is not a real issue. That's it. If there was an issue was not because of me or because of SPA, but because an ad refused to address it so far. If someone would have addressed two months ago, my time and the Community time would have not been wasted. But this is an old history. I can see that you have well addressed it in the talk page and I totally agree with your post there. thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accreditation issue is a great example of that. 'there are no high quality secondary sources that discuss this. I am not replying to you further; you are not listening to me and are not trying to listen to me. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per cogent analysis by Sandstein, above. Sandstein, was there ever an WP:SPI investigation filed about this issue? I see the one WP:SPA account at Claudioalv (talk · contribs) -- are there any other related accounts you are aware of ? — Cirt (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer to you by saying that I do not know any related accounts. As I said in my talk page I am individual who decided to join Wiki community because I found some info not correct. My purpose was not to promote this school, but only to raise the argument that it is accredited in Malta and that two US sources are outdated (Maine and Michigan). Claudioalv (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked for prior investigations or socks and so can't tell you if there were or are any. Sandstein 06:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that I closed the discussion as no consensus [44] but then was asked to reopen it [45]. Unlike many complaints about my AfD closes, I find this request reasonable and justified, and I reopen the discussion. Obviuosly I will not be the one closing it again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with why there is an issue here. We have sources. The first 2 listed above are solely on this topic. The 3rd has two paragraphs. The rest have more than a passing mention (though the LA one is really weird). Accreditation isn't an inclusion issue as far as I know. But if it _is_ for some strange reason, we have the accreditor saying it's accredited. We don't need a secondary source for that. I'm not at all fond of the way this article has been handled (and I'll continue to claim our admins are nearly as much of a problem as those engaged in puffery). But puffery can be dealt with via protection (ideally semi protection IMO, but...) and isn't actually an issue with the article as it exists (in fact the opposite it the problem now IMO). Hobit (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening that, Hobit. I and others don't agree with your analysis of the sources. There is only really one independent source with substantial discussion and that is The Phoenix which is an alternative weekly newspaper; pretty low quality. There is a bit more discussion in the sources from Malta but one of those is a thinly recycled press release and they are really local papers covering local news. The LA Times is a passing mention. If EGS were really notable we would have many more independent secondary sources giving substantial discussion to it. (I have spent several hours looking. Maybe I missed stuff but I don't think so. I would be happy if there were one really high quality, independent secondary source with substantial discussion - just one from something like The Chronicle of Higher Education, the NYT, the Times of London. the Telegraph, the Guardian... heck if there were something in a high quality source German or French or Italian I would be open to that. (why is there nothing from a Swiss source, since they have been there much longer?) There is nothing like that at hand. This is very far from slam-dunk notable subject. It is marginally notable at best. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that local sources aren't an issue with respect to WP:N. Your point about press releases I get, but I do disagree. I think it's pretty far over the bar, but as you say, it's obvious others disagree. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. With DGG's hefty (in more ways than one) !vote below I think there is no way this article will be deleted (it will either be as originally closed, or even as keep), but i still don't agree. :) On the local thing, it is my understanding that there have been deletions where N was based mostly on local sources... but I am not going to beat this dead horse anymore and have already started working on improving the article. I was waiting to do much there until it was more clear if the article would be kept or not. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources to establish notability for an educational organisation. Problematic editing behaviour is not dealt with by an AFD. AusLondonder (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accreditation is not necessary for a college to be notable. Just as WP contains articles on various irresponsible methods os pseudo-medicine, the same applies in education. Frankly, I have no real idea about the nature of the EGS accreditation. Determining this from available sources requires the interpretation of ambiguous primary documents. It is entirely unclear whether the Malta accreditation is for the school, or for a course--the various documentation available there is not consistent. Nor can we tell whether the EU really does recognize some or all of its courses --my guess is that it might recognize one or two but not all of them. I do know that I as an educator would be extremely skeptical about the status of its accreditation. But that's not the point. We do not in practice follow the GNG in schools, by long outstanding practice. In order to avoid debates just like this one about the precise nature of schools, and the exact details and degree of reliability of the sources; it's simpler to just include them above a certain educational level., and not otherwise. The GNG is a guideline, and a guideline is something we usually follow; this very statement implies it is not something that we always follow--that not only can we in principle make exceptions, that we do. The evidence that we do is the 60 or so AfD discussion a day right here, most of which are devoted to figuring out exactly the boundary. After 10 years & 100,000 instances here, we still are arguing each individual case.

I notice with considerable dismay that some of those arguing for delete here also often argue for deletion of articles on non-conventional medicine, on the same grounds that the sources are unreliable or unsubstantial . The easiest way to keep out something one doesn't like, is to say this, since there is not clear boundary for the meaning of either of those terms., For any article where I have argued for keep on the basis of interpreting these terms, I could perfectly well have said just the opposite, and v-v for the ones where I've argued for delete. Perhaps I can best clarify it by doing just that; by giving just such arguments, and saying pick one, according to whether or not you think in belongs in an encyclopedia.

The true purpose of the notability guideline is to enforce the principles of NOT DIRECTORY and NOT PROMOTION. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage, as does accepting articles about things that nobody but the proprietor is interested in. Once we become a directory or vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. The usefulness of the GNG is to make sure that things covered here have been discussed sufficiently in the outside world, that people might rationally come here to look for information on them. Reliable in the relevant sense does not been "high quality"--it does not mean the type of source necessary to justify a statement of disputed fact in an article. Given the nature of this particular encyclopedia, it is reasonable that people will come here looking for information about any higher educational institution, and therefore outr coverage can be justifiable more inclusive than usual. We are writing an encyclopedia for practical use, not a purely abstract exercise. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with people like Jacques Rancière and Slavoj Žižek on its books (as mentioned in reliable sources), people are likely to search for information on the EGS, and we have coverage in reliable sources such as this, on which to base an article. We should therefore have an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass notability requirements. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to expand on that. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH: [46], [47], [48], [49]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is no one troubled that the 'RS' (Times of Malta) that is being relied on for accreditation (Malta confirms accreditation in Switz.?), also says 'The Occupy Wall Street protests and Spanish political party Podemos … … both started their life as projects created by students during the course of their studies'? This a post-graduate-degree-awarding institution that despite 21 years of existence, doesn't get any significant coverage in its base country and is reliant on brief features in a place where it offers 3-week summer courses to validate its existence/notability/accreditation? EGS is proud to announce its new residency program in Valletta, Malta, beginning spring 2016 (21 March–13 April 2016). Regarding the 'people on its books', notability is not inherited and doesn't an uncited claim that 'Derrida' was a founder, cause anyone to be even a tad sceptical about the weakness of these sources? I don't know the laws of Malta, but can tell everyone that I have accreditation to organise summer courses on a Med. island, the process was bureaucratic, involved health checks, building inspections etc., but ZERO academic or 'non-safety' investigation. Why should it? The island is simply giving me permission to bring students there, not validating anything. I agree with others that NPOV and non-promotion should take precedence over other considerations inc. 'long-standing practice'. Pincrete (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pincrete, my comment about the people who are on the EGS's books wasn't supposed to imply that notability is inherited from them. It was rather a poorly expressed argument about one possible value in having the article. The EGS affiliations of these well-known scholars are often mentioned in mainstream media, so my thinking was along the same lines as DGG's comment that "people might rationally come here to look for information". What bothers me is the lack of available sources. There are some, but why doesn't an institution with such high-profile scholars affiliated to it get much more coverage? I've spent quite a long time searching, and the more I do so, the less sure I become (even about what the institution actually offers - e.g. is it really just a summer school?). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all understand the ambiguous nature of the accreditation, but that is part of the reason for having the article. It can be difficult to make this clear in the article, but it can be done. NPOV indicates what should be said, not whether we should have the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, actually quite a few people here seem to be taking 'accreditation' at face value. When sources are very thin, as I believe is the case here, it can be very difficult indeed to create a neutral account without engaging in OR (such as what 'accreditation' actually means).Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, my remarks were not specifically addressed at you, I was mainly cautioning against an 'if these names are connected (Derrida? in the Sw village article), it must be notable', when the extent of involvement may be very marginal at best. The Malta connection is certainly a short residency (3.5 weeks) according to the Malta source and EGS's own website. There is a US source that describes 'internet + residencies in Sw'. If mainstream RS give more than passing mention (having given a single talk at some time?) to these 'notables', then a valid connection is established, otherwise I fear we are reliant on publicity blurb traceable to the institution itself, which does not appear to be modest about its claims.

Not knowing what EGS is and who has 'accredited' it, and in what sense is also an issue. In the UK accreditation implies validation of academic standards, in some jurisdictions, a 'licence' is obtainable which validates nothing more than building safety standards etc. (I have such a licence). I know nothing about accreditation in Sw or Malta, but would caution against accepting EGS's claim at face value, even its own website says it is accredited by its canton. What does that actually mean? … … addendum My suspicions as to whether Malta EGS is 'accredited' or simply 'licensed' appear to be well-founded. Malta law allows self-accreditation, if Jytdog is correct here. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled why there's so much discussion about accreditation here. There is no doubt to me that it's a government-accredited private university in Switzerland, per the link given in the nomination, whatever its status in Malta may be. But that's quite immaterial to notability, which is about coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. There is a mass of commentary about the questionable content of the school's courses, none of which appears in reliable sources. A big chunk of the content is sourceable only from directories, and literally the only people who give a monkeys about the article are the school's SEO team and the poor buggers who have to keep defending the article form them. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are sufficient poor buggers quite prepared to defend this and any other article from SEOs. If we removed from WP every article being used by SEOs we'd be an encyclopedia without coverage of current politics,sports, business, and entertainment. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: You can't !vote twice. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Lost count of the dramas. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school is a fraud and this school is not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[@Daniel Kenneth] I have attended this school and I am a graduate from it. I find your comment here very unfair. Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Murtagh1585 we have a policy about legal threats and you should delete that comment, or you at risk of an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. Your call of course.Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)I have amended my comment. Can you give me advice about what to do so. Daniel Kenneth has made a public comment about the school I graduated from saying that it is a fraud (and by extension, I have been party to a fraud). What exactly am I meant to do in this situation? Can anyone really say whatever they like on Wikipedia provided they have seniority?113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(User talk:Jytdog) Is it correct to post that this school is "a fraud" without posting any source? I do find many sources which say is not (even if they are primary) and I do not find any single source which relate this school to the word "fraud". At least should be fair to cite one source but @Daniel Kenneth: did not cite any. Claudioalv (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Daniel Kenneth is allowed to keep his comment that EGS is a fraud without any compulsion on him to amend it. Shameful!Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Where can I officially complain about Daniel Kenneth's comment? Is there an email address at Wikipedia for such complaints. Can anyone please help me. Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those of you voting "keep" and ignoring what we are saying about promotional pressure. We have had two people show up just today, pushing EGS's line on this accreditation issue almost verbatim from their website. it is really absurd. If you are going to vote !keep then please put your time where your vote is and talk back to these people who want to WP:OWN the article on behalf of EGS. Academic institutions are among the most flagrant, unrelenting, and pushy violators of PROMO that I encounter in WP and I deal with a lot of conflicted editors. The meatpuppetry on this article is among the worst I have seen. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD Is not Cleanup and the fact that there are problematic editors should be dealt with through blocks or bans on those users, not by deleting the article. Problematic editing and vandalism have nothing to do with notability. Just block the editors involved, block IP ranges if necessary, semi-protect the page, and fix the article since they're now prevented from messing it up. Also, if the school is indeed a fraud, that's still not a reason for deletion, it's just a reason to mention that in the article. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am one of those problematic editor. I just attempted to raise some arguments which Jztdog well synthesize in the talk page. The only source which has negative content is Texas, but according to other editors I disagree with it is sufficient to build a such article. Of course there are many sources about the accreditation and people who teach at the school which positive content, but or because are primary or because someone related with EGS, or because of the history of the article, or because full protection is not possible to cite in the article. I still do not understand this WP policy even if Jztdog explain me it takes time to develop consensus (I raised these issues 2 months ago). I still have to learn more about Wiki, it should be some effective way to have an article which reflect what the sources say.Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudioalv, nobody cares about whether all the sources are positive or negative. Nobody here cares either whether the teachers are famous or completely unknown. The only thing we care about is whether there are sufficient independent sources covering the subject in sufficient detail/depth to write an article about it which is independent of both EGS and those connected to it. I take the view that sources currently offered are insufficient, as is depth. Has no one really written anything about it in its 21 years in Switzerland? That would be much more effective than individual 'students' coming here (as above) and telling us how wonderful it is. Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. yes. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete] I do understand that for you and Jytdog the problem is the lack of sufficient independent sources. However, it is clear that the article does weight too much the Texas source and it still does host two outdated sources (Maine and Michigan). Jytdog wrote in the EGS talk page about that. My question is: why wikipedia administrators are not able to take off the two sources which are no longer true? This is not reasonable? Instead we are waiting for consensus which will never be reached because the community does not care about the article. Saying that is not accredited in Texas is fine, but who cares about texas? But saying that in the U.S. is not accredited because Texas is totally unfair. This is my opinion and I am aware that Wiki community does not care too much. Moreover, I do not find any independent American press saying that the school is not accredited or licenced, so to use your words there are no sufficient detail/depth/secondaty sources to write the school is not accredited in the U.S. Lastly I am trying to discuss about the accreditation/license and not if it wonderful or not based on the sources I cited. Claudioalv (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[@Pincrete and Jytdog] An article about EGS? Are you just inventing this criteria out of your head? There are articles in the Maltese newspapers, there are articles in film and philosophy reviews, there are mentions of EGS in books by Judith Butler, among others. In other words any evidence that is produced that is in anyway positive or independent will be deemed "promotional" by you. This is crazy. (And please don't threaten me for saying all this.)Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mygearboxbroke Every language Wikipedia is run differently and so the actions of one language Wikipedia do not affect any other language Wikipedias- arguing it does falls under other stuff exists. In my experience, English Wikipedia tends to have the tightest standards for notability, which is why English Wikipedia doubts whether it's notable, when other languages with lower requirements don't.

Also, calling it an "assault" is not assuming good faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another independent article featuring EGS from the newspaper Malta Today demonstrating that the school exists and is recognized. (If you do not know who Judith Butler is please ask someone studying philosophy or any humanities subject) Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Here: Here is yet another independent article featuring EGS from the newspaper Malta Today. ^[1]Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murtagh1585, the 'Malta Today' ref is what we would call a 'mention', it could be used to confirm that EGS organised a lecture at which Judith Butler spoke, nothing more. BTW, you don't need to get too upset about the 'fraud' remark above, it will be ignored by whoever closes this. Among the many things we don't care about here, is whether EGS is/is not a fraud, only whether it has/has not been written about in depth. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/63953/are_some_lives_more_grievable_than_others

@Princrete No! No! No! What the Malta Today article proves is that all here who are saying the EGS does not exist, is a fraud, has no real presence, are wrong. In Harry Potter terms you are playing the Professor Umbridge strategy. Refusing to see what is before your eyes and hiding behind regulatory bluster. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) @Pincrete I find your tone towards me very sneering and nasty. I am also shocked that absolutely any evidence that EGS is a real and nonquestionably legitimate school that is presented is dismissed with yet another nonsensical word, this time "mention". I am upset because I know *know* the information is wrong. I live in the real world which means, unless you kill me, I won't be going away. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:113.40.156.146, what I was trying to do (in plain English, rather than Wiki-speak), was explain what is and is not 'reliable information', as far as policy here. The only reliable info in the 'Malta' source is as I described, and is what we call a 'mention'. You should understand that what you (or I, or Daniel Kenneth), 'know to be true', is simply going to be ignored, for reasons that should be obvious. I'm sorry that you are offended by my attempts to explain policy and put your mind(s) at ease about the 'fraud' remark above, which is as much a time-waster as your 'personal testimony' is. Neither constitute 'reliably sourced information'. Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[@Princrete} I am not talking about policy, I am talking about your interpretation of evidence. You use the word "mention" inappropriately as a way of evading the obvious. And I think personal testimony is of huge importance here. Real people are being affected by all the crazy inaccuracies and allegations and willful misinterpretation of evidence. I won't shut up about this. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just walking past when I stopped to watch this sideshow. An editor here has been removing other people's comments. One instance I have reverted where the deletion seemed clearly wrong. Other cases I think are wrong but I have left them because I am not completely certain. It may well be obBvious to whoever closes this but the history of this discussion will have to be inspected for improper or biassed deletions. Thincat (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not about whether to keep the article or delete it

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello all. I have just sent an email to [email protected] regarding Daniel Kenneth's disgraceful comment about EGS. Now, I have a feeling that this is quite a useless email to be contacting so can anyone else suggest a better contact. User; Jytdog, you were quick to call me out about legal stuff. But what about Daniel Kenneth's comment. Allegations based on heresay that are of a damaging nature. Why does your legal radar fail when his transgressions surface. Why the double standard here? Tell me Jytog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is fake. If it were a real question i would answer it. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a question be fake? What an immature answer. You can't justify yourself. I caught you out on your double standards. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical questions are not authentic; they aren't actually seeking understanding. Also questions with baked-in false assumptions are not authentic: "Does your mom know you beat your wife?" is a fake question. If you want to know why your statement isn't OK in Wikipedia, and the other one is OK in Wikipedia, then ask about that. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't a rhetorical question. Daniel Kenneth says EGS is a fraud. I say what I said (can't say it again, can I). Why is Daniel Kenneth not reprimanded whilst I am? He did something of questionable legality (can I say that?). Would I be allowed to call people frauds? "Daniel Kenneth is a fraud", "Jytdog is a fraud". Is that the way it works here.Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still asking me "does your mom know you beat your wife?" You are assuming the speech acts are the same, and they aren't. Ask a real question. Look this conversation doesn't belong here. I am hatting it. Ask me on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is acceptable for now, this can be improved as needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBelow a list of sources which does show up the organization's notability.

Associated Professors list

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Giorgio Agamben^[1] · ^[2] · ^[3], Italian philosopher.

Pierre Alferi^[4] · ^[5] · ^[6] · ^[7], French writer and filmmaker.

Alain Badiou^[8] · ^[9] · ^[10] · ^[11] · ^[12] · ^[13] · ^[14], French philosopher.

Jean Baudrillard^[15], French philosopher.

[[Philippe Beck]^[16] · ^[17] · ^[18] · ^[19], French poet.

Victor Burgin^[20], British artist and writer.

Judith Butler^[21] · ^[22] · ^[23], American philosopher.

Eduardo Cadava^[24] · ^[25], American Theorist and Critic.

Hélène Cixous^[26], French writer.

Simon Critchley^[27] · ^[28] · ^[29], American philosopher.

Alessandro De Francesco^[30], Italian poet and writer.

Manuel De Landa^[31], Mexican/American philosopher.

Anne Dufourmantelle^[32], French philosopher and psychoanalyst.

Elie During^[33], French philosopher.

Mike Figgis^[34], American filmmaker.

Christopher Fynsk^[35], American philosopher

Heiner Goebbels^[36] · ^[37], German composer and director.

Peter Greenaway^[38] · ^[39], British Filmmaker.

Michael Hardt^[40] · ^[41] · ^[42], Amercian philosopher.

Martin Hielscher^[43], German editor and writer.

Chris Kraus^[44] · ^[45], American writer.

Sylvère Lotringer^[46] · ^[47], French philosopher.

Catherine Malabou^[48] · ^[49] · ^[50], French philosopher.

Carl Mitcham^[51], American philosopher.

Jean-Luc Nancy^[52] · ^[53], French philosopher.

François Noudelmann^[54], French philosopher.

Laurence Rickels^[55] · ^[56] · ^[57] · ^[58], American media theorist.

Avital Ronell^[59] · ^[60] · ^[61] · ^[62] · ^[63] · ^[64], American philosopher.

Hubertus von Amelunxen^[65] · ^[66] · ^[67], German theorist, curator and artist.

Margarethe von Trotta^[68], German filmmaker.

Slavoj Žižek^[69] · ^[70] · ^[71] · ^[72] · ^[73] · ^[74] · ^[75] · ^[76] · ^[77] · ^[78] · ^[79] · ^[80], Slovenian philosopher and essayist.

Alenka Zupančič^[81] · ^[82] · ^[83], Slovenian philosopher. Claudioalv (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ Stanford University Press - www.sup.org. "About the Author - Baruch Spinoza Chair at the European Graduate School". sup.org/books. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Landmark College - www.landmark.edu. "Professor Tom Trenchard Earns Ph.D. - With renowned continental philosophers as Alain Badiou, Giorgio Agamben, and Slavoj Zizek". landmark.edu/news/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Démocratie et participation - www.participation-et-democratie.fr/. "Auteurs et appartenances institutionnelles: Professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School". www.participation-et-democratie.fr/fr/node/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ French Embassy in The United States - Higher Education, Arts French Language - www.frenchculture.org. "Biography of Pierre Alferi - professor of creative writing at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". frenchculture.org/books/authors-on-tour/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Poetry Foundation - www.poetryfoundation.org. "Reading by Pierre Alferi, European Graduate School professor". poetryfoundation.org/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ La Presse - www.lapressepoetry.com. "Night and Day by Pierre Alferi - teaches at the École de Beaux-Arts and the École Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs in Paris as well as at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Maison de la poèsie de Nantes - http://www.maisondelapoesie-nantes.com. "Pierre Alferi, Auteur - Il enseigne par ailleurs la poésie à la European Graduate School en Suisse". maisondelapoesie-nantes.com/MMP/mmp12/. Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)
^ The Hindu - www.thehindu.com. "Question everything". thehindu.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ The Heyman Center - heymancenter.org. "Alain Badiou Rene Descartes Chair European Graduate School". heymancenter.org/people/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Times Higher Education - www.timeshighereducation.com. "The Adventure of French Philosophy". timeshighereducation.com/books. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Libération - www.liberation.fr. "M. Sarkozy, rendez à Haïti son argent extorqué". liberation.fr. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Nouvel Observateur - tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/. "Nos intellos en Amérique". bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/essais/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ The New York Times - www.nytimes.com. "The Orchestral Maneuvers of John Maus". nytimes.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ La Commune centre dramatique national Aubervilliers - lacommune-aubervilliers.fr/. "Alain Badiou reads the preface to Zizek's book - refers to EGS (begins at: 3.54mins)". youtube.com/channel/UC-0rK512hVeWy2N6BOkSaQg. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
^ Die Welt - www.welt.de. "Philosoph Jean Baudrillard ist tot". welt.de/kultur/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Centre Atlantique de Philosophie - caphi.univ-nantes.fr. "Philippe Beck Curriculum Vitae". caphi.univ-nantes.fr/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Brown University - www.brown.edu. "Literary Arts - Philippe Beck, lecturer in philosophy at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and at the University of Nantes, France". brown.edu/academics/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ Night of Philosophy NYC 2015 - www. http://www.nightofphilosophy.com/. "Philippe Beck - Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nantes in France and at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". nightofphilosophy.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Dan Hughes - https://medium.com/the-workshop. "The European Graduate School and its legacies". Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)
^ Universtité de Liège - www.ulg.ac.be/. "Victor Burgin". culture.ulg.ac.be/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ The New School - www.newschool.edu. "Affinities: Discussion and Performance - Villa Gillet's Walls and Bridges Series - Butler is Hannah Arendt Professor of Philosophy at the European Graduate School". events.newschool.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Malta Today - www.maltatoday.com.mt/. "Are some lives more grievable than others? Talk by Judith Butler, Hannah Arendt Chair at The EGS". maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
^ Columbia University Press via Google Books - cup.columbia.edu/book/parting-ways/9780231146104 (November 2013). Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism. cup.columbia.edu. ISBN 9780231146111. Retrieved 15 April 2016. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Princeton University - www.princeton.edu. "Princeton University - Department of English - Eduardo Cadava". english.princeton.edu/people/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Princeton University - www.princeton.edu. "Princeton-Weimar Summer School for Media Studies Academic Staff - Eduardo Cadava Professor at the European Graduate School". german.princeton.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ University College Dublin - www.ucd.ie. "French novelist, playwright and feminist theorist, Hélène Cixous receives Honorary Degree of Doctor of Literature from UCD - A Professor at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ PARSE Journal University of Gothenburg Sweden - www.parsejournal.com/. "About Simon Critchley - Professor at New School and European Graduate School". parsejournal.com/personnel/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Nour Foundation - www.nourfoundation.com/. "Simon Critchley PhD - Professor of Philosophy at the European Graduate School". nourfoundation.com/speakers/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ The New School - www.newschool.edu. "Simon Critchley Named Hans Jonas Professor of Philosophy - professor at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". newschool.edu/news/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ Ecole Normal Supérieure Lyon - www.ens-lyon.fr. "Littérature et "temps des révoltes" - Alessandro De Francesco". ens-lyon.fr/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ York University - www.yorku.ca. "Cultural theorist Manuel De Landa headlines Engaged Practices". news.yorku.ca/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ The Program in Poetics & Theory at New York University - poeticsandtheory.org. "Anne Dufourmantelle teaches both philosophy and the history of psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". poeticsandtheory.org. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Philosophie française contemporaine - riepfc.hypotheses.org. "Elie During: Teaching and Research". riepfc.hypotheses.org. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ In Shawdow Festival - https://inshadowfestival.wordpress.com/. "The Co(te)lette Film". Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)
^ HRP Bard - hrp.bard.edu. "The Humanities on the Brink of the Social Sciences - Lecture by Christopher Fynsk, Professor at the European Graduate School". hrp.bard.edu. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Pavillon Bosio: ENSP de la ville de Monaco - www.pavillonbosio.com. "Heiner Goebbels, Professor at the European Graduate School". pavillonbosio.com/en/events/conferences/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Klassik - klassik.com. "Prof. Heiner Goebbels - Professor an der European Graduate School in Saas-Fee". Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ BBC News - www.bbc.com. "Greenaway's maverick film-making". bbc.com/news. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Forest School - www.forest.org. "Noteworthy Foresters: Peter Greenaway: Director and Professor of Cinema Studies at the European Graduate School". forest.org.uk/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ University of Nebraska-Lincoln - www.unl.edu. "Humanities on the Edge lecture series to explore changed nature of power - Michael Hardt, professor of political literature at the European Graduate School". newsroom.unl.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ The European www.theeuropean-magazine.com. "Michael Hardt Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee". theeuropean-magazine.com/authors. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ SPECTRA Journal - spectrajournal.org. "Between Schmitt and Foucault: An Interview with Michael Hardt, Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the European Graduate School". spectrajournal.org/index.php/SPECTRA/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Deutsche Schillerstiftung von 1859 - www.schillerstiftung.de. "Prof. Dr. Martin Hielscher - Theodor W. Adorno-Chair an der European Graduate School in Saas Fee". schillerstiftung.de. Retrieved 8 April 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ The MIT Press - mitpress.mit.edu. "Hatred of Capitalism Edited by Sylvère Lotringer and Chris Kraus, Professor of Writing at the European Graduate School". mitpress.mit.edu/books/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ e-flux - www.e-flux.com. "Is it Chris Kraus Day?". conversations.e-flux.com/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ The MIT Press - mitpress.mit.edu. "Hatred of Capitalism Edited by Chris Kraus and Sylvère Lotringer, Jean Baudrillard Chair at the European Graduate School". mitpress.mit.edu/books/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ QUT ePrints - eprints.qut.edu.au. "An Interview with Sylvère Lotringer, Jean Baudrillard Chair at the European Graduat School". qut.edu.au. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Groundwork Philosophy - groundworkphilosophy.wordpress.com. "The Bodies in Movement: Catherine Malabou - Malabou is currently tenured at Kingston University, London and also teaches at the European Graduate School". Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Catherine Malabou - Youtube. "Catherine Malabou on The EGS, a unique place in the world". youtube.com. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ TPP Conference 2014 - http://tpp2014.com/. "Catherine Malabou and the Concept of Plasticity - "she is also part of the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland"". tpp2014.com/en-us/. Retrieved 9 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Center for Science & Technology - University of Colorado Boulder - www.colorado.edu. "About Us: Carl Mitcham, Adjunct Professor at the European Graduate School". sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Brown University - www.brown.edu. "Dance In/And Theory April 2014 - Jean-Luc Nancy Professor of Political Philosophy and Media Aesthetics at the European Graduate School". brown.edu/academics/german-studies/events. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Universität Trier - Unterwegs zur Freundschaft - www.freundschaft.uni-trier.de/. "Jean-Luc Nancy". uni-trier.de. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ University of St. Andrews - Center for French History and Culture - cfhc.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk. "François Noudelmann, "Face of Migration/Migration of Faces"". st-andrews.ac.uk. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ New York University - www.nyu.edu. "Second Annual Undergraduate Major's Choice Lecture - Presenter Laurence A. Rickels, Sigmund Freud Professor of Media and Philosophy at the European Graduate School". complit.as.nyu.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ ici Berlin - www.ici-berlin.org. "Talk by Laurence Rickels, Sigmund Freud Professor of Media and Philosophy at European Graduate School in Saas Fee, Switzerland". ici-berlin.org/ /. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ The University of Texas at Austin - www.utexas.edu. "Laurence A. Rickel's Lecture: Chow Down: Freud's Primal Fantasy and the Lost Loss - Rickels, Sigmund Freud Professor of Media and Philosophy at the European Graduate School in Switzerland". utexas.edu/cola/rhetoric/news/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Haus der Kulturen der Welt - hkw.de. "Laurence A. Rickels, Sigmund Freud Chair of Media and Philosophy at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". hkw.de/de/index.php. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon - www.ens-lyon.fr/. "Disruptive Kinship Co-curated by Avital Ronell and François Noudelmann - Avital Ronell professeur de littérature à la European Graduate School". cle.ens-lyon.fr/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ New York University - www.nyu.edu. "Comparative Literature - Avital Ronell Professor of German, Comparative Literature and English - Teachesregularly at the European Graduate School". complit.as.nyu.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Le Nouvel Observateur - www.bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/. "Nos intellos en Amérique". nouvelobs.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Libération - www.liberation.fr. "La carte Avital Ronell - Détentrice de la "chaire Jacques Derrida" à l'European Graduate School". next.liberation.fr/livres,60. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Libération - www.liberation.fr. "Libé des philosophes : L'autre débat sur l'identité nationale". next.liberation.fr/culture/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ New York University - German Department - www.german.as.nyu.edu. "The Sirens go Silent: A Commemorative Colloquium for Friedrich Kittler - Conference Speakers". german.as.nyu.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Art and Education - www.artandeducation.net. "Hubertus von Amelunxen, 100 days in office". artandeducation.net/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Migrating Art Academies - www.migaa.eu. "Hubertus von Amelunxen - Keynote Speech". migaa.eu/migrating-art-academies/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Wiadomosci - http://wiadomosci.onet.pl. "Luc Tuymans doktorem honoris causa Uniwersytetu Artystycznego". wiadomosci.onet.pl/poznan. Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)
^ Zeitgeist Films - www.zeitgeistfilms.com. "Vision: A Film by Margarethe von Trotta - Professor of film at the European Graduate School". zeitgeistfilms.com/vision/ poznan. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
^ Inside Higher Ed - www.insidehighered.com. "Corporate Rule of Cyberspace by Slavoj Zizek - professor at European Graduate School". insidehighered.com/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ UCI Center in Law, Society and Culture - http://clsc.soceco.uci.edu/. "Colloquium: Slavoj Zizek (Institute for Sociology, Ljubliana and European Graduate School)". clsc.soceco.uci.edu/events/. Retrieved 9 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)
^ The Globe and Mail - www.theglobeandmail.com. "Slavoj Zizek: Superstar of the Occupy movement - Mr. Zizek spends half the year at the University of Ljubljana, lectures each summer at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee". theglobeandmail.com/news/world/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ Barnes & Noble - Verso Books - www.barnesandnoble.com. "Five Lessons on Wagner - Meet the Author". barnesandnoble.com. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Columbia University Press - www.cup.columbia.edu. "What Does Europe Want? by Slavoj Zizek and Srecko Horvat - About the Author Slavoj Zizek, Professor at European Graduate School". cup.columbia.edu. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Melville House - www.mphbooks.com. "Trouble in Paradise - by Slavoj Zizek, professor at the European Graduate School". mhpbooks.com/books/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Verso Books - www.versobooks.com. "Slavoj Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic. He is a professor at the European Graduate School". versobooks.com/authors/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ The Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University - heymancenter.org. "Slavoj Žižek Cultural Critic and Professor of Philosophy and Psychoanalysis The European Graduate School". heymancenter.org/people/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Ecole Normale Supérieure Paris - www.ens.fr. "Les conférenciers : Zizek, Slavoj - Žižek is a professor at the European Graduate School and a senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia". diffusion.ens.fr/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ The Guardian - www.theguardian.com. "Slavoj Zizek, professor at European Graduate School". theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Courrier International. "Multiculturalisme. Un plaidoyer de Slavoj Zizek pour l'émancipation". courrierinternational.com/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ The New York Times - www.nytimes.com. "The End of Nature". nytimes.com date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ New York University - www.nyu.edu. "German Idealism and Psychoanalysis - A Lacanian Perspective. A conversation with Slavoj Žižek, Alenka Zupančič and Mladen Dolar". german.as.nyu.edu/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Brown University - www.brown.edu. "Pembroke Research Lecture, Return to the Inanimate: Freud and the Death Drive - Alenka Zupancic, Professor of Philosophy and Pscyhoanalysis The European Graduate School". brown.edu/research/pembroke-center. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
^ Deutsches Haus - www.deutscheshaus.as.nyu.edu. "German Idealism and Psychoanalysis - Alenka Zupancic visiting professor at the European Graduate School". deutscheshaus.as.nyu.edu/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

-- Claudioalv (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to review all of those sources, but I suspect that they help (at most) demonstrate that the professors themselves are notable, but do not contain more than mentions of the EGS. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless LarryIf you review just the first one, it says that "Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher and political theorist, teaches at the IUAV University in Venice and holds the Baruch Spinoza Chair at the European Graduate School". I do think that this notable professor would not teach in a School someone in this page defines as "fraud". What is the Wiki standard to say is notable?.Claudioalv (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the EGS is a "fraud" is a completely different question to whether it is notable. Notability is judged according to whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Mentions aren't significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the 83 above mentions are just coverage?Claudioalv (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they all just say something like "Professor X is a professor at the European Graduate School", then they do not amount to significant coverage of the EGS. Significant coverage would be provided by whole articles about the institution itself, not its staff. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the 83 above sources you can verify stated that Professor X was conferred a Phd from EGS or professor X is teaching, taught or doing seminars at the EGS. If the staff is notable, also the school would be same. Am I wrong?. Claudioalv (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're wrong about that. Notability is not inherited. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are saying that so each of the 83 sources plus the sources about the school (between them, Nyu press, stanford press, the guardian, bbc news), are just irrelevant to you because notability is not inherited. Of course I find this argument weak, but I do accept other people opinion. There is nothing more to discuss here.Claudioalv (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't believe this is still going on. It's been more than a month. I haven't assessed whether the "keep" opinions are overwhelming and compelling, but one thing should be almost immediately clear to someone coming here: there is no consensus to delete this article. Maybe there is consensus to keep, but there certainly isn't consensus to delete. Could it be left alone so that people who care about it can continue editing it, while people who don't care about this school can continue building an encyclopedia on other articles? LjL (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People here do not care about EGS article. If they would, they can see that the article does host some false information which needs to go. However, an administrator [Guy] blocked me and full protected the article so no one can further edit it. This means that Wiki needs consensus, but even if I provided proof of the accreditation, evidence that American sources which Wiki rely to say the school is not accredited are outdated (except Texas), the article content has not changed yet. I asked for RfC, but we are waiting for an involved administrator who close it and the result would be reflected in the article. If you are one of these (univolved administrator) can you please have a look at the Rfc Section which was opened almost two months ago? thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE WP:CORPDEPTH is defined as "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage is trivial. The individuals who are arguing keep (User:Claudioalv and User:Murtagh1585) are WP:SPA. Just check their history here and here [[50]] [[51]]. CLOSING ADMIN: TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN REVIEWING THEIR ARGUMENT. I'd like to re-state what User:Jytdog mentioned: if the school was founded in Switzerland and recently opened a location in Malta, why is there no Swiss news coverage? Why is this the third time EGS is being nominated? Why are there SPA accounts defending EGS? Is EGS manufacturing these press coverage and then using it to cheat their way into Wikipedia? Did it not work on Swiss newspapers and hence that's why they didn't receive any mentions in the original country they were founded in? The history of EGS on Wikipedia isn't a clean track record. They're manipulating the system and should definitely be kicked off. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the coverage I provided in my !vote above is "trivial"; they're entire long articles devoted to the topic: [52] – 19 ¶, [53] – 19 ¶, [54] – 13 ¶. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Northamerica1000 Ok those are not trivial but those three, "School that spawns activists is to offer courses in Malta," "Education Minister says foreign universities’ identity to remain classified," and "Swiss grad school seeks university status in Malta," fails WP:SUSTAINED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerealKillerYum (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not productive; not about the deletion discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[@CerealKillerYum] You are engaging in ad hominen attacks and expressing an obvious grudge and hostility towards EGS ('they re manipulating the system' etc.) that suggests you are less than fair and impartial on this issue. Murtagh1585 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you're a SPA account with 18 total edits, all of which are about EGS. Do you work for them? CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk I do not understand what is your problem with the SP accounts as they are able to post contributions as long as they do respect the community rules. Being partial or COI user or an user with connection with EGS does not mean that they are saying nonsense. Every info I provided is supported by primary and secondary sources (between them I note the guardian, bbc, nyu press, stanford press and many others). Look carefully what Jytdog said about the inaccuracies of the current article "Accreditation section - current version, critique, and draft new section" and the american sources which need to go because they do not reflect the real world. If anything has not happened so far is because the uninvolved administrator does not take care of the issue or he/she is busy. It was openeded a rfc more tham 2 months ago and we are still waiting for him/her.Claudioalv (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment As a bystander who has watched this unfold, I feel it's time for an admin to settle this once and for all. This AfD has been open over a month at this point, and closure is badly needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources brought up by Cunard are sufficient for notability. The fact that people associated with this institution have (apparently) been behaving badly on WP is not a relevant consideration for an AFD, since AFDs are decided by notability, and bad behaviour has no inherent impact on notability. SJK (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is tied up in a never-ending battle with EGS-affiliated editors who are aggressively trying to scrub it of sourced information reflecting this institution's lack of proper academic accreditation, particularly in the United States. The EGS is listed on multiple government websites as a known diploma mill with substandard academics. [55] Its presence on WP is likely just being used as a vehicle to promote the school and give it more credibility than it actually has. Kizezs (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you are posting is no longer true. The current official link is the following and Jytdog has already address it.^[1] When you say "listed on multiple government websites", please post the "multiple" you are referring. By the way, the school does not operate in the U.S. so I do not understand why it is so crucial to you the "U.S. accreditation". The school operates in Malta and Switzerland and was recently licensed as a University according to Maltese law.Claudioalv (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kizezs: – I don't think the Maine Department of Education is a reliable or authoritative source as to whether non-US educational institutions are accredited outside the United States. I think they are likely a reliable source for whether an educational institution within Maine is accredited or not. They say of the "European Graduate School" that "This supplier appears to be approved by Swiss cantons, but its degrees are not recognized for use at other Swiss universities" – that may or may not be an accurate statement of the situation in Switzerland, but what is the Maine Department of Education's source for this information? They don't give their source. I don't think the government of Maine is a reliable source as to what is happening in Switzerland. Now, if you had a Swiss government website, I'd say that would be a reliable source for what is happening in Switzerland. Furthermore, the Maine Department of Education's website seems to be outdated, since I understand the EGS has now opened a branch in Malta, but the Maine DOE website doesn't mention it. Given that accreditation is a time-sensitive thing (there is a process for gaining accreditation, and it takes time, and a school which lacks accreditation today may gain it in the future), how do we know whether the Maine DOE's information on Switzerland is up to date either? SJK (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJK: The EGS's website claims its degrees are valid in the U.S. Several U.S. government sources say explicitly that they are not accredited in the U.S. and designate them a "diploma mill." Here is a similar list from Texas [56]. This reliably sourced information is part of the EGS article and should be there as it is highly relevant to their institutional status. That said, several extremely vexatious editors who are connected to the EGS have been attempting for years to sanitize this information from the article. That's what prompted this nomination - a long pattern of having to deal with people who are plainly connected to this school and are using the WP article to promote it to English-speaking audiences. Kizezs (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kizezs: I don't understand how having or lacking US accreditation is relevant for an institution which is based in Europe. US authorities determine accreditation for higher educational institutions in the US; they have no authority for institutions located outside of the US. I am an Australian, I went to an Australian university, as far as I am aware no Australian university is accredited under US law because US law doesn't apply in Australia – our universities are accredited under our own system (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency). Since this institution is based in Switzerland and Malta, the relevant question is what is its status under Swiss and Maltese law, and linking to websites of US state governments (which have zero authority outside of the US, indeed outside of their own states) is irrelevant. (As far as "EGS's website claims its degrees are valid in the U.S", I don't what exact claim you are referring to, so I can't judge that claim.) In terms of editors associated with this school removing information on their lack of accreditation in the US – well, even though its WP:COI editing, I actually agree with them on that point, it is an irrelevant consideration. SJK (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So looking at their page about accreditation, they seem to make the follow claims (1) they are accredited by the cantonal government of the Canton of Wallis in Switzerland, (2) they are accredited by the government of Malta, specifically the Maltese National Commission for Further and Higher Education, (3) under EU law, their accreditations in Switzerland and Malta apply throughout the EU, (4) US Council of Higher Education Accreditation recognizes the Maltese National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) as a valid accrediting body for Malta (5) they have been accepted by the federal US Department of Education as a body eligible for US student loans. Now, I can't verify the accuracy of these claims they make, but US state education department websites are insufficient to rebut them, since US state education departments are not authorities on any of those 5 points (and, the point at which they claim to be approved by US federal dept of education for student loan funding, none of the state government pages you cited contradict that). At best we can say these claims are unverified, no reliable source has been produced sufficient to contradict them. SJK (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJK: - You are misunderstanding how accreditation works in higher ed. If I get a degree at an Australian university and then apply for a job in the United States with it, I need to show that the foreign accreditation carries over to the United States (and vice versa for a US degree in Australia). In cases involving well established universities, this is uncontroversial and usually automatic. So most accredited degrees in Australia will be carried over. But problems often emerge when the foreign accreditor is not well established or when the university's accreditation claim is sketchy. BOTH of those conditions apply here - the claimed accreditor is a little-known council in a small country that only has very few accredited schools (there's really only one actual university in Malta - the University of Malta) AND the EGS itself is a non-traditional university that doesn't possess any traditional accreditation certificate from a major body. In fact, their campus is in Switzerland - not Malta - and it appears the Maltese accreditation applies only to one single "study abroad" course that they do in Malta. Also the claimed Swiss accreditation is an educational certificate given at the Canton level and is NOT recognized as a university accreditation on the national level in Switzerland, or in the EU at large (yes, they claim otherwise on their website but that should be taken as promotional material from a source that has actively tried to suppress negative information about its US designation as a degree mill). In effect they are claiming that they were approved by a town council, and because that town council is in Switzerland it also gives them the automatic approval of Switzerland (it actually doesn't), and because Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that makes it EU-approved (which is also not true). In reality, all they actually have is the town council. As a result of multiple irregularities of this type (also including the fact that they don't operate a traditional university - it's run as a 3 week summer seminar that they hand out "degrees" from at the end of the summer, as opposed to the normal 9 months of classes most universities use), several US states do not recognize degrees from the EGS and designate them as a substandard program that doesn't transfer over. Kizezs (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kizezs: If I applied for a job in the US, I don't think I need to "show that the foreign accreditation carries over to the United States". I tell them I have a degree from university X in Australia, it's up to the employer to decide whether that's a relevant consideration in making the hiring decision, and how much further investigation they wish to do into my claim (maybe they demand copies of my academic transcript, maybe they just take my word for it, it's their choice). Maybe they say "your university isn't prestigious enough for us, I never heard of it before, who cares whether it is accredited or not". Maybe they say "you've been working for 10 years in the industry, we don't really care whether you have a degree or not". It's up to each employer to decide. And I don't know enough about Swiss or Maltese law to judge the accuracy of their claims to Swiss or Maltese accreditation, or how those accreditations apply under the EUs's mutual recognition of higher education processes. But US state government websites are not a reliable source to decide questions about Maltese or Swiss or EU law. The various things you say, they may be true, they may be not, but there is no reliable source given for them. And a canton is not a "town council", it is essentially equivalent to a state government, so at the same level as Texas or Maine. And the Texas government link you cite says "Status under review per European Graduate School's request", so if they are currently reviewing its status, we should take its position with a grain of salt. Overall I'd say, you might be right, but you don't have enough reliable sources to support your position. Now if there was a Swiss or Maltese government website listing them as "unaccredited" or a "diploma mill", or if there was a published detailed analysis of their situation under Swiss/Maltese law, that would likely constitute RS to support your position, but a couple of cursory mentions on US state government websites, which aren't obviously authorities on the question and fail to cite their own sources and appear to be out of date, don't cut it. If we can't find enough RS to address this question one way one or another, the best course of action is simply to not discuss it until sufficient RS appear. SJK (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They also DO NOT have U.S. Department of Education recognition. They have a U.S. Department of Education registered ID number to accept student loans from banks (usually called a FAFSA number), which you can get by simply filling out the necessary forms to be granted a number. Degree mills have been playing that game for decades. The US Department of Education evaluates accreditation based on whether the school is a member in good standing with an accrediting body that is recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. The EGS is not a member of any body recognized by CHEA, and they are simply using their number - which is similar to a tax ID number - to claim that they have something they do not and to obscure the fact that they are not accredited outright by any body that is generally recognized for reciprocity in the US. Kizezs (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, they have Approval to Participate in the Federal Student Financial Aid Programs. I understand a lot of non-US universities (including the one I went to in Australia) get this so US students can get student loans under the US system to pay their loans. That's all I said they have, and that's all their website appears to say they have either. Your statement "They also DO NOT have U.S. Department of Education recognition" is vague since "recognition" has multiple meanings. If "recognition" means "Approval to Participate in the Federal Student Financial Aid Programs" then yes they do have recognition; if "recognition" means "accreditation under the US domestic system of higher education accreditation" then they don't have "recognition". The questions they ask for approval appear pretty involved, so I don't think it is some kind of automatic process where they'll just approve anything under the sun if you ask. It's not like a Taxpayer ID Number which is issued just about automatically to everyone without question; you have to at least claim the right things to get student loan approval (to what extent the US Department of Education verifies the claims applicants make, as opposed to just taking them at their word, is a matter I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment on.) SJK (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that to get a US tax ID number, I need to fill out a single page form, whereas to get US student loan approval I need to fill out a 57 page form – they aren't really comparable processes. Getting student loan approval is a lot more involved than getting an IRS taxpayer ID number. SJK (talk) 02:59, 1 May 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) 06:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Howe-Pullis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be third-party news sources, but they don't support notability. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable candidate seeking a Minnesota's Senate District 48. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and none of this suggests the necessary solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and that goes double for people who are still only candidates in a political party's primary contest. If you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that she would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins the seat. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sindre Goksøyr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP article about a Norwegian cartoonist, with article not having any ref's since June 2013. Unable to prove notability. I would suggest he fails to assert WP:BIO. There was a Authority control tag but it wouldn't resolve. Article has been bigger, smaller conducted as part of an edit war in 2013, which has ceased. There is an Norwegian article, but asserts dubious notability. scope_creep 02:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here is the Oslo Comics Expo page mentioning him and showing him winning an award for "Best Norwegian series" for his comic Hrmf! Here is one about an exhibition he did: Sindre Goksøyr Serigraph exhibition in Gallery Briskeby, 2013 Here is a List of his published work So, the man is clearly notable. However, he is only notable in Norway. In the English language, he has never published. Therefore, he doesn't need to be in the English Wikipedia. (Note: This article was created over a decade ago by an IP in Oslo, Norway.) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ~~leaning toward keep~~ [see my !vote below]. I know no Norwegian, and not enough about art, but Prhartcom's links and comments make me wonder. It doesn't matter if all of his work is in Norwegian, nor does it matter if all sources are Norwegian. If the Oslo Comics Expo Award is considered to be a major award, and Gallery Briskbe Exhibit is considered a major exhibit, then it seems to me he passes notability standards. Does anyone know how important the award and exhibition are? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Prhartcom's sources. Contra his comment above the English in English Wikipedia refers only to the language in which it is written and does not limit the sources it uses nor its scope of coverage. On the other hand, I couldn't find any better sources (such as a newspaper or magazine profile) in a quick google search and so my keep remains weak. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've done a little follow up:

On its own website, it is said that "Galleri Briskeby is a small gallery that specializes in graphic arts." The Norwegian Wikiepdia article says little more. This might not be important enough to be useful.
It's hard to get a handle on the importance of the Oslo Comics Expo, or the awards it offers. I didn't find much in the way of evaluation of the expo or its awards. This might or might not be important enough to be useful.
I took a look at the first version of the article. It consists of some interesting claims that, if true, could point to notability: multiple publications of his work; appearance in various magazines and newspapers; a controversy over some content that got by the censor of a newspaper. Unfortunately, there were zero references. I haven't yet been motivated enough to try and track this stuff down. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry/Traveling_Man, okay, zero references. Do you think Keep or Delete? Prhartcom (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my comment just above this note. I haven't managed to spend any more time on this one, and at this stage there just isn't evidence of notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not convincing for WP:CREATIVE and any necessary improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Chatham[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN amateur player with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away. Of the sources presented, all are either primary from the organizations with which he's played, blogsites, or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE. One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards. Ravenswing 04:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary improvements and also still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Vladař[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (sighs) Another NN substub hockey article, and I'm almost at the point of writing WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT into WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. Somewhat brazenly (and neither for the first time or the fiftieth time), he set forth that the "honours" qualifying this mid-minors goalie with no distinction for an article was participating in the Hlinka tournament and in junior amateur championships, despite all-but-unanimous and ongoing consensus that such explicitly didn't meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 12:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 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 00:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is way too soon. Deadman137 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for any necessary improvements, delete until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vili Saarijärvi[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another substub hockey article, and I'm almost at the point of writing WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT into WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. Somewhat brazenly (and neither for the first or the fiftieth time), he set forth that the "honors" qualifying this NN amateur player with no particular distinction for an article was participating in junior amateur championships and prospect games, despite all-but-unanimous and ongoing consensus that such explicitly didn't meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenswing (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this article, at over 400 words with multiple references can be considered a "substub". It technically could have qualified for WP:DYK if it were new enough. But the references present do not add up to notability, and the accomplishments do not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More of a question--does it matter that he won a directorate award for best defensemen in the IIHF world U18 championships? It seems to me to be a rather significant award but I don't know if that is notable enough. To me it seems different than most other Dolovis selections.18abruce (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bit of it; we set quite a high bar for teenage and amateur players, and the subject doesn't come remotely close. We don't accord any special notability for getting the MVP in the Memorial Cup -- a tournament with a great deal more media coverage than the U18 championships -- let alone a "directorate award." Granted, if you can find coverage meeting the GNG that doesn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE, that's a different matter. Ravenswing 20:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking around, it is very unusual for someone who wins a directorate award to not become notable, but I guess that is the point...he is not there yet.18abruce (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time. There are any number of examples (and not only from hockey history) of teenage "can't-miss" phenoms who do, indeed, never reach the big time. One of the things I did over the last month was go back over old AfDs in which I participated where the result was deletion but subjects still came up as blue links. One of them was a mass AfD of about a dozen 3rd and 4th rounders from the 2006 draft. Jonathan Toews was one of those players. The furthest any of the others went was a desultory three years in the AHL. Ravenswing 22:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does not happen all the time. Out of 42 directorate award winners at the U18's only one other has not achieved "notability" yet, and that is goalie Collin Olsen who is still in college. So 95% of all winners of draft age, and 100% of all who have finished junior/college. I like those odds, but I agree that he does not fulfill the notability standards.18abruce (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, I'm not convinced this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Speers[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: NN amateur hockey player of such threadbare accomplishments and with such a sub-sub-stub of an article, I genuinely think this warrants an A7 for no assertion of notability. Ravenswing 08:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; concur with above assessments. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for better improvements considering the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 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. Clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Yan[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another substub hockey article, and I'm almost at the point of writing WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT into WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. Somewhat brazenly (and neither for the first or the fiftieth time), he set forth that the "honors" qualifying this NN amateur player with no distinction for an article was participating in the Hlinka tournament and in junior amateur championships, despite all-but-unanimous and ongoing consensus that such explicitly didn't meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 08:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't agree that this article, at over 200 words with multiple references is a "substub" or even close to one. But the references present do not add up to notability, and the accomplishments do not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until there's a better article for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 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 Keep (NAC) - It's about an hour early before a day but the consensus is enough to close for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger W. Stoller[edit]

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

Someone put their CV on Wikipedia again. Bradv 04:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment – News sources found thus far are local in nature, but it exists in two different states and provides significant coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Indiana Economic Digest
"Sculpture installed in Carlsbad roundabout". The Coast News.
InMenlo

Keep per Northamerica1000 - The article is somewhat promotional but it's not that bad and could easily be rewrote/amended to our standards, Plus sources above confirm his notability so not really seeing any reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page needs to be rewritten but seems notable enough. Meatsgains (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is just enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series) characters#Spy Changers. If anyone wants to Merge then it should be discussed on the talkpage, Consensus is to rediect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswise[edit]

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

Non-notable character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_(2001_TV_series)_characters#Spy_Changers. Mathewignash (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the author of these deletion nominations is using them excessively, since most end in mergers. Perhaps he should simply suggest mergers and avoid the unnecessary nomination? Mathewignash (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to propose merges, because literally nothing will happen. This is the only means that has proven close to effective. These terrible articles have existed here for years, and nothing is getting done about them, despite the fact that people have been telling you for years that something needs to be done. (Also, I think a "merge" is a generous description of the actual result of these discussions.) That said, if you're happy to work with me in seeing these articles merged (and it's not just yet another attempt to see these articles hanging around indefinitely by default...), I'm happy to point to the articles that need to go. I'm not sure you'll like what I say, though, which will bring us back to where we are today. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be BOTHERED to do it right, perhaps you should simply go find something else to fix, or spend the time to do a PROPER merger. Wikipedia isn't going to collapse if you don't merge or delete these articles NOW. Deleting articles that should not be deleted, on purpose, simply because it's FASTER that merging them, is no better than vandalism. Forcing people to merge them in a quick and sloppy fashion by threatening to delete the articles is on the verge of bullying, in my opinion.Mathewignash (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich. You write article after article of unreferenced, in-universe minutiae, then have the audacity to accuse me of doing things wrong? If you don't like my brush, sweep up after yourself. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series) characters#Spy Changers. Google results are just the usual fan sites, and Google Books results are mostly novels. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Without anything to properly establish notability as a topic, this does not require a standalone article. TTN (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead as this is not independently notable, not seriously needed for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 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 List of Autobots#Go-Bots. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double Clutch (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List_of_Autobots#Go-Bots. Mathewignash (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots#Go-Bots. Google results are fan sites, price guides, and trivial mentions, like this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- minor character with dubious and low-key sourcing. Reyk _YO! 12:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead as this is not independently notable, not seriously needed for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots#Go-Bots. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant their own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 28 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 List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Sandstein 17:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleclouder[edit]

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

Minor character in the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Isn't notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Super-God_Masterforce_characters#Godmasters_2 Mathewignash (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no arguments for deletion, WP:SK#1 See WP:INSIGNIFICANCE. Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"No evidence of real-world notability"? Or do you have a reason to believe otherwise? I'm struggling to see how either of the links you have provided support your claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't wikilink "real-world notability", and I don't find references to explain it when I search Wikipedia. You've not made a policy-based argument. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Real-world notability" refers to "notability in the real world", as anyone fluent in English could probably tell you. That said, even if I hadn't made a policy-based argument, this would not be eligible for speedy keep, as ThePlatypusofDoom (plus others, now) supports deletion. Wikilawyering is bad enough, but wikilawyering when you're straightforwardly wrong is even worse. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per the usual procedure for articles on very minor fictional characters with dubious sourcing. Reyk _YO! 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters or delete. I don't see coverage in independent reliable sources. Google Books results are just novels and self-published Wikipedia collections. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is not importantly needed for deletion but it's also not convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 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 Biological organisation. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of organization (ecology)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This can easily be found on Ecology. RES2773 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content to Ecology if it's not already there. Bradv 18:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It;'s one of the basic ecological concepts, though it needs expansion. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - needs improvement, but is notable enough. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually upon review merging might be the best option. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Biological organisation. Convert the Levels of Organization disambiguation to the page Integrative level and create a hatnote to the page biological organization. Also, a Levels of organization page should be created to also become a redirect. Oldag07 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several various ideas here. Of note is that two different merge targets have been suggested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging targets afterwards as there are no serious needs for deletion and this is likely an acceptable search. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Biological organisation, content fork. Sandstein 17:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Biological organisation. I'd say merge, but it looks like all the content is already there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RT Rana[edit]

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

Is a non-notable radio announcer. Fails basic WP:GNG and is a possible WP:COI (self promotion) Dan arndt (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No clear evidence of notability. Possible self-promotion --L Manju (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. No notability to be found. Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements and I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bonaire[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, no independent sources The Banner talk 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it should be improved, I believe it is notable enough. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. This is a small island of 17,000 people, it isn't independent, it only sporadically holds this contest, and the winner doesn't always compete anywhere else. Since no part of notability criteria guarantees automatic notability to beauty pageants absent reliable sources about the same, I see no reason to keep the article. Ravenswing 04:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a) Part of a series on Miss World participant countries and territories. Pages can have a own page if they are part of a series on a specific topic, like Belize at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. b) There are secondary sources, just a few from a quick Google search: 1, 2, 3, 4. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can't form an opinion either way because whilst I don't think it is notable, looking at these three templates: Template:MissWorldCountries, Template:MissUniverseCountries and Template:MissEarthCountries, just existing and taking part warrants an article. Think of that what you will, but I think for consistency, you've either got to vote keep, or address notability at a more fundamental level i.e. not one tiny non-independent island at a time, but the guidelines on notability for all articles on small (in pageant terms e.g. never hosted, never placed etc) participants. Rayman60 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that not all articles linked in the above mentioned template have evidence of participation and/or are unsourced articles. The Banner talk 18:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a feeder to major international pageants and, as noted by others, is part of a series of national-level articles on such feeders. As for sourcing, that does seem to be a problem with many of these article, but not an insurmountable one. Before coming here, I replaced one of the Facebook sources on this article with something independent. So, sourcing can be done. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know notability is not inherited, certainly not from a navigation template. The Banner talk 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft as a compromise as everyone here, I'm sure, can concur this still needs considerable improvements, and no one has taken the initiatives to actually improve it thus Draft if needed and remove from mainspace as there's nothing suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shingen the Ruler[edit]

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

Dearth of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. No reviews listed in our database of historical sources, MobyGames.[57] There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - elementary coverage does exist on Google Books. This includes page 121 of the Video Game Bible, 1985-2002 by Andy Slaven, in which he writes "this strategy game takes place in feudal Japan and offers a good story line and complex options." It also achieved a listing in Classic Home Video Games, 1985-1988: A Complete Reference Guide by Brett Weiss but nothing of substance. Twin Galaxies' Official Video Game & Pinball Book of World Records seems to talk about the game, but it's not publicly accessible unfortunately. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches also found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A brief review of this game is present in Nintendo Power volume 16], although it appears to be the only appearance in Nintendo's famous publication. A book "VideoGames and Computer Entertainment: Complete Guide to Nintendo Video Games" by Andy Eddy appears to give it a full page review, although I don't know the contents and thus I don't know whether it would be considered notable or non-notable for purposes of this discussion. One consideration that would need to be taken into this discussion due to its era, most of the primary sources for it would be print publications only, and thus might require more effort to uncover than a simple Google search. I hope that this meets criteria for a Keep vote, and apologize if it does not. -Cookie3 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We usually use three significant reviews as the lowest of low bars. Two doesn't quite give us enough to write a full article, though perhaps it can be merged and expanded somewhere. czar 14:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would similar sources in other languages (e.g., Japanese) suffice for notability purposes with regards to the English page? (I don't have any handy; I'm just questioning whether it'd be considered acceptable).. I also just noticed that the Hot B page was deleted -- I wish I'd noticed so I could've participated. Too late now, I suppose. -Cookie3 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, any language as long as it's an established/reliable outlet. (See WP:VG/RS for some vetted sources.) Never too late—do you have sources for Hot B? You could start a draft at Draft:Hot B czar 20:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, don't have any great sources for Hot B (all the print sources I have are about their published games, and while one could build a silhouette of a page based on that, I think the page would still be a candidate for deletion). Regarding Shingen the Ruler, I'm certain I read one other print review, but I dug through my magazine archive and couldn't find it, so maybe I'm delusional.. and even if I wasn't, that as-of-yet-undiscovered print review plus Nintendo Power #16 only equal 2 print reviews, and would still fall short of the 3 you recommended. The local library doesn't have the Twin Galaxies book or Eddy's VGCE:Complete Guide so I can't evaluate them for possible citation. I'd still favor "keep" since the page already exists and I am certain that the sources are out there.. but without a greater effort at research it would be tough to justify. So... ultimately, whatever happens with the page is fine. I would have suggested maybe making a small blurb and putting it on the Hot B page, and then redirecting, but... well... -Cookie3 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess (Annie album)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. FallingGravity (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggests any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons stated above. There does not seem to be any signs of independent notability (the page could always be recreated if someone finds independent and reliable sources in the future). Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 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. Consensus is clearly keep above improvements to the aticle DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replicas of the Taj Mahal[edit]

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

Per Talk:Replicas of the Taj Mahal a lot of these buildings are loosely inspired by the Taj Mahal. A replica is defined by Wiktionary as "an exact copy". It's a weak article, relying on images for bulk, with most of the lead having been copied verbatim from Taj Mahal. Firebrace (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for an independently notable article, best connected to the original article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Taj Mahal. A paragraph over their about replicas, or better called as "modern inspirations", fits well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are similar lists of replicas of the Statue of Liberty, of the White House, many more iconic buildings or other objects. I am just creating and populating Category:Lists of replicas to show as many of them as I can find easily. List of Eiffel Tower replicas is a good example. It is NOT appropriate to burden the encyclopedic article on the Taj Mahal with minutiae about cheesy replicas. The list of replicas, cheesy or not, is separately useful, and is actually interesting, and it can be mentioned in the Taj Mahal article's "See also" section. IMO it is also not a problem that some or all of the Taj Mahal "replicas" are not exact replicas and thus do not meet the strict definition at replica. The definition there is wrong and/or a different word or phrase besides "replica" should be chosen . --doncram 18:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the definition at Wiktionary is not wrong. [58] [59] [60] Firebrace (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay then you would prefer a different word or phrase, for this Taj Mahal knockoffs list and for the lists of copies of the Eiffel Tower and the others too. How about "reproduction"? "Reproductions of the Taj Mahal" seems apt. Following a link from one of yours brings me to synonyms of replica, of which "reproductions" seems best to me. It allows for good and bad copies, and does not require exactness. --doncram 12:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some are replicas, some are models, and some were inspired by the Taj Mahal. I would not be against keeping the article as 'Replicas of the Taj Mahal' provided there be a subsection for "other buildings" which are not exact copies, but the article still has other issues... Firebrace (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is Stonehenge replicas and derivatives, how about naming like that? do ncr am 16:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fine. Firebrace (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Good, and thanks for hanging in there, I think this is an improvement. I just moved the article to "Taj Mahal replicas and derivatives". Moving during an AFD is relatively unusual but is allowed. Here I think it just helps. --do ncr am 08:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taj mahal is in itself significant, thus by extension notable derivatives. Hawaan12 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though shallow, it is true that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Verne Equinox (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons articulated by article creator & User:doncram. However, article should be improved by making clear distinctions between scale models and actual buildings. And among buildings, by distinguishing among buildings inspired by, referencing the style of, and literal replicas of all or part of the Taj. Like Eiffel Tower replicas and derivatives this is a sophisticated yet succinct and accurate title. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Eiffel Tower list was moved/renamed to its current title that E.M.Gregory likes, in this diff by me April 18. AFAIK, the Stonehenge one is the only one previously having the good "replicas and derivatives" term, and it was given its name in this 2006 rename by User:Pschemp. I am proceeding now to rename others in Category:Lists of replicas now. --do ncr am 03:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion nominator was correct that the lead was weak and was mostly a copy of the lede of the Taj Mahal article. Indeed this article's lede and photo of the Taj made it appear this article was about the Taj, not about copies. The lede (and photo caption) was rewritten within these edits by myself and the deletion nominator. --do ncr am 16:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigben Interactive[edit]

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

No reason to think this distributor notable. They have no creative responsibility for any of the titles they distribute. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are finding nothing convincingly better, still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Did you even red the lede? They don't "distribute" - they publish. All sorts of stuff for consoles and PC since circa 2002. You know, like all the other companies in Category:Video game publishers. There are plenty of articles on publishers (as in "companies which publish other people's stuff"), and whether they have any "creative responsibility" over what they publish is a) completely unknown to you and me, and b) entirely irrelevant. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I base my comment on the contents of the article: the list of the actual games shows they have not been responsible for developing any of them.. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because the company is not a video game developer. They are a video game publisher. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Bigben Interactive is a French company established in 1981 which designs and distributes..." A later sentence says "publishes and distributes". Since these two statements indicate different roles, looking at the Euronext website, , which is the only source given, says that only 7% of their activity is videogame related, and labels it the production of videogames. So you are right that they do seem to be a publisher are indeed a producer.

As for importance, cross-checking for the videogames that have articles here, Savage Skies & Space Invaders Invasion Day & Legend of Kay list only different publishers. Cocoto Kart Racer lists it as one of the 3 publishers; Barnyard Blast: Swine of the Nigh one of the 2 publishers. Only Cocoto Platform Jumper, Cocoto Funfair & Cocoto Fishing Master list it as sole publisher. None of the 3 show any clear notability.

And, as I indicated at the start,neither publisher nor distributor is a creative role, but only a business role, and much less important than developer.

More important, with respect to notability, the routine financial data website which is the only reference is not sufficient to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me your argument about "creative role" is a completely made up one. We have plenty of articles on companies which publish games only. Making me debate a criteria you just invented is a waste of my time. As for the game articles - Bigben is a European company and it handled European distribution for many titles. It's an entire continent and one of only three regions in the world where game publishers usually operate. I don't see why publishers in Japan or North America deserve a preferential treatment over European ones, especiall considering some of the titles they published were European exclusives (hence why Kokoto games only list Bigben - they were never released outside Europe). Moreover, they recently started investing heavily in buying up established franchises, such as WRC series of racing games (whcih was important enough to merit a Reuters report) and the Sherlock Holmes series, including the upcoming Sherlock Holmes: The Devil's Daughter - and distributing them worldwide. As for "routine financial data" - do I really need to list existing Wikipedia's articles on game publishers which lack even that? InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@InflatableSupertrooper:, three things: one, questions and statements like "did you even read the lede" and "Making me debate a criteria you just invented is a waste of my time" is not civil behaviour. I urge you to stick to the discussion, without making remarks like that. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Second, GameFAQs is not a reliable source. Third, notability of articles is based upon sources, not what you think or what Bigben might've done. That being said, I vote... soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three answers: one, a nominator who didn't actually read the article nominated is the one who is not being civil - no, Bigben did not develop any of the games they published, they didn't grow 17 tons of oranges either nor did they produce the latest Batman movie or design a new space shuttle. Making someone waste their time debating what some article doesn't say is a tremendous waste of everyone's time. Second, I did not use GameFAQ as a source - I used it to illustrate the plethora of games published by Bigben. I just find it ludicrous how me using GameFAQ (and Reuters btw but I guess you glossed over that part) in the deletion discussion is somehow worse than the nominator looking and finding nothing at all in terms of sources. But hey at least he's wasting other people's time in a very civil manner right? Thirdly - your own search for sources proves the article is notable not because of my opinion nor for what Bigben "might have done" (although in case of publishers - of pretty much anything - what "they've done" is pretty much the only thing they are known for). But hey, the two "civil" posters who failed to use Google to find a single source about this topic but still felt compelled to join the "discussion" are actually great editors, aren't they? So I guess it's fine. It's totally cool. It's great even. Now let me utilize the lesson learned here from more experienced editors and find an article on a tractor manufacturing company so I can put it up for deletion on account of the fact that the company doesn't have any "creative responsibility" for actually inventing the tractor. Let's make Wikipedia a better place, shall we. Cheers. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@InflatableSupertrooper: 1) Again, saying the nominator didn't read the article is very uncivil behaviour. You have to assume good faith, even if DGG glossed over some details, that's no reason to react this way. You can't take it personal if someone nominates an article you've started for deletion. 2) DGG's reasons might be different from yours. Not everyone agrees on what is notable enough. And no, I did not miss Reuters, and that's why I didn't brought it up. 3) No, WP:INHERIT says that a subject has to be notable by itself, not because of association. That's why there are plenty of video game developers and publishers without a Wikipedia article, while their games do have one. Yes, DGG and SwisterTwister are great editors. You realise that DGG is an admin with over 190,000 edits and SwisterTwister has over 105,000 edits? They both work tirelessly to help Wikipedia a better place, mostly just by being civil. Could you do so also in the future? Oh, and if you can find an article about a tractor company without any sources, ping in the deletion discussion and I'd be happy to help out. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the amount of somebody's edit history is no argument for - and let me say this again - inventing notability criteria like DGG did here. He did not say the article was unsourced, he said the company had no creative responsibility. His reasoning for deleting this has nothing to do with sources and everything to do with his personal idea on what should and shouldn't exist. And I did not say I would find an unsourced tractor company article, I said I would propose for deletion articles on tractor companies with no creative responsibility for inventing the tractor. And on top of that, TwisterSister, in spite of her 17 million edits on the project, failed to find anything "convincingly better" (Better than what exactly? Since DGG did not mention any source in his OP and said his problem with the article was - and let me remind you again - lack of "creative responsibility"). One would think that 295,000 edits TwisterSister and DGG have made would mean they actually understand what deletion criteria is. But no, the article was simply nominated because it wasn't created by somebody they are friends with. And lo and behold, you prove that yourself as your argument against my objections to their objections is "hey, they have 17 million edits so they must know what they are talking about", even though something "convincingly better" was found by you yourself via a "quick custom Google search". So this is not really a deletion discussion, it is a pissing contest. But hey - did your Google search fix DGG's problem in the first place? Did Google hits prove the company had some "creative responsibility"? Well did it? InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree: edit count doesn't make for a great editor. What matters is the willingness to work together, even if you don't agree. I see no reason to assume DGG nominated the article because of personal grounds, but you do seem to take this personal for some reason. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick WP:VG/RS custom Google search brings up several reliable sources; IGN, Eurogamer, Rock, Paper, Shotgun and GamesIndustry.biz. Passes WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soetermans' sources - I've been planning for months to do some major work on the articles in this area (this interconnected group of French indie devs/publishers), but I'm notoriously lax. The sourcing exists (see Soetermans' point), but it ahsn't been integrated in the article... but we all know AfD isn't cleanup. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a combination of the sources found by Soetermans and a rather weak deletion rationale. Nominator doesn't even seem to understand what the subject is, let alone follow through on WP:BEFORE... Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 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.(non-admin closure) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurotrash (term)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The consensus of the last AFD nomination was to cleanup. More than eight years later, the article is still low-quality. Ringbang (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Partially quoting prev. AfD almost anything described as term belongs on wiktionary, and this is largely WP:OR anyhow (final source does not use the term at all) or add to list of ethnic slurs, (though that article isn't in very good shape either). No reason to believe this term deserves more attention than 100s of other derogatory terms, nor that the history of its use is interesting or studied.Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OED gives 'Rich European socialites, especially those living or working in the United States'. Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A dicdef + original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I honestly believe this can be kept as its own article, no serious needs for deletion. Certainly better AfD targets out there. Delete as my searches are simply finding nothing better. I'm asking DGG from the 1st AfD for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The nomination rationale that it has been eight years without substantial improvement is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. There have apparently been more than 150 edits in that time. Admittedly, the thinness of the description suggests that there might not be much to say, but it's also possible that Wikipedians haven't yet found what is being said. Some of the discussion here suggests overlap between Eurotrash and White trash or other ethnic slurs. Merging would seem not out of the question, although it would be nice to keep the bit about the term being coined in the 1980s by a European living in the United States. Cnilep (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for mentioning that. The reasons for that guideline are sound; but remember that they're predicated on the notion that the article has development potential. I nominated it because of doubts about its potential, not its present state. Ringbang (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: Wiktionary suggests that the term refers to European low-art as well as certain European people. I've found sources using the term to discuss film and other popular art, though I'm not sure if they discuss it as a term. For example: Alternative Europe: Eurotrash and Exploitation Cinema Since 1945 at Google Books; Carr, Jay. "La Femme Nikita: Classy, Good-Looking Eurotrash." Boston Globe 4 (1991); Axford, Barrie, and Richard Huggins. "Media without boundaries: fear and loathing on the road to eurotrash or transformation in the European cultural economy?" Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 9.2 (1996): 175-184. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - About "Further comment": - we are discussing an article about a specific concept, namely deregatory term for people. If there is enough info about art, then Eurotrash (arts) article may be due. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - about "term coined in 1980s" - if your read the NYTimes article, you see is discusses the meaning completely different from defined in our article (although also derogatory). That's exactly the issue with dicdefs: the same word had different meanings. That's why this article is nothing but a dicdef: several meanings and, as you noticed yourself, "there might not be much to say" despite being edited many times. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cnilep is right to point out that the sources need to be about the word. To my mind, in order for an article about the 'classist slur' sense of the word to be useful and interesting (beyond dicdef), it has to answer this question: "How and why did some Americans come to have this perspective?" And in order to answer that question, the article has to give some history of the social scenes that incubated this perspective. These are the sources to look for (note the plural). Right now, as often seems to be the case with these kinds of articles, the definition given contradicts authorities. Just so we're clear on what we're talking about:

rich European socialites, especially those living or working in the US [61]
— Oxford Dictionaries Online

fashionable Europeans, traveling or living abroad, of a type regarded variously as pretentious, shallow, irresponsible, parasitic, etc. [62]
— Collins American English Dictionary

any rich socialite from Europe who lives or works in the US [63]
— Dictionary.com

This is the topic of the article. (Thanks, Staszek Lem.) As for the art context: Could be interesting with the right sources, but that would mean forking the edit history to a completely different topic, for which we have no content. Ringbang (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and expand. If there arem utliple important meanings, the term should be qualified appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the specific content that you feel is beyond the purview of Wiktionary and its editorial process? Ringbang (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. A google search suggests the "eurotrash" concept might have some history and significance behind it. Either that or merge into Anti-Europeanism or something.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "For now" has been dragging since 2008, i.e., actually "for 8 years now" since the previous AfD. When do you think it is time to turn "now" into "then"? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Also, there isn't enough content here to constitute a section in Anti-Europeanism, and redirecting to the article would give the impression that Eurotrash is a general pejorative for all Europeans.
    
    Wikimedia is a synergistic ecosystem. Working well within that system means knowing when to hand over traffic to a sister project so they can do what they do best. —Ringbang (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: "The nomination rationale that it has been eight years without substantial improvement is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions". You are right when it is readily demonstrated that improvement is possible. However in our case the actual argument is "it is a dicdef and nobody managed to prove it otherwise". The arguments of kind "google gives 10zillion hits" and "there might be something out there" are not acceptable. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources with significant discussion of the topic, not just google hits. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep : whilst there isn't much above a dictionary definition here, and progress hasn't been made in 8 years, Guido (slang) and Chav show what can be..... Rayman60 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real term, used as slang; however, I don't know how this can be improved much. I'd redirect to the Wiktionary article. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article isn't the best however articles can be expanded at any time, We have thousands of articles like this that haven't been improved in over 10 years but we don't delete them ... we work with what we have and further expand it which should apply here too - Google brings up a few sources so this article could easily be expanded beyond what it is now. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: What are the sources you found that you think would enrich the article? —Ringbang (talk) 04:27, 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.

^ http://www.maine.gov/doe/highered/nonaccredited/index.html

[1] ttp://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/63953/are_some_lives_more_grievable_than_others

[2] Stanford University Press - www.sup.org. "About the Author - Baruch Spinoza Chair at the European Graduate School". sup.org/books. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[3] Landmark College - www.landmark.edu. "Professor Tom Trenchard Earns Ph.D. - With renowned continental philosophers as Alain Badiou, Giorgio Agamben, and Slavoj Zizek". landmark.edu/news/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[4] Démocratie et participation - www.participation-et-democratie.fr/. "Auteurs et appartenances institutionnelles: Professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School". www.participation-et-democratie.fr/fr/node/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[5] French Embassy in The United States - Higher Education, Arts French Language - www.frenchculture.org. "Biography of Pierre Alferi - professor of creative writing at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". frenchculture.org/books/authors-on-tour/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[6] Poetry Foundation - www.poetryfoundation.org. "Reading by Pierre Alferi, European Graduate School professor". poetryfoundation.org/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[7] La Presse - www.lapressepoetry.com. "Night and Day by Pierre Alferi - teaches at the École de Beaux-Arts and the École Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs in Paris as well as at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[8] Maison de la poèsie de Nantes - http://www.maisondelapoesie-nantes.com. "Pierre Alferi, Auteur - Il enseigne par ailleurs la poésie à la European Graduate School en Suisse". maisondelapoesie-nantes.com/MMP/mmp12/. Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)

[9] The Hindu - www.thehindu.com. "Question everything". thehindu.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[10] The Heyman Center - heymancenter.org. "Alain Badiou Rene Descartes Chair European Graduate School". heymancenter.org/people/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[11] Times Higher Education - www.timeshighereducation.com. "The Adventure of French Philosophy". timeshighereducation.com/books. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[12] Libération - www.liberation.fr. "M. Sarkozy, rendez à Haïti son argent extorqué". liberation.fr. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[13] Nouvel Observateur - tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/. "Nos intellos en Amérique". bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/essais/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[14] The New York Times - www.nytimes.com. "The Orchestral Maneuvers of John Maus". nytimes.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[15] La Commune centre dramatique national Aubervilliers - lacommune-aubervilliers.fr/. "Alain Badiou reads the preface to Zizek's book - refers to EGS (begins at: 3.54mins)". youtube.com/channel/UC-0rK512hVeWy2N6BOkSaQg. Retrieved 18 April 2016.

[16] Die Welt - www.welt.de. "Philosoph Jean Baudrillard ist tot". welt.de/kultur/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[17] Centre Atlantique de Philosophie - caphi.univ-nantes.fr. "Philippe Beck Curriculum Vitae". caphi.univ-nantes.fr/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[18] Brown University - www.brown.edu. "Literary Arts - Philippe Beck, lecturer in philosophy at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and at the University of Nantes, France". brown.edu/academics/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[19] Night of Philosophy NYC 2015 - www. http://www.nightofphilosophy.com/. "Philippe Beck - Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nantes in France and at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". nightofphilosophy.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[20] Dan Hughes - https://medium.com/the-workshop. "The European Graduate School and its legacies". Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)

[21] Universtité de Liège - www.ulg.ac.be/. "Victor Burgin". culture.ulg.ac.be/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[22] The New School - www.newschool.edu. "Affinities: Discussion and Performance - Villa Gillet's Walls and Bridges Series - Butler is Hannah Arendt Professor of Philosophy at the European Graduate School". events.newschool.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[23] Malta Today - www.maltatoday.com.mt/. "Are some lives more grievable than others? Talk by Judith Butler, Hannah Arendt Chair at The EGS". maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/. Retrieved 15 April 2016.

[24] Columbia University Press via Google Books - cup.columbia.edu/book/parting-ways/9780231146104 (November 2013). Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism. cup.columbia.edu. ISBN 9780231146111. Retrieved 15 April 2016. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[25] Princeton University - www.princeton.edu. "Princeton University - Department of English - Eduardo Cadava". english.princeton.edu/people/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[26] Princeton University - www.princeton.edu. "Princeton-Weimar Summer School for Media Studies Academic Staff - Eduardo Cadava Professor at the European Graduate School". german.princeton.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[27] University College Dublin - www.ucd.ie. "French novelist, playwright and feminist theorist, Hélène Cixous receives Honorary Degree of Doctor of Literature from UCD - A Professor at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[28] PARSE Journal University of Gothenburg Sweden - www.parsejournal.com/. "About Simon Critchley - Professor at New School and European Graduate School". parsejournal.com/personnel/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[29] Nour Foundation - www.nourfoundation.com/. "Simon Critchley PhD - Professor of Philosophy at the European Graduate School". nourfoundation.com/speakers/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[30] The New School - www.newschool.edu. "Simon Critchley Named Hans Jonas Professor of Philosophy - professor at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". newschool.edu/news/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[31] Ecole Normal Supérieure Lyon - www.ens-lyon.fr. "Littérature et "temps des révoltes" - Alessandro De Francesco". ens-lyon.fr/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[32] York University - www.yorku.ca. "Cultural theorist Manuel De Landa headlines Engaged Practices". news.yorku.ca/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[33] The Program in Poetics & Theory at New York University - poeticsandtheory.org. "Anne Dufourmantelle teaches both philosophy and the history of psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". poeticsandtheory.org. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[34] Philosophie française contemporaine - riepfc.hypotheses.org. "Elie During: Teaching and Research". riepfc.hypotheses.org. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[35] In Shawdow Festival - https://inshadowfestival.wordpress.com/. "The Co(te)lette Film". Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)

[36] HRP Bard - hrp.bard.edu. "The Humanities on the Brink of the Social Sciences - Lecture by Christopher Fynsk, Professor at the European Graduate School". hrp.bard.edu. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[37] Pavillon Bosio: ENSP de la ville de Monaco - www.pavillonbosio.com. "Heiner Goebbels, Professor at the European Graduate School". pavillonbosio.com/en/events/conferences/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[38] Klassik - klassik.com. "Prof. Heiner Goebbels - Professor an der European Graduate School in Saas-Fee". Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[39] BBC News - www.bbc.com. "Greenaway's maverick film-making". bbc.com/news. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[40] Forest School - www.forest.org. "Noteworthy Foresters: Peter Greenaway: Director and Professor of Cinema Studies at the European Graduate School". forest.org.uk/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[41] University of Nebraska-Lincoln - www.unl.edu. "Humanities on the Edge lecture series to explore changed nature of power - Michael Hardt, professor of political literature at the European Graduate School". newsroom.unl.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[42] The European www.theeuropean-magazine.com. "Michael Hardt Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee". theeuropean-magazine.com/authors. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[43] SPECTRA Journal - spectrajournal.org. "Between Schmitt and Foucault: An Interview with Michael Hardt, Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the European Graduate School". spectrajournal.org/index.php/SPECTRA/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[44] Deutsche Schillerstiftung von 1859 - www.schillerstiftung.de. "Prof. Dr. Martin Hielscher - Theodor W. Adorno-Chair an der European Graduate School in Saas Fee". schillerstiftung.de. Retrieved 8 April 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[45] The MIT Press - mitpress.mit.edu. "Hatred of Capitalism Edited by Sylvère Lotringer and Chris Kraus, Professor of Writing at the European Graduate School". mitpress.mit.edu/books/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[46] -flux - www.e-flux.com. "Is it Chris Kraus Day?". conversations.e-flux.com/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[47] The MIT Press - mitpress.mit.edu. "Hatred of Capitalism Edited by Chris Kraus and Sylvère Lotringer, Jean Baudrillard Chair at the European Graduate School". mitpress.mit.edu/books/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[48] QUT ePrints - eprints.qut.edu.au. "An Interview with Sylvère Lotringer, Jean Baudrillard Chair at the European Graduat School". qut.edu.au. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[49] Groundwork Philosophy - groundworkphilosophy.wordpress.com. "The Bodies in Movement: Catherine Malabou - Malabou is currently tenured at Kingston University, London and also teaches at the European Graduate School". Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[50] Catherine Malabou - Youtube. "Catherine Malabou on The EGS, a unique place in the world". youtube.com. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[51] TPP Conference 2014 - http://tpp2014.com/. "Catherine Malabou and the Concept of Plasticity - "she is also part of the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland"". tpp2014.com/en-us/. Retrieved 9 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[52] Center for Science & Technology - University of Colorado Boulder - www.colorado.edu. "About Us: Carl Mitcham, Adjunct Professor at the European Graduate School". sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[53] Brown University - www.brown.edu. "Dance In/And Theory April 2014 - Jean-Luc Nancy Professor of Political Philosophy and Media Aesthetics at the European Graduate School". brown.edu/academics/german-studies/events. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[54] Universität Trier - Unterwegs zur Freundschaft - www.freundschaft.uni-trier.de/. "Jean-Luc Nancy". uni-trier.de. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[55] University of St. Andrews - Center for French History and Culture - cfhc.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk. "François Noudelmann, "Face of Migration/Migration of Faces"". st-andrews.ac.uk. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[56] New York University - www.nyu.edu. "Second Annual Undergraduate Major's Choice Lecture - Presenter Laurence A. Rickels, Sigmund Freud Professor of Media and Philosophy at the European Graduate School". complit.as.nyu.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[57] Berlin - www.ici-berlin.org. "Talk by Laurence Rickels, Sigmund Freud Professor of Media and Philosophy at European Graduate School in Saas Fee, Switzerland". ici-berlin.org/ /. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[58] The University of Texas at Austin - www.utexas.edu. "Laurence A. Rickel's Lecture: Chow Down: Freud's Primal Fantasy and the Lost Loss - Rickels, Sigmund Freud Professor of Media and Philosophy at the European Graduate School in Switzerland". utexas.edu/cola/rhetoric/news/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[59] Haus der Kulturen der Welt - hkw.de. "Laurence A. Rickels, Sigmund Freud Chair of Media and Philosophy at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland". hkw.de/de/index.php. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[60] Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon - www.ens-lyon.fr/. "Disruptive Kinship Co-curated by Avital Ronell and François Noudelmann - Avital Ronell professeur de littérature à la European Graduate School". cle.ens-lyon.fr/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[61] New York University - www.nyu.edu. "Comparative Literature - Avital Ronell Professor of German, Comparative Literature and English - Teachesregularly at the European Graduate School". complit.as.nyu.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[62] Le Nouvel Observateur - www.bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/. "Nos intellos en Amérique". nouvelobs.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[63] Libération - www.liberation.fr. "La carte Avital Ronell - Détentrice de la "chaire Jacques Derrida" à l'European Graduate School". next.liberation.fr/livres,60. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[64] Libération - www.liberation.fr. "Libé des philosophes : L'autre débat sur l'identité nationale". next.liberation.fr/culture/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[65] New York University - German Department - www.german.as.nyu.edu. "The Sirens go Silent: A Commemorative Colloquium for Friedrich Kittler - Conference Speakers". german.as.nyu.edu/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[66] Art and Education - www.artandeducation.net. "Hubertus von Amelunxen, 100 days in office". artandeducation.net/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[67] Migrating Art Academies - www.migaa.eu. "Hubertus von Amelunxen - Keynote Speech". migaa.eu/migrating-art-academies/. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[68] Wiadomosci - http://wiadomosci.onet.pl. "Luc Tuymans doktorem honoris causa Uniwersytetu Artystycznego". wiadomosci.onet.pl/poznan. Retrieved 8 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)

[69] Zeitgeist Films - www.zeitgeistfilms.com. "Vision: A Film by Margarethe von Trotta - Professor of film at the European Graduate School". zeitgeistfilms.com/vision/ poznan. Retrieved 8 April 2016.

[70] Inside Higher Ed - www.insidehighered.com. "Corporate Rule of Cyberspace by Slavoj Zizek - professor at European Graduate School". insidehighered.com/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[71] UCI Center in Law, Society and Culture - http://clsc.soceco.uci.edu/. "Colloquium: Slavoj Zizek (Institute for Sociology, Ljubliana and European Graduate School)". clsc.soceco.uci.edu/events/. Retrieved 9 April 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)

[72] The Globe and Mail - www.theglobeandmail.com. "Slavoj Zizek: Superstar of the Occupy movement - Mr. Zizek spends half the year at the University of Ljubljana, lectures each summer at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee". theglobeandmail.com/news/world/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[73] Barnes & Noble - Verso Books - www.barnesandnoble.com. "Five Lessons on Wagner - Meet the Author". barnesandnoble.com. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[74] Columbia University Press - www.cup.columbia.edu. "What Does Europe Want? by Slavoj Zizek and Srecko Horvat - About the Author Slavoj Zizek, Professor at European Graduate School". cup.columbia.edu. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[75] Melville House - www.mphbooks.com. "Trouble in Paradise - by Slavoj Zizek, professor at the European Graduate School". mhpbooks.com/books/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[76] Verso Books - www.versobooks.com. "Slavoj Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic. He is a professor at the European Graduate School". versobooks.com/authors/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[77] The Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University - heymancenter.org. "Slavoj Žižek Cultural Critic and Professor of Philosophy and Psychoanalysis The European Graduate School". heymancenter.org/people/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[78] Ecole Normale Supérieure Paris - www.ens.fr. "Les conférenciers : Zizek, Slavoj - Žižek is a professor at the European Graduate School and a senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia". diffusion.ens.fr/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[79] The Guardian - www.theguardian.com. "Slavoj Zizek, professor at European Graduate School". theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[80] Courrier International. "Multiculturalisme. Un plaidoyer de Slavoj Zizek pour l'émancipation". courrierinternational.com/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[81] The New York Times - www.nytimes.com. "The End of Nature". nytimes.com date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[82] New York University - www.nyu.edu. "German Idealism and Psychoanalysis - A Lacanian Perspective. A conversation with Slavoj Žižek, Alenka Zupančič and Mladen Dolar". german.as.nyu.edu/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[83] Brown University - www.brown.edu. "Pembroke Research Lecture, Return to the Inanimate: Freud and the Death Drive - Alenka Zupancic, Professor of Philosophy and Pscyhoanalysis The European Graduate School". brown.edu/research/pembroke-center. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[84] Deutsches Haus - www.deutscheshaus.as.nyu.edu. "German Idealism and Psychoanalysis - Alenka Zupancic visiting professor at the European Graduate School". deutscheshaus.as.nyu.edu/ date. Retrieved 9 April 2016.

[85] ttp://www.maine.gov/doe/highered/nonaccredited/index.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[1]