Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 August 23 August >

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 00:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits of New Brunswick[edit]

Lawsuits of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this list needed? I don't think that many enough lawsuits exist there, that it needs its own article. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator After reading the comments here, I have changed my mind about this deletion proposal. Page should indeed be kept, and proposing this page for deletion was too hasty from my part. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 17:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 23 August 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. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E³.series[edit]

E³.series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AFD. Clearly promotional, reads like a press release, no evidence or statement of notability as a product, very skimpy referencing. Was ready to be deleted at PROD, but it had been PRODed and deleted in 2008. A later recreation was deleted as CSD G11. David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably not even worth a redirect or merge. Work instead might go into beefing up Zuken to be more than some bullet lists. W Nowicki (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah, they look like the sort of thing you might want to look up, but sourcing ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this borders on WP:SPAM as some sort of advertisement copy about E³.series Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 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. North America1000 00:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secretaries Cup[edit]

Secretaries Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost completely unsourced since 2007, no evidence of notability. PRODed, unPRODed, two passing mentions added. I'm willing to be convinced, but I can't find anything demonstrating the notability of the event itself. David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep It's mostly a question of how much mention you need away from the two schools' websites. I find NCAA, Military Times, and Newsday Ghits, which I think are sufficient indications of notability. Using the school websites to source the results is perfectly reasonable. Mangoe (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-known small college rivalry, given extra import and notoriety because the two schools involved are federally funded service academies. A 2011 article in The Day entitled "Nothing rivals CGA-Kings Point football matchup" describes the rivalry in some detail [1]; here's an example of coverage in Sports Illustrated [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are not bad actually :-) Can you add those, and can we get something for that huge table of results? - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable small college rivalry, numerous sources mention it as discussed above. Those should be added into the article, but AFD is not cleanup so that's not a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added some citations re game results. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Arxiloxos' sources, which have now been added to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe it has been more than sufficiently shown that the article passes notability standards.--Paul McDonald (talk)
  • Keep. The Sports Illustrated article was the tipping point. That proves to me that GNG has been met. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 90% of the time I would say "delete" for an individual rivalry between two college sports teams, but this one really does seem to have attracted enough coverage to be regarded as notable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 26 August 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. Article has improved substantially since initial nomination in a way that directly responds to the initial delete arguments. A Traintalk 07:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Kessler[edit]

Oren Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Please explain how he meets WP:N or WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources are about the subject, they simply verify that he's been published, which is not itself enough to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well-known journalist, analyst (even though the article was created by an editor now banned). Just tag for expansion, improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching books [3] is a quick way to see that the work done by this policy analyst is taken seriously.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While that search produces many results, I'm only seeing about a dozen books that cite Kessler, only two of which cite his analysis; the others cite his reporting from the Jerusalem Post in their footnotes. Also, I'm not convinced that being cited as a source by the likes of Glenn Beck and Robert Spencer makes one notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion and citation of a writer's work by other bluelinked writers/newscasters supports notability, our opinion of their political views notwithstanding. More books did come up in my search, stuff like Political Islam and Global Media: The boundaries of religious identity, (Noha Mellor, Khalil Rinnawi, Routledge, 2016) "Oren Kessler (2012) explains that the channel is perceived as favouring freedom and democracy against dictatorships, but clearly appears to be supporting Islamic parties. Kessler demonstrates how the channel promoted the..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mention Beck and Spencer because of "[my] opinion of their political views" -- I mentioned them because most of what they say and write is demonstrably untrue, and being cited as a source by such charlatans ought not to be regarded as a measure of notability. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I did a little expand & source. I did not bring the article up to what it should and can become. There is much more material out there, of course, Kessler is a well-known and well-regarded journalist and analyst. the problem with searching for someone like this, a familiar proplem with notable people who do not yet have articles, especially analysts and writers, is that a search brings up too many sources, so many that it is hard for editors to come up with the proper keywords. I could tell instantly that he is a well-known, widely-cited, widely-interviewed foreign policy guy. figuring out where to find substantive coverage of things he has done took a little longer. But it's out there, this: [4] search, for example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The searches done by E. M. Gregory (above) demonstrate that he is notable. Someone cited by multiple scholarly books easily qualifies. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all of what's listed is essentially only what expectedly comes from and with his career, but still none of it actually suggests how this can specifically substantiate his own convincing notability as an article. There can be a lot of coverage but only a specific amount can lead to his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • note WP:HEY Kessler article is now reliably sourced, documenting his career working for major media, and, then, as a foreign policy analyst at major think tanks Henry Jackson Society and Foundation for Defense of Democracies. His role in two incidents, Jim Clancy (journalist)'s resignation and Steven Sotloff's death led to substantial coverage of Kessler.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having one's articles cited a few times isn't enough to be notable, and much depends on who does the citing. I do not see, in the evidence given here and in the article, an indication that this person is notable--he is not discussed as a notable person in his own right. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"much depends on who does the citing"? We get that Glenn Beck is not your cup of tea, not mine either, but IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, here [5] is an article about one of these incidents Kessler by a writer for the Buenos Aires Herald who interviews him on the subject of his involvement at some length.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 31 August 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. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Željko Srdić[edit]

Željko Srdić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist of no note, tagged for notability concerns for a while now. Contested prod, I can find no sources using google. Hiding T 22:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, article was created by an (almost) spa ZeljkoArtist so there may be coi issues, the serbian wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article on this artist - [6], a gsearch under "Željko Srdić", "Željko Srdić exhibitions", and "Željko Srdić изложбе" brings up nothing useable just facebook, blogs and mirror sites, have been unable to find citations for notable exhibitions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very poorly sourced for a BLP - PRWire, a blog, and his own website?! For the heck, I search and found a single news article (in Cyrillic) about the subject. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very poorly sourced. 1 is a primary source, 2 is a dead link to a press release, 3 is not about Srdić, 4 makes no mention of Srdić and 5 is a dead link. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTMduvekot (talk) 10:58, 25 August 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. No one appears to be asserting that the subject independently meets WP:N, and indeed it appears that the article does not. The basis for keeping the article would then be the community consensus around elected officials from global cities, which as of now does not apply to the subject. The argument for deletion has been endorsed by multiple editors and goes effectively unrefuted. A Traintalk 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lubosch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark Lubosch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. The subject lost his position as city councillor in 2015. Otherwise, an unremarkable subject. Update (Aug 16, following discussions with Bearcat): The prior consensus was established with the understanding that Winnipeg was a global city (I've located the listing in the article on global cities, 2015 version). While acknowledging that consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as one of the cities where a city councillor was accepted as notable under NPOL #2, I believe that it shouldn't anymore because Winnipeg is listed under "Category 6 (Sufficiency)". I believe this is insufficient to qualify it as a major international hub of business and political power, where a city councillor could be presumed to be notable:

  1. Alpha++ cities are London and New York City, which are vastly more integrated with the global economy than all other cities.
  2. Alpha+ cities complement London and New York City by filling advanced service niches for the global economy.
  3. Alpha and Alpha- cities are cities that link major economic regions into the world economy.
  4. Beta level cities are cities that link moderate economic regions into the world economy.
  5. Gamma level cities are cities that link smaller economic regions into the world economy.
  6. Sufficiency level cities are cities that have a sufficient degree of services so as not to be obviously dependent on world cities.

For comparison, other North American cities in the last category as Des Moines, Greensboro, Sacramento. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winnipeg has traditionally been one of the cities where serving on the city council is considered an adequate claim of notability to pass WP:NPOL, because it's in the global city category (admittedly the gamma, i.e. lowest, subclass of that club, but still in it.) And since the subject has not held office since 2006, significant coverage would not be expected to be locatable via Google News — rather, improving the sourcing would require digging into news databases like ProQuest. And neither does Wikipedia have any requirement that the news coverage be current or web-accessible — we can source stuff to print-only older n:ewspaper content. Keep, and I'll take a stab at reffing it up via ProQuest in the next few days. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following some discussion with K.e.coffman to clarify our respective issues, I see that he's now revising his nomination rationales to accommodate my primary concerns — as noted, I'm not wedded to the idea that Winnipeg's city councillors need to be kept as notable, but simply objected to the fact that some editors seemed willing to simply ignore the fact that the prior consensus ever existed at all. If any prior consensus could be erased simply by refusing to acknowledge that it existed, and didn't require any actual discussion and debate about the reasons why it should possibly be changed, Wikipedia would instantly become a giant pile of anarchy. An argument formulated this way, however, I can agree with: the "sufficiency" class of cities should not be considered notable enough to hand its city councillors an NPOL pass anymore, and Winnipeg is not for any substantive reason a city where broad national or international reader interest transcends its relatively low class of "globalness" the way a national capital might. Accordingly, I support the nomination as now formulated: my issue was the way in which the argument was being conducted as if no consensus for these ever existed in the first place, not any strong belief that Winnipeg should retain that status permanently. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winnipeg is not a significant enough city to grant automatic notability to members of its city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prior consensus, the last time a batch of Winnipeg city councillors was put up for AFD, established that it is significant enough. While I acknowledge that consensus can change, it changes by means of the formal establishment of a new consensus, not by means of people simply pretending that the existing consensus isn't even there in the first place. You're absolutely free to make a case for why the prior consensus that Winnipeg is significant enough to NPOL its city councillors should be overturned — and hell, I might even agree with you if the argument was strong enough, because I'm not 100 per cent committed to the existing consensus either — but until a new consensus is formally established to overturn the old one, the old one still stands. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Consensus can change. Also, looking at the prior AfD, it appears that the argument was that they are presumed to be notable. But the actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in multiple RS. I just don't see those for the subject. None have been presented at this AfD either to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know that consensus can change — I even said so in the very comment you're replying to. But consensus changes by means of a discussion that specifically addresses the issue of changing the consensus and specifically establishes a new one, not by means of one user arbitrarily decreeing that the prior consensus never existed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there an RfC that established that consensus? Otherwise, it's more of an argument that "it was kept the last time (8 years ago), so it should be kept this time". I'm not sure that's how the AfD process works, unless I'm mistaken. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus doesn't have to be formulated specifically by means of an RFC. There hasn't been just one AFD on this individual person alone; several past AFD discussions on Winnipeg city councillors reached the same conclusion that Winnipeg was large and notable and "global" enough, simultaneously as other discussions were coming down as delete for cities like Regina and Saskatoon and Hamilton that are of otherwise similar size or within-their-own-region significance, specifically on the grounds that Winnipeg places much higher in the global city rankings than Regina or Saskatoon do. WP:OUTCOMES defined by the weight of multiple similar AFD decisions do count as the establishment of consensus. Again, I know that consensus can change — but it takes a new consensus to deprecate a prior consensus. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument in this AfD and the prior AfD is that they are presumed to be notable. But the actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in multiple RS. This is how any SNG works, as I understand it. None have been presented at this AfD to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A presumption of notability remains in place until such time as improved sourceability can be definitively shown not to exist at all. If an SNG is objectively passed, then one RS which verifies that passage is enough to get the article kept, and merely flagged for {{refimprove}}, and the presumption of notability remains in place until additional sourcing can be definitively shown as not even possible — GNG requires merely the existence of improved source coverage, not its preexisting inclusion in the article's as-currently-written form. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and I had other things to do yesterday which prevented me from being able to look into this and Brenda Leipsic right away — that doesn't mean that I'm not doing it, but it takes time which I have to schedule around other things. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74 hits on Lubosch in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies, radiating outward all the way to Charlottetown, Montreal, Halifax, Sudbury and the National Post. That's more than enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - barring a clear change of consensus, a city councilor in a major world city ranks for notability. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The more general consensus haas been for them notable only in a few exceptional citiies where they have qaa particularly large political role: NYC & Chicago, and I'm not sure of anywhere else. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the consensus has never been that these are permissible only for New York City and Chicago and nowhere else; the consensus has always been that they're permissible for any city in the global city class. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Washington DC, Boston, London, Paris, Ottawa and San Diego, for starters, are just some other examples of cities where the city councillors do routinely have Wikipedia articles because city councillor in and of itself. If a new consensus can be established that Winnipeg should come off the list of cities whose councillors qualify, then that's one thing (and not even a thing I'd necessarily disagree with) — but past consensus was established that Winnipeg was on it, so you need to make a case for why Winnipeg should be removed from the established consensus, and can't get these deleted just by making false claims about what the existing consensus even is. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is wrong about what the existing consensus was and is. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this may not be the most appropriate place to suggest what a global city is, for purpose of determining whether a municipal councilmember should have the presumption of notability, my sense is that a "global city" links "major economic regions into the world economy." If this standard became the new consensus, it would be appropriate to redirect to Winnipeg City Council. Enos733 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would question the whole basis of this discussion, which seems to revolve around whether Winnipeg is a global city. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say anything about global cities. The role of city councillors varies enormously between different parts of the world. In some countries they have a major influence over the government of their cities and the surrounding regions, but in others they are simply responsible for implementing national or regional government policies with a tiny bit of independent discretion on the side. In the former case they should be regarded as notable, but in the latter not, regardless of whether the city they serve in is classified as "global". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents established at AFD do count as consensus regardless of whether they've been explicitly codified into policy statements or not. And the problem with the alternative standard you propose here is that it's not easily or objectively quantifiable which of those two camps most cities would fall under. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not notable. Delete. Global city or not. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 30 August 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. Pace BabbaQ Wikipedia is not based on news; the best secondary sources are books--but that's by. WP:LASTING is of course entirely relevant as part of our notability guidelines, and the keep-voters do not make a cogent argument that this was indeed an event of some (even any) lasting effect. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Farah Noor Adams[edit]

Murder of Farah Noor Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is about a murder which does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for general notability Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this crime doesn't appear to have any lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- that was my reaction too, but Clarityfiend put it in words better than I did. From the article, it's unclear what impact, if any, the crime had on society -- no analysis is offered, or any implications discussed. It all appears "routine crime blotter" material, a retelling of which does not appear to be needed in an encyclopedia, and is also probably insensitive to the victim's family. BLP1E applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons described above. Blythwood (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep This murder did indeed make headlines across the UK, even after it turned out not to be a hate crime, nor a crime by an immigrant, and not a case of wife abuse - any of which might have caused coverage to continue. What did cause it to continue was the fact taht she had phoned 911 but help did not arrive. This aspect of the crime was still being covered by the BBC 3 years later [[7]]. Moreover, national coverage continues even after it became clear that not targeted, merely murdered for power walking along a park where an indigenous predator dragged her into the woods [8], and here [9] she is in the news years after she was murdered, inspiring local civic improvers to enact a new safety scheme for that park.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per NOTTEMPORARY. Notability does not go away simply because a article subject does not receive as much attention anymore because of time passing. Also article quality or length is irrelevant against wiki guidelines. clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm not sure if the sources offered on the aftermath are sufficient: The BBC article offers three sentences on the subject:
"Yet Hannah's tragic case is not a one-off. In 2005 Farah Noor Adams was raped and murdered in Glasgow. She had made a number of silent calls when she spotted she was being stalked by her eventual killer. But they too were cut off by operators when she failed to respond."
Local civic improvement is extremely local. It does not rise to the level offered in other articles, see for example: Carrollton_bus_collision#Aftermath, with a wide ranging discussion on bus safety, new regulations, MADD, etc. The crime that is the subject of this discussion did not have the same lasting effect. The news that the subject received from the news outlets probably falls under WP:ROUTINE and is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous comment misunderstands guideline, i.e., lasting coverage cuch ad inspiring a new policy or program, does support notability, but the converse is not true, that is, the lack of lasting coverage does not negate notability that has already been acquired because WP:NOTTEMPORARY. However, in this coverage there was long term coverage becasue of the failure of the 911 system issue in this case, and there was LASTING coverage in the form of a city program that RS describe as inspired by this murder under which safety improvements were made to the park wehere she was killed, raped and tortured. Penultimate comment above, by contrast, is correct in wondering whether the coverage in this case was sufficient. Further searches might well turn up more coverage. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LASTING and NOTNEWS are irrelevant here. Lasting, do you expect consistent coverage of a case like this from day 1 to present time. Never happens. Notnews is irrelevant as Wikipedia is based on news.BabbaQ (talk) 20:18, 23 August 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, thankfully due to the debut; The consensus clearly swayed to say "Keep". (non-admin closure) NasssaNser 13:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tarbell[edit]

Andrew Tarbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user. Stating that there is plenty of media coverage, however they appear to be routine. – Michael (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – The user also asked if being a back-up on a top tier squad is notable, despite lack of appearances. The answer to that is no. – Michael (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also noted that they were a generation Adidas, college athlete, high draft pick, and many squad selections. Note that it's an MLS backup keeper. Also, how routine are media reports about being selected as Generation Adidas; that's anything but routine. Nfitz (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. Looks like he might well be notable in the near future, just not now. Regarding things like the Generation Addidas contract, I would challenge Nfitz to show GNG by providing sources which show coverage of this beyond simply stating that he has signed a contract. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment – I'm going to drop this one because he came on as a halftime sub in a match earlier today so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL now. See here. – Michael (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was inevitable - though even I'm surprised it happened this week. Meets WP:NFOOTY with appearance yesterday in MLS match. The demonstrates that we really shouldn't waste time on some of these. We need to find a way to avoid this process with major signing on teams that meet WP:FPL and number 1 backup keepers for the the same teams. Nfitz (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has now made his debut Spiderone 07:42, 30 August 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri-KO[edit]

Jeri-KO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tag team formed this month and won a single PPV, comparable to The Golden Truth. Obvious WP:TOOSOON and currently fails WP:GNG. With mainly moves and weekly results, another addition to the "tag team purge". Sekyaw (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sekyaw (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - either "too soon" or "not ever", time will tell.  MPJ-DK  21:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Sekyaw: is incorrect they did not form this month, they formed in April on Smackdown when they lost their first match to Cesaro/Styles the 7th and beast Ambrose/Zayn on the 21st. Scoring a victory over a team including the current WWE World Champion is a notable endeavour. They were also together last month when Cesaro/Zayn beat them. August's Enzo/Cass feud is only their most recent one. I'll find and add sources for the earlier stuff. Ranze (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't form in April or but only after the confrontation with Sasha Banks, Enzo and Cass when Owens appeared to "have Jericho's back". Earlier matches combined the two but they weren't anything of a team back then. Str1977 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Perlow[edit]

Yaakov Perlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable biography page. Only two references on the page, one is to a dead link that appears to be connected to subject, other is a book that has two trivial mentions of Perlow. My own searches only turn up results in blogs and other non-reliable sources. Don't think this meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • The subject of this article is one of the most pre-eminent personalities in Orthodox Judaism. The article should be improved not deleted.josephf (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a WP:RS to support that? FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are Wikipedia policy reasons for keeping an article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Please see WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see enough confirmation of this person's notability in WP:BIO. Rabbis aren't mentioned there by name, but being a chassidic rabbi is somewhat like being royalty and having a seat on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah is somewhat of being both an academic and a politician. I feel comfortable with WP:BIO and this rabbis notability. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's how BIO works. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The page is short on refs, but the subject is highly notable, one of the leading Orthodox rabbis in America. As with other Orthodox Judaism pages, personalities like these shun media exposure, but we'll try to find more sources. Yoninah (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as an American-born rabbi who speaks and publishes in English, there is plenty about him online. A few book sources: [10], [11]. As the head of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudath Israel of America, he often speaks out on controversial subjects [12]. Anti-Orthodox media often respond to him vociferously: [13], [14]Yoninah (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is very helpful. I am reconsidering my position. I may have been too hasty with the nomination. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article expanded with refs and infobox. Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very prominent person, who has received a good deal of coverage, at least in part because he is a controversial figure. The article should be expanded to cover the controversies, and should have more sources added, but there is no good reason for deleting it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination there are enough sources to meet the notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:37, 26 August 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 00:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Lazerow[edit]

Dylan Lazerow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by author. Article is an unsourced BLP, with vague claims to notability. Few hits online, but mostly from article the subject has written. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per my PROD, still an unsourced BLP with no real notability. shoy (reactions) 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 24 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Francis[edit]

Nina Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, and technically an unsourced BLP. Complicating the issue is that this BLP is sourced to two IMDB entries, each claiming that the subject was born under the other name, and listing different credits for each name which do not chronologically overlap. However, none of the roles appear significant enough to meet the criteria in either case. MSJapan (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to be convinced, but delete as it stands - no good references, no substantial roles, no evidence given of noteworthiness, and even if you were interested you'd learn pretty much nothing - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR because she's only made appearances in minor roles so far. Minima© (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable actress. There is a reference to a book, but we have no more specific references. Does she recieve significant coverage a passing reference, or does her name appear somewhere in some list in the book. I doubt it is the first, because the article would at least then say something of meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 28 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bathmophobia[edit]

Bathmophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another supposed phobia back-formed into Greek, with the usual lack of any clinical usage and the standard lists of every possible combination of Greek stems. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per reasons outlined by Mangoe and Perstrump. Searching this term in PubMed doesn't reveal any articles in medical literature. Looking more widely there are a few mentions in recently published lists, but no indication this term has been the focus of any serious study or there is any significant usage of this term. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MEDRS--Savonneux (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / merge to List of phobias Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 27 August 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. This is one of the most interesting AfD discussions I have read in some time. There were some very strong arguments on both sides, as well as some low-effort !votes that I effectively discounted. There is a strain running through the deletion arguments that the subject shouldn't have an article because he is a fringe psuedoscientist -- the subject is clearly a quack engaged in flim-flam, but that doesn't invalidate the reliable sources that attest to his notability. I would suggest that what it does mean is that the article needs to be carefully patrolled and kept clear of promotional fluff. A Traintalk 08:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruggero Santilli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ruggero Santilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability. loupgarous (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Reading the discussion in the first nomination for deletion (where the consensus was "Save"), I'm not persuaded by any of the arguments given that this article ever met that criterion, or WP:SIGCOV.

Certainly our current guidelines for notability would exclude the article, for the secondary sources consist of a discussion of his theories in a small scientific journal, and an article in a St. Petersburg, Florida newspaper.

The discussion I refer to above is of one of Santilli's published monographs regarding Santilli's proprietary "MagneGas" process. Again, no real notability here.

The references to Santilli's academic background and credentials are hosted on a Web site belonging to his own "Institute for Basic Research," and this includes his editorship of "Hadronic Press, Inc.". None of these are useful to establish notability.

It's unfortunate that the first discussion on nomination for deletion for this article didn't touch on notability more than it did. The guideline WP:NTEMP allows us to reconsider questions of notability, and this is one such case. The reference list just doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources apart from Santilli's own publications or publications which reside on his organization's Web site.

WP:FRINGE comes into play here, too. It's not whether Santilli's theories are regarded as "fringe science," but again, whether they are notable fringe science.

Santilli complains that eminent physicist Steven Weinberg heads a group of Jewish scientists who are colluding to keep his theories from being published in the usual journals of physics and chemistry.

The more likely explanation is that Santilli's theories simply failed peer review in the major physics and chemistry journals, even as alternative explanations for accepted theories of how chemical bonds work.

According to the WP:PROFRINGE guidelines, we're not a forum for someone to promote theories with little or no support apart from a very narrow list of 'believers'. Santilli seems to have that forum in any case, in the "board" of "The Institute of Basic Research." These include a few physicists known in their own countries but with very little notability in the world at large.

Potential WP:COI Disclosure: Santilli and some of his staff refer to me (by my full name) as "a former Wikipedia editor" because I questioned some of the claims they've made for MagneGas. That is a separate discussion from this one; the reasons I am giving for deletion are confined to the subject's lack of sufficient notability for a wikipedia article.

I think the decision to keep Ruggero Santilli was a decision we need to revisit, keeping our current guidelines for notability and treatment of fringe theories in mind. Thank you for your attention. loupgarous (talk)

  • Keep as in first AfD. Subject is fringey, but notably fringey. A GS h-index of 26 shows that WP:Prof#C1 has been well passed. Nominator seems to have axes to grind. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
WP:Prof#C1 requires that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Can you show any evidence of that, apart from the h-index, which can be gamed by self-citations (among other strategies)? Ruggero Santilli concedes he can't get his work peer-reviewed in reliable scholarly journals. His explanation aside, that shows he failed at WP:Prof#C1. But I'd like to see specific examples of significant impact Ruggero Santilli has had in physics and chemistry. It's hard to game a nice, recent list of peer-reviewed publications in reliable journals. Almost all of Santilli's recent work is self-published. loupgarous (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. He has been noted by others. But if you care to count his self-citations, I will reconsider. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Picked at random, Santilli's recent paper "Apparent Detection via New Telescopes with ConcaveLenses of Otherwise Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE)", American Journal of Modern Physics. Vol. 5, No. 3, 2016, pp. 45-53 has fifteen references. Nine of these cite other Santilli publications (one of which was a talk to the St. Petersburg Astronomy Club). The paper itself was published in the "American Journal of Modern Physics," an open access journal which charges US$370/paper (and charges authors extra for reprints). Only 2 of 31 members of the American Journal of Modern Physics's editorial board reside or work in the USA. One more lives and works in Venezuela - strictly speaking, he is "American" in that he lives in South America. Another member of this journal's editorial board is a high school teacher. Do you insist I count each of his self-citations? A bit of a time-sink, but it would show that the h-index is a broken indicator of academic impact in this case, so it could be worthwhile to show in general how measures like this are being gamed for fun and profit. loupgarous (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort you have put in here. It confirms much of what is known about the subject's conduct. Still, he has been noted by others, and satisfies fringe requirements that the work must have been noted out-of universe. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Another Santilli paper, "Compatibility of Arbitrary Speeds with Special Relativity Axioms for Interior Dynamical Problems", American Journal of Modern Physics Volume 5, Issue 2-1, March 2016, Pages: 143-160, has 75 references, 40 of which carry Santilli as sole author or co-author. I'm not seeking recognition for the work here, a job well done is its own reward. But 40 self-citations out of 75 references? I'm counting his self-citations, and showing a pattern that probably skews Santilli's h-index upward without true impact on physics and mathematics, in "open access" journals with deceptive names and which accept manuscripts after payment of hefty processing fees. According to WP:Prof#C1 guidelines. "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." loupgarous (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-committal Mainly known for litigation, self-promotion and pseudoscience. Article frequently edited by associates of Santilli, possibly family members. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per Xxanthippe. Google cites look good. The article makes the subject seem primarily notable for self-promotion and pseudoscience, as Mathsci says, but the subject is already notable under WP:PROF independently of the more dubious aspects of his tenure, having published several highly cited mainstream works. I think this makes WP:NPOV probably a challenge to achieve. Appropriate focus should be given to the mainstream areas that Santilli has worked with, but also the article should be appropriately sceptical of his fringe work. As the mantra goes, "AfD is not cleanup", but it's easy to be an armchair AfD participant, and much harder to do the actual work. This article should probably be watched for COI. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to weak delete. loupgarous' more careful analysis of the scholar hits makes me believe that this is a case of gaming the system. That leaves WP:FRINGE, and I don't see evidence of WP:FRIND sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Part of battle against pseudoscience. Simply ignoring noisy kooks is detrimental to public. And he is noisy and noted. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (reconsidered after counting independent refs in the article). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If you delete every statement supported only by a primary source or a source directly hosted on the subject's "Institute for Basic Research" Web site and written by the subject or other members of the Institute's board, all you're left with is his early personal life, four monographs he authored early in his career, and a recounting of his pro se lawsuits and his belief that his theories are being denied peer review by Steven Weinberg and his friends. Is that really enough of an article to keep? loupgarous (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your delete !vote. See WP:AFDLIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: duly noted. Thanks for the correction. loupgarous (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Our article is dominated by fringe sources, many of them by Santilli himself. And I don't trust the citation count argument; he has one legitimately well-cited book ("Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics II: Birkhoffian Generalizations of Hamiltonian Mechanics"), then much lower-cited fringe publications, the best of which ("Elements of Hadronic Mechanics: Theoretical Foundations") has 128 citations on Google scholar, many of which appear to be from Santilli's log-rolling circle (look for Hadronic Press in the publisher). Leaving all that aside, what do we have? A 2007 article in the St. Petersburg press about a lawsuit, a book review in a college newspaper, a skeptic blog post, a one-sentence book quote about anti-semitism, and a trivial mention in a Salon article. I don't think that adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with fringe sources in a fringe article? They are expected. The BLP is clearly labelled as fringe and it achieves notability as such. I am opposed to attempts to enforce the ideological purity of Wikipedia by removing fringe material from it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Fringe sources don't allow us to satisfy WP:NPOV by providing a sourced mainstream view of the subject's fringe positions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not have enough coverage for him to overcome the high notability bar for advocates of fringe theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One cannot evaluate a case like that purely formally and we have to look at the overall picture. That picture, as far as I can tell, is that the subject's activities are mainly in the WP:FRINGE area, and there is not enough specific coverage of him from non-fringe reliable sources to write a proper WP article that would be neither an embarrassment to Wikipedia nor a BLP nightmare. In specific terms, cases of this sort, where a scientist mainly works in a WP:FRINGE area, should not be judged by WP:PROF standards but should routed through WP:BIO instead. Certainly rough metrics like h-index should not be used as a way of justifying passing WP:PROF#C1. Santilli and his IBR set up a number of journals ("Hadronic Journal", "Hadronic Journal Supplement", "Algebras, Groups and Geometries", and probably others that I don't know about), where much of his fringe work and that of his disciples has been published. Many citations returned by GScholar search are for his publications in this fringe journals and many of the citing articles are in various fringe sources as well. GScholar can't tell the difference and we here are not qualified to sift through them and figure out what's what there and which citing articles referring to his work are WP:FRINGE and which are WP:RS. I don't know about physics, but in my own field, math, Santilli's work has been almost entirely ignored and almost nobody has heard of him. The first time I became aware of his name was when some years ago some colleague in my department noticed that Santilli's journal "Algebras, Groups and Geometries" published in 1998 three short "proofs" of Fermat's Last Theorem. That was already well after Wiles. Of course, these "proofs" were nonsense, and their reviews in MathSciNet are rather amusing. I think our library was still subscribing to that journal at the time because it was very cheap, but after that event we cancelled our subscription. By now MathSciNet no longer indexes any of Santilli's journals. I don't know anything about his physics work, and it would seem that he made a bit more of a splash there. But still, I am just not seeing enough specific coverage from non-fringe WP:RS sources to be able to create a decent article here which would not be a BLP disaster. Therefore I believe the article needs to go. Nsk92 (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Xxanthippe's statement, "I am opposed to attempts to enforce the ideological purity of Wikipedia by removing fringe material from it," I am opposed to wikipedia becoming known once more for the unreliability and lack of usefulness of its articles. Our current guidelines on biographical articles with respect to who's notable enough to merit a wikipedia article are so strict that Kenneth Mahood, whose editorial cartoons appeared in almost every daily issue of a major London newspaper, who was a regular cartoonist and illustrator for The New Yorker and before that for Punch magazine has been repeatedly denied an article by our reviewers despite a dozen secondary sources attesting to his reputation in the field of news and political cartooning.
Yet, by oversight we have an article on a man who appears to be mainly notable for having discovered how to game the h-index and other indicators of influence on scholarly opinion with a plethora of articles featuring profuse citations of his own and his associates' work in his own "journals", and in offshore "open access" journals which appear largely to be paid venues for scientific publications. One of these, the "American Journal of Modern Physics" is notable chiefly in that, of the over thirty members of its editorial board, three reside or work in the Western Hemisphere. The "American Journal of Modern Physics" also happens to be the venue in which articles by the subject and his associates have most often appeared in recent years. This is a case in which we should maintain what's becoming a reasonably high standard for factual reliability in our articles. Regarding the subject as notable enough for a biographical article's inconsistent with our current standard for that. loupgarous (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you don't get it. Wikipedia is expected to be a reliable source for fringe material as well as for mainstream. The essential requirement for fringe is that it is identified as such and does not claim to be mainstream. That requirement is satisfied in this case. Wikipedia is WP:not censored. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe, you don't get it. Joseph Westley Newman, here on the Gulf Coast, was an authentic WP:Fringe scientist. Newman chose to stand on the scientific validity as he saw it of his theory that he'd discovered a way to make a motor which wasn't subject to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics - a "perpetual motion machine". Having been questioned on the matter, Newman didn't resort to pro se litigation, start his own scientific journal, or recruit friends to cite his papers in paid scientific journals. Newman filed for a US Patent on his invention and was turned down on the grounds that his invention wasn't patentable, but he appears to have stood by his fringe theories. Santilli's claims to notability that can be documented by WP:RS are not for his fringe theories, but most recently for his self-promotional efforts, which aren't enough for an article here. WP:PROMOTION and WP:SIGCOV apply here more than WP:FRINGE. loupgarous (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per David Eppstein (lack of independent sources) and John Pack Lambert (high notability bar for fringe theories).  — Scott • talk 15:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources, and, frankly, pure fringe nonsense masquerading as a bio. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to shoehorn in your latest bizarre, unsupported notions. --Begoon talk 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and at least trim extensively in that case, because he's at least notable as an author, having over 1,000 library holdings, with the highest held book at 475. Inviting DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. sufficient publications and citations. Ioupgarous, that he's sued people who object to his theories might add only a little notability ,but you seem to be arguing that because he did so , he's less notable than if he didn't. And rather than a high notability bar for fringe scientists, I'd say our proper bar was lower, and we should go a little out of our way to include them: these are precisely the subjects about which easy-to-find reliable information is needed DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point is made here. Notability bar for fringers should be lower because there are fewer of them and the behavior that they display is of interest to those who study cultural pathology, just as patients with exotic diseases are more interesting to physicians than healthy people. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think it's also worth inviting the opinion of John Vandenberg, an experienced neutral editor/administrator who was the second most substantial adder of text to the article: [15]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and I am the creator of the article, for what it is worth, so I am naturally biased here. But I very much appreciate the ping, as somehow I didnt know about this AfD. I'm a bit pressed for time, but will try to review and re-assess my opinion on this article. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw, I believe he is notable not just for his fringe science, but the lengths that he has gone to in vanity publishing. He is not in a league of his own, but he has only a few peers in that arena. This doesnt seem to be as prominent in the article as it once was. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to Sławomir Biały, Staszek Lem, David Eppstein, Scott, and Begoon: Notability is not judged or determined by the citations used in the wiki article, but by the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As I noted above, there are multiple examples of significant coverage in non-fringe independent reliable sources via GoogleBooks and Highbeam, and in some of the current citations for the wiki article; so the subject passes WP:GNG. And a reminder to Nsk92: Notability is not temporary. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but search engine hits are not the same thing as sources, and the results of those searches are not very impressive. Perhaps you would like to identify a few sources that are WP:FRIND? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the fringe theory noticeboard to generate additional input regarding the allegedly "non-fringe" sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sample sources of significant coverage in independent reliable sources:
Book:
Periodicals & major media:
Organizations:
-- Softlavender (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being published in research journals and trade media does not contribute substantially to notability under WP:PROF, neither do minor awards. Every academic is essentially referenced in this way, since that's pretty much their job description. WP:PROF requires substantial and lasting impact to the field. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned three times, these are all independent reliable non-fringe sources. None of them is by Santilli or from his publications. Softlavender (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that the Journal of hydrogen energy sources contribute very much to notability. Generally WP:PROF requires a more substantial impact in a scholarly discipline than this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF has little or nothing to do with this person's notability. He's not a professor. Plus we are judging on GNG, which supersedes all other subsidiary notability guidelines anyway. But if you want "more substantial impact in a scholarly discipline", here are 236 hits in GoogleScholar, only a very few of which are in his own Hadrionics Journal or Institute of Basic Research: [25]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG creates a presumption, not a guarantee, oof notability. Secondary sources addressing the subject's contributions must pass the "more significant than the average college professor test". I'm not convinced, without a more detailed analysis of the GS hits that the subject meets WP:PROF, since he is clearly good at gaming the GS system. See the arguments presented by Agricola44 at [26] for a clear precedent. Sławomir Biały (talk)
To repeat, WP:PROF has nothing to do with this person's notability. He's not a professor. Plus we are judging on GNG, which supersedes all other subsidiary notability guidelines anyway. Softlavender (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROF: "For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research..." If the basis of the keep votes is not that the individual is primarily notable for their "scholarly research", then I suggest that the media that does not address the scholarly research be isolated for the application of WP:GNG. In particular, that means eliminating the aforementioned Journal of hydrogen energy source from consideration. Of the remaining sources you have provided, most appear to be garbage press releases or other unreliable types of media. The St. Petersburg Times seems to be the best source, but I hardly think that being the subject of a local expose is a sufficient condition for notability of a private citizen. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're making up your own rules, when in fact WP:GNG is very clear. Moveover, Santilli is an entrepreneur (in addition to being known for his engagement in research): Chairman, President and CEO of Thunder Energies Corp; Founder and Chairman of Magnegas Corp (a NASDAQ traded company [27]); and President of the Institute for Basic Research: Bloomberg profile. Moreover, none of the links I provided above are press releases or unreliable. I have no intention of prolonging this discussion, so this is my last reply to you. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Bloomberg profile is not credibly independent of the subject. And "NASDAQ" is another primary source. I am not making up my own rules. I've already said that, if we are evaluating scholarly sources, then the correct question that we must determine is whether the person has made a significant scholarly impact in their discipline. This is not something that GNG can directly answer for us. We must see what the sources say. If, as you contend, the subject is notable as an entrepreneur, then show us the sources that the subject is not more than the "typical entrepreneur" or whatever. That is, find some good WP:GNG sources that provide some indication of that person's notability. As I said, WP:GNG creates a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Notability is the question of "Is the subject notable enough for an encyclopedia article?" Typically the relevant criteria are that the person made an impact in their field that sets that person apart from others. Examples pointing to notability are winning significant awards, or being an otherwise important enduring aspect of the record. We have guidelines like WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE to help determine whether persons (especially living persons) are notable enough for an encyclopedia article. But in the end, it does come down to a question: "Do the sources we have show that the subject is notable enough to have an article written about them in an encyclopedia?" This is not a calculation that can be determined simply by counting the number of ghits. So, I ask, show me the GNG sources. It does not seem like the subject of this article is an enduring part of the historical record. Moreover, there are serious WP:NPOV issues to do with the WP:FRINGE aspects of the subject. Since this is also a WP:BLP, these considerations cannot simply be dismissed by chanting "zomg, teh sourcez". Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as Keep on Aug 10, my decision was questioned by Kingsindian and on second read I am not comfortable with my decision. J04n(talk page) 17:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources Softlavender provided as Sample sources of significant coverage in independent reliable sources:
Progress in Physics is described in our article Progress in Physics having "published papers by several authors, who, along with some of the editors, claim to have been blacklisted by the Cornell University arXiv as proponents of fringe scientific theories." That makes it part of the scientific vanity press catering to those who admit they can't even get published in Cornell's open access arXiv site for open access publication of scientific papers.
Progress in Physics is not a reliable secondary source under WP:QUESTIONABLE. It also fails under WP:FRINGELEVEL - "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.", and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journal."
Biotech Week News of Science, and Energy Weekly News are all trade publications of the NewsRx group of publications. While they do some original content, mostly they paraphrase and publish press releases from other organizations, so their content (as shown in the sample links provided, and a sample I reproduce below) is press releases from Santilli's firms. They don't meet the criterion in WP:RSCONTEXT - "...the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."
A quote from one of these journals:
  • Thunder Energies Discovers Invisible Terrestrial Entities Using Santilli Telescope
  • News of Science
  • February 7, 2016 | Copyright
  • 2016 FEB 7 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at News of Science -- Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.
  • "This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they're completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope," stated Dr..."
and that's all we get without registering to read Highbeam citations, but by the guideline in WP:RSCONTEXT this isn't a reliable secondary source, but something from a Santilli company saying they "recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses " It's not reliable reporting, it's pseudoscience. By reprinting this information and saying a "News Reporter-Staff News Editor" was responsible for the content, News of Science destroyed their reliability for our purposes under WP:FRINGELEVEL.
These articles do not establish notability. They support persistence and sophistication in self-promotion, which can never support notability according to WP:PROMOTION.
The Investtrend articles Investrend and Investrend fail for the same reasons as stated above.
The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy articles document a controversy over Santilli's claims to have developed a new sort of hydrogen-oxygen bond. They fail under WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:FRINGELEVEL.
That leaves
  • the CNN video statement, which has at least some independent analysis - enough to support notability on a superficial level, at least,
  • Santilli's mention in someone else's book, and
  • the local newspaper article on Santilli's litigiousness in local courts.
I submit that the samples which meet our guidelines aren't enough to establish Ruggero Santilli's notability. loupgarous (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have been watching this for a while, and here is where I come down. NOTABILITY is marginal at best, so it could go either way. My preference would be to keep this to debunk the FRINGE, but in the face of the consistent promotional pressure this article has been under, maintaining the article in compliance with policy is way more work than it is worth for the community. That pushes it over to delete for me. Jytdog (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frauds like this are notable and we need sites like Wikipedia to document them neutrally. Deleting this article = letting cranks win. Justanothervisitor (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article owes whatever notability he has to tireless self-promotion, and the degree to which he'll go to promote his activities and theories. That, as shown above, makes it more a matter of WP:PROMOTION. loupgarous (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Borderline, but in my opinion of the sources listed, there are enough reliable independent sources to constitute "signficant coverage", passing WP:GNG. Jujutacular (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Apart from mentions in the trade press which can be shown to echo the subject's own press releases, other primary source material by the subject or his employees, and supporting scientific articles in pay-to-publish journals with deceptive names or which fail being reliable source material under WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, there's a mention in someone else's text, a CNN video feature, and a local newspaper article on the subject's litigiousness in local courts.
The subject's own work isn't enough to add to that list without independent confirmation of notability, and his primary articles show abundant evidence of extensive self-citation and citation by others published in pay-to-publish journals with deceptive names or journals controlled by the subject himself. The overriding effect is that he gets an article here despite being notable chiefly for activity our own WP:PROMOTION guideline deprecates. loupgarous (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP:PROMOTION guideline: "An article can report objectively about [promotional subjects], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." If the subject himself is overly promotional and independent reliable sources take note in a significant way -- then we create a neutral and reliably sourced article accordingly. You and I simply disagree on whether this subject rises to that level of significance. Jujutacular (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just how many independent reliable sources cited in this article have taken note in a significant way of the degree to which the subject promotes himself in the scientific and trade literature? The trade journals simply repeat what he sends them, misleadingly stating that an "editor or reporter" is saying the subject is (for example) seeing dark matter with the subject's proprietary telescopes, while the scientific literature cited consists (apart from four monographs and a book published early in his career which aren't enough under WP:PROF to support notability) of articles he and his colleagues have published in his own privately-controlled journals operated from his city of residence or from deceptively-titled pay-to-publish journals like the American journal of Modern Physics (domiciled in Sudan), mainly remarkable for an ardent circle of mutual citers, which drive their Google Scholar h-indices up nicely. Our article inappropriately grounds the subject's claim to scientific credentials more than it 'exposes' him as an exponent of fringe theories. He's actually not very notable as a fringe scientist or as a businessman or an authentic scientist with a notable impact in his fields of expertise. He's a superb publicist. And WP:PROMOTION doesn't allow him an article on that basis. loupgarous (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the sources that have been presented do not rise to the level of notability that our guidelines demand (specifically WP:PROF and WP:FRINGE). Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Ruggero Santilli is without question notable. He is now even more notable today then he was back in 2007 - when editors here unanimously voted to keep the article, stating “Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and per Once Notable Always Notable.”

I think Omegatron had summed it up nicely:

“Strong keep - See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for some of the notability criteria that he meets. Also see [1]. As for the quality of the article, Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a science textbook. Those people repeatedly nominating articles for deletion because they're about hoaxes or pseudoscience are seriously missing the point. — Omegatron 01:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)”

As the blogger (Pepijn) who apparently became notable himself by blogging about Santilli (even earning a citation in this very article) stated on his blog– “Santilli is a well known fringe scientist”

“Well known..” = notable.

As Spacepotato commented back in 2007: “Keep—I believe he's a notable crank/fringe scientist. I have attempted to improve the article and have added some non-self-published sources. Spacepotato 01:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)”

I agree, lets improve the article rather than deleting sources and then pushing for deletion on the basis of lack of sources - which seems very disingenuous to me.

I will begin by offering this quotation from [Karl Popper] about Ruggero Santilli which does establish notability for Santilli as Popper is regarded as one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century.

“I have mentioned Santilli, and I should like to say that he--one who belongs to a new generation -- seems to me to move on a different path. Far be it from me to belittle the giants who founded quantum mechanics under the leadership of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac. Santilli too makes it very clear how greatly he appreciates the work of these men. But in his approach he distinguishes the region of the ‘arena of incontrovertible applicability’ of quantum mechanics (he calls it ‘atomic mechanics’) from nuclear mechanics and hadronics, and his most fascinating arguments in support of the view that quantum mechanics should not, without new tests, be regarded as valid in nuclear and Hadronic mechanics, seem to me to augur a return to sanity: to that realism and objectivism for which Einstein stood, and which had been abandoned by those two very great physicists, Heisenberg and Bohr.” – Karl Popper Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: From The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery ISBN-10: 0415091128. Page 14.

I am new to Wiki and just learning my way around so I will try to add this and a number of other well sourced references of Santilli’s notability on the talk page. Hopefully Loupgarous and others can then help with actually incorporating these into the article.Maester Anderson (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Maester Anderson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Morgan's match statistics[edit]

Liv Morgan's match statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD tag removed by author. Article is a list of matches by a WWE wrestler. This is clearly not what Wikipedia is for. The wrestler yes is notable, the list of matches they have had is not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Pinguinn 🐧 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a reference sheet or database. individually, every match on the list fails GNG, especially because they are all non-PPV matches. Pinguinn 🐧 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. North America1000 00:45, 30 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ishaq[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ahmad Ishaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR for a non-notable CEO of a non-notable company, none of the listed sources are both in-depth and substantial for establishing his own actual notability. Considering this was speedied before, it's better this be taken to AfD as a G4 precaution. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 23 August 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 one keep vote that presents a cogent argument (by Atlantic306) is undercut by the contention that those eight movies may well not be notable. The deletes have it. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaaz Khan (Pakistani actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arbaaz Khan (Pakistani actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was already AfD deleted. This new recreated version is somewhat different from the deleted version. Some "sources" are added, by I still think the notability is not established. I see no reliable indepndent sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep think he passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR as has had many leading or prominent roles in the 112 films he has appeared in, he also has directed 12 films. At least eight of the films can be considered as notable because they have wikipedia articles(which is the easiest way to define notable films rather than a subjective judgement.).Most of the references seem reliable including rs press coverageAtlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked those eight film articles, and none of them meet WP:NFILM in their current state. There's also nothing to suggest that Khan's roles in any of them were "significant" - all I'm seeing his Khan's name somewhere in the (user-submitted) IMDb cast list, and mentioned in "cast includes" on the source for Saya e Khuda e Zuljalal. (Sockmaster User:Nouman khan sherani has a history of giving Khan top billing when adding his name to film articles, with no sources.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was reference 4 before the webpage was taken over or moved by a different site and it shows his prominent roles in many films here Atlantic306 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same guy! That's Arbaaz Khan (Indian actor), who is notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While searching for arbaaz khan pakistani actor at Google.com.pk, the Pakistani edition of google, I found plenty of coverage in English language. It looks like he is an eminent actor of Pashto language movies. Keeping WP:WORLDVIEW in my mind, I guess, the subject passes at WP:NACTOR. Hitro talk 18:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This started life as an undisguised autobiography but enough other people have worked on it that this does not in itself condemn the article. Despite this it still has serious, I believe fatal, problems. It has a lot of content that seems to be referenced on a first glance but several of the references do not stand scrutiny. For example it is claimed "He has also directed 12 films." supported by refs 4,5 and 6. When you look at those:
  • Ref 4: mazhar.dk seems to be something like a Twitter feed or other automatically generated, non-RS stuff. (Its strapline is "An informative website" which seems to be debatable. ;-) )
  • Ref 5: IMDB only lists one director credit.
  • Ref 6: This is the Times Of India, which is a good RS source. Maybe this will redeem it? Nope. All that "reference" is is a canned query to their search engine. It sure as heck isn't a link to any specific article of theirs backing up the claim that he has directed 12 films.
None of these three references seem to support the claim made. So we have a serious lack of verifiability here! Another concern is that some of the reference material is far too similar to some of the material in the article (the worst being [28]) so there is a copyvio concern here too. But he has won a load of notable awards, right? Who knows? They sure as heck are not referenced in the article... So, I'm not feeling like giving this any benefit of the doubt. Reference the awards properly and make sure that the references are all RS and actually support the claims made then I'll reconsider. Until then WP:V seems to doom this as much as WP:N. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was reference 4 before the webpage was taken over or moved by a different website,here this page was the source for his 112 film roles many of them prominent, and his director credits here click the tab for director credits Atlantic306 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That explains that mystery. I don't think that this archived reference material is/was RS but at least it shows that it was on-topic when it was added and thus alleviates my fear that blatant junk references were added to spuriously bulk up the sourcing. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of a single secondary source to suggest that Khan meets WP:NACTOR: there's currently no suggestion that any of the films he has been appeared in or directed meet WP:NFILM (their articles all either redlinks or flagged as needing sources to confirm notability), and as an actor it's unclear what his role in any of them actually was, just that (fan site? user-submitted database?) mazhar.dk often lists him among the first six names. The awards section seems promising but I can't find any sources that confirm them - just fan copies of awards lists that appear to suggest that other actors won those awards in the years listed. --McGeddon (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1. Merging and other editorial concerns can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack[edit]

2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is completely redundant and therefore unnecessary. Most, if not all of this is essentially copy-and-pasted from the Eric Frein article, which describes this event better than this article ever could. I highly suggest a merge to the Eric Frein article. Parsley Man (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The event is notable apart from the man himself. It could use some work, but I'm not for deleting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of work? Everything's already at the Eric Frein article, and if not, we can just merge any extra info over to said article. This event's notability has honestly been foreshadowed by the manhunt for Frein itself. Parsley Man (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems that this article should be about the attack, which certainly was notable in itself, and the Eric Frein article should be about the person. They are distinct and I think both notable. If anything, I'd go with Shawn in Montreal's suggestion of a reverse merge from Frein's article to the article about the event. It seems to be mostly about the attack and its aftermath and less about him biographically. I'm fine with two articles, but if consensus is for only having one, I would much rather it be this one than the Frein article as it currently stands. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Yes, I'm also baffled by why we'd need 2 articles, one for the perpetrator and one for the attack. He's only notable for the attack, surely? Either merge or reverse merge... leaving behind a redirect so the attack (or in the case of a reverse merge, the shooter) can be retain its categorization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parsley Man, I realize you were trying to help, but for the future, it's bad form to modify someone else's !vote at an Afd as you've done to mine. Yes, you've clarified it -- but it's not really in your rights to do it. But no worries. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oh, sorry. But to be honest, I for one misconstrued your "Support" vote as a "Keep" vote before I read it in full. I was afraid your vote would be misconstrued in the same way when it's being closed, so I thought I'd make it clear to everyone that that's what you meant. Parsley Man (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. And if fact, that did once happen to me, with a support being misconstrued. Anyway, I'm with you. No need for two articles! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. good sourcing. There is specific info here also.BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind specifying that "specific info"? And I doubt that having two sources (both of which seem to be mostly local) is equal to "good sourcing". Parsley Man (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responding as well here, this attack received international coverage [29]. The event itself is notable more so than the person. He's a criminal notable for one event. The event itself is what garnered him the notoriety rather than his involvement in it making it notability. Like I said above, I think there is a case for both meeting the inclusion standard, but if anything, Eric Frein should be merged into the article about the event, not vice versa. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Daily Mail is a tabloid, and therefore, an unreliable source. Please review WP:IRS. Parsley Man (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, my point was that it received international attention, but here are sources beyond the Daily Mail. The Guardian [30] [31] [32], TIME [33], the BBC [34]. You will note that all of these sources mention that he is being covered because of the shooting. The shooting is not being covered because of him. He gets his notoriety from the fact that he killed the people, and the manhunt that followed it. That manhunt is better described in an article about the attack itself in my opinion, than an article on the man. Like I said, I am fine with having both articles up, but the manhunt is logically a part of the aftermath of the shooting, and belongs in the article about the shooting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still unacceptable. Please review WP:ONEEVENT. There is no need for two articles, and it's better off to keep Frein's article and delete this one since it's so superfluous and plagiarized. Parsley Man (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some civility would be appreciated here. I'm familiar with WP:ONEEVENT, and my reading of it is that in general the event not the perpetrator should be covered, which is the stated preference of the guideline. Yes, it does have multiple exceptions to this, but as I feel I have demonstrated above, this is a major event that received significant international coverage in major publications. As such WP:ONEEVENT does foresee the existence of two articles. You can disagree that this event falls under the part of the guideline that foresees two articles, but the existence of two articles is something that is foreseen in the guideline, and I am suggesting as a part of the AfD process that it does fall within that criteria. I think the significant international coverage makes it noteworthy enough. At the same time, if consensus does not exist for keeping two article, I am expressing my preference of a reverse merge from Eric Frein to this article, which is clearly within the stated preference of WP:ONEEVENT, and something that another editor in this thread has also suggested as a possibility. I'm also confused as to what plagiarism you are referring to. Is this a copy vio? If so, I will gladly support deleting per CSD G12. Right now, it looks like a standard article about the event that links to the article about the perpetrator, and cites it as the main article in that section. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let it be known that this article is a blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME, claiming that Frein is the perpetrator even though the trial is not even over, without a conviction being made. Parsley Man (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively easy fix that I took a first pass at just now. If there are other areas where it needs to be clarified that the crimes are alleged and that he is the suspect who was charged, please let me know and I will work on fixing it further. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call for a close. This was disruptive. Parsley Man (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Per WP:CRIME this article should survive with the other article moving into here. - GalatzTalk 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event is notable, with sufficient news coverage to establish it as such. 2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack and Eric Frein are obviously related topics, but they are distinct enough that having two articles is perfectly reasonable. Although I wouldn't object to merging the two, from an editorial point of view I think two can work better. In either case, simple deletion of 2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack isn't appropriate. Peacock (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is obviously a notable event. I don't necessarily object to a merge, but per WP:CRIME, the Frein article should be merged here if we do that, not the other way around. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 26 August 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. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of regular expression software[edit]

List of regular expression software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software usage of regexp is not discussed in reliable sources as a whole, thus the list will be nothing but non-notable original research. Antigng (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete or hard reset if someone wants to turn the topic into a proper article. I should disclose that I think 'list of' articles are a flawed concept. It's technically possible to find sources regarding RegExp support in software, but this list is poorly sourced, has critical design flaws, is open ended, and -- as encyclopaedic material -- has no particular notability or value. Compare with Comparison of regular expression engines; the latter article is heavily flawed, but at least attempts to focus on the differences between various implementations. This article is an open-ended list, prone to obsolescence and error. If there were a need to identify software by its regular expression handling capabilities, categorization of notable software would engage domain expertise and prevent the list from becoming stale. 0x69494411 21:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When I first noticed this nomination I figured "regular expression software" must be a type of program for, say, assisting with regular expressions. But it looks to be a list of software that supports regular expressions. That seems indiscriminate, and we would need to see some reliable sources which treat them as a group to establish WP:LISTN. I'm not seeing that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Command line utilities, programming languages, and word processors have little in common with each other, and unifying them in a list by a single shared feature seems really odd (and at odds with WP:LISTN). Unless reliable sources have grouped these disparate programs together, we shouldn't, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- indiscriminate list and OR. The subject lack notability as demonstrated by RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 27 August 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. There is a clear consensus that being an Olympic referee multiple times indicates notability. (non-admin closure) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Oļegs Latiševs[edit]

Oļegs Latiševs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referees are not notable by default and not covered by WP:SPORTBIO (which if one looks in the archive specifically discussed and decided not to include referees). They have to meet WP:BIO, and I do not see how this one does it. He has no sport career, did not win any awards, nor attracted any in-depth coverage. He is just a referee doing his job, nothing to make him encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep an Olympic referee "doing his job" twice in a row (2012, 2016) is of comparable notability to an Olympic sportsman, just doing his job too. The name is linked from quite a few wikipedia articles, and surely the info about this person is of interest to readers. And IMO 98% of sportsmen in wikipedia don't have "in-depth" coverage, just played here and there, scored so many goals, etc., mostly sourced to sports stats websites. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Twice selected as a referee for the FIBA Basketball World Cup, twice selected as a referee for the Olympics, and a leading figure in his home country's basketball scene. You can't get much higher than that; it might be a stretch to say that getting picked for a major international competition meets the ANYBIO standard of "a well-known and significant award or honor", but getting picked four times for major international competitions is definitely a well-known and significant honor. Yes, he's just doing his job, but leading figures in the sport have assigned his job to include some of the top positions that can be held by basketball referees. We consider it possible for someone to be notable because of his work as a basketball referee because of coverage for what he's done as a basketball referee (i.e. we're not excluding basketball referees by policy), as opposed to an already-notable person who got into basketball refereeing later, so why would we exclude one of the world's top referees? Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus so much for your point of view! I hope this discussion will help to improve WP:SPORTBIO. Also for the reason that now there are many pages dedicated exactly to basketball referees in the space of Wikipedia. Here are just a few examples:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Lamonica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Donaghy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Holtkamp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Pascual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Crawford You can also find the current List of National Basketball Association_referees in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, such list does not exist for referees FIBA Europe and Euroleague. But I think it's a matter of time. It because this information is of interest to readers and fans of basketball. Note that the pages devoted to basketball / Olympic Games and other major tournaments, mandatory have the list of referees and countries they represent. See examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_referees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics In addition, Oleg Latyshev mentioned in more than 100 Wikipedia article. And it is advisable that readers have information about this official. Plus, there are more than 20 introduce links to the page Olegs Latisevs from related articles that I made by myself, with the idea that Wikipedia content would be more correlated, as required by policy Wikipedia. And my last argument for why the article must be saved, it is a really high importance of this person in the modern national history. In particular, Latyshev is the first Basketball referee in the history of independent Latvia invited to FIBA Basketball World Cup (Turkey), 2010. Is the first Basketball referee in the history of independent Latvia invited to the Olympic Games (London), 2012. The only Basketball referee from the Northern Europe invited to FIBA Basketball World Cup (Spain) (in total, 38 referees from 28 states from five FIBA continental zones took part in this FIBA Basketball World Cup), 2014. And the only Basketball referee from the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania) invited to the Olympic Games 2016 (Rio de Janeiro). Amatour82 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Chilla[edit]

Gorilla Chilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Open and shut case of non-significant small scale musician. Nothing of note. Album failed to make a ripple. DJ career is regional and niche. Only one associated act has an article, and even their notability is questionable. Poor references - nothing significant in reliable sources. All round failing of WP:Music and WP:GNG

Album also being nominated here
Rayman60 (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:10, 23 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music in My Blood[edit]

Music in My Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:Music spectacularly

Artist also fails Music and GNG - see nomination here.

Rayman60 (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Lack of sources covering the subject in significant detail. Little more than a sentence and a track listing. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 23 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Weiss (Streamcast)[edit]

Michael Weiss (Streamcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently promotional BLP without sources - there's literally one RS mentioning Weiss himself with no bio details. No evidence or claim of notability as an individual. Been this way since creation in 2009 by Mbweiss. We can't keep a BLP in this state. I would have just PRODed it, but it already had a BLPPROD. David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree that in it's present condition it is promotional, but since Streamcast is in the article title along with his name, that's what I searched for. The results indicate that Streamcast is notable, but we already have an article about StreamCast Networks and an article for Morpheus (software) as well, so maybe a redirect would be the better choice, instead of deletion. Sources found: USA Today, Los Angeles Times, , Tech Dirt, Tech News World, Variety and Billboard made this observation - In what may be remembered historically as the most significant copyright case for the entertainment industry, the Supreme Court sided 9-0 in favor of copyright holders, and against peer-to-peer software providers StreamCast and Grokster.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirecting to Streamcast is the obvious thing to do here, though this title really gets very few hits - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then Redirect only if needed as there are by all means nothing actually emphasizing how he's independently convincing and notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a largely unsourced BLP, which is overly promotional. Sources are insufficient to meet individual GNG, outside of the two companies. I would not support a redirect to StreamCast Networks as I'm not sure if the company is notable either. Morpheus may be notable, but I would not consider a redirect as needed or advisable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Streamcast was pretty notable and well-covered back in the day, more so than you'd think from the article; it'd be a reasonable target, except as I note above this present title gets almost no hits - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set it on fire and then redirect or not redirect is totally fine by me :-D - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 29 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Nell[edit]

Colin Nell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It initially seems like this is a well referenced article about a prominent person, but actually I struggled to find anything significant that conveys notability. He is Mo Farah's brother in law, and has a few press mentions through this. He is also a freestyle footballer and the only publications of note that mention him have his name and not much more by virtue of his work doing football freestyle stuff at schools as part of a national rail safety campaign. Rayman60 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Referencey, but they're all tangential at best - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Sources used to establish notability under WP:GNG need to be independent, reliable, and in-depth; of the current sources, almost all are passing mentions (a sentence or two of barebones biography in the context of Mo Farah or the train safety program) or publicist bios from his own or his agents' websites. The closest to a satisfactory source is a three-paragraph bio in emel (magazine), which is pretty good for establishing notability but not very detailed or specific, and anyway GNG requires multiple such sources. Google finds no better ones.
The only question, for me, is whether "stunt double" or "unnamed freestyle football performer" counts as a "significant role" in a movie or music video. If it does, he passes WP:ENT #1; I feel it doesn't, but am open to being convinced otherwise. FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:05, 24 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance Records[edit]

Provenance Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record company lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I frankly consider this speedy material, both PR-hinting and also contains nothing for independent substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a non notable record label: no indications of notability nor sufficient coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON - their artists get decent coverage, but I can't find anything substantial on the label itself as yet - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 25 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D+H[edit]

D+H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite being around for many years, this article is lacking in evidence of notability. Two of the refs show that it exists, two are obituaries for one of its founders and the remaining two are simply business reports of take-over deals which make no other comment that would support notability. This appears to be a company that likes to stay under the radar, but that is of little help in establishing notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davis + Hendersen was the defacto cheque printer in Canada. Much like John H. Harland Company (Now Harland Clarke) in the states. I've updated the outdated Davis + Hendersen (they are now go by "D+H" not Davis + Hendersen) content to reflect the most recent information. I don't understand the comment the evidence of notability? Is this a Wikipedia term to identify that the page is not worthy? - PikaTimPedia

The key criterion for retaining pages on Wikipedia is that they are notable. Notability in general is defined here and has a special and specific meaning in Wikipedia. Please read the guidance which should help explain what is needed to demonstrate notability. In essence , it requires robust, independent sources discussing the company which are not derived from press releases and which are not simply passing mentions as are the current refs. Hope that this helps.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely PR and nothing at all consisting of substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- for a long-standing company it's indeed surprising that no in-depth sources are available. But, per available sources, the subject does not meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 28 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon Language Wiki[edit]

Klingon Language Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A cult website. I'm not sure if it's possible to write a standalone article about it. Possibly it could be included as an external link to the language's article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no significant coverage about this web site in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (Okay, i'm the one who wrote it.) There is already a link to the wiki at Klingon language. I believe it is significant, because it is the only wiki of this kind, and it is also the largest available source about the Klingon language, available in four languages. It collects all the detailed information which is not sigificant enough for Wikipedia. -- Lieven (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources covering this topic. -- Dane2007 talk 18:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable found about this subject. Cotton2 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Power Index[edit]

World Power Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Promotional personal essay supported by originator own research. WPI lacks independent coverage and independent citations. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious: how do you know the article creator is Daniel Morales Ruvalcaba? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hello, certainly the WPI is my creation," [35]. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there you go! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 22 August 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 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ready4S[edit]

Ready4S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can see nothing here that represents any kind of notability. Some of the refs are own web-site (which my malware protection warns me against visiting!) and the rest are trivial. Appears to be just a front for an advertisment for their apps. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable here and relies on subjects own website too heavily (primary sourced). -- Dane2007 talk 18:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I cannot find sufficient sources to satisfy CORPDEPTH and GNG. The article is entirely promotional, so WP:Promo applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I quite frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence it is more than "two kids and an app" of which there far too many. There could be more coverage of the tech world in countries like eastern Europe, but this is not it. W Nowicki (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 29 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toople.com[edit]

Toople.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only coverage I can find seems to be PR Newswire. -- Dane2007 talk 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per nom. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I frankly consider this A7 material, nothing at all contains substance for establishing anything notable-insinuating. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- all sources are PR; this business lacks notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 25 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Primiani[edit]

Joseph Primiani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Primiani lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current independent coverage says very little about him or doesn't even mention him. Claimed awards are not awards and are not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO / WP:WEBHOST. A vanity page for a non notable businessperson. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are some remarkable claims. I was almost disappointed when the references section was notably short on RSes. Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being entirely PR for an occupation and business that comes with PR. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 29 August 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 to delete. Please don't confuse a listing on Bloomberg with an article or entry written by a journalist and vetted and oversighted by an editorial board. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semil Shah[edit]

Semil Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Promotional piece bombarded with primary sources. Of the few sources that are not primary or blogs none provide any depth of coverage about him, with some not even mentioning him. Shah lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Blatant promotion from an undisclosed shill using a sockpuppet. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the terrible sourcing. Even if he were notable, this would be near-TNT material; if it survives, it'll be as a stub - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only PR with PR sources for someone who essentially swims in the PR environment, nothing comes close to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. Coverage is all trivial or PR like. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Coverage by Bloomberg marks this individual as legitimate.  Not seeing a problem here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The Bloomberg mention is a catalog entry, insufficient to sustain an encyclopedia entry. It merely confirms that the subject exists and has a role identified in the article, but does not help to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My experience is that coverage on Bloomberg is a good indicator of Wikipedia notability.  Saying that it doesn't help to meet GNG is an incompetent opinion, see WP:CIR.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not constitute an RS for a BLP, and we can't do without good RSes to base the actual article content on. If someone was prima facie notable, as you're asserting, but we didn't have the RSes - we couldn't have an article on them. So K.e. coffman's observation is apposite, and CIR in BLP - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 29 August 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 Already gone.. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nerkunram[edit]

Nerkunram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already page Nerkundram is active. might be it is duplicate Afser Ali (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nerkundram to Nerkunram; apparently the proper spelling; it appears to be a duplicate, but deletion will leave the interlanguage wikilinks all messed up. A merge will place them all together. By the way, the 2011 census shows a village named Nerkundram (with the "d"), as village code 628740, in Ponneri subdistrict, Thiruvallur district, Tamil Nadu state, with a population of 714 (not 35,000 as in the article). In the way back machine (cited as the source for the population), there is a town spelled without the "d" showing the cited population figure, which also appears in the 2011 census, at location code 629173 as a census town, with a population of nearly 60,000. see [36] (p.29/376). So there seems to be both a village with a "d" and census town without one; both articles describe a census town, at the same location with the same population figure; both are describing the same place - the one without the "d". Merge to the article without the "d", as the proper English name (as recognized by the Indian government), so as to preserve the interlanguage wikilinks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I have no opinion on the proper spelling, all we'd have to do to preserve the interlanguage links if we merged to the name with the "d" is change the spelling on Wikidata. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:50, 23 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemonade War[edit]

The Lemonade War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AFD. Was PRODed with "Non notable book, lacking WP:RS" and I was about to delete it, then noticed it had been deleted at PROD before. Audacity undeleted it with the reason "undelete PROD deletion since article meets WP:NBOOKS - a Google search shows this book is widely taught" - but the article hasn't been improved in the intervening years with said claimed references. David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Article was speedy deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Ganern[edit]

Pak Ganern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Wholly unreferenced. It would have been a candidate for speedy deletion had there been an appropriate category. Fails WP:GNG. Searches only show YouTube clips etc.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rushmoor derby[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rushmoor derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was recently listed for deletion as part of a group of articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A62 derby. Though it was closed as no consensus, I'm relisting this article as there were no particular claims made for its notability in that debate, which got swamped by the discussion of other articles.

There is little to no evidence that this rivalry exists. The page, which is unsourced, mentions only one match, from the Hampshire Senior Cup, a low priority competition typically contested by the reserve teams of professional clubs and local semi-professional teams. A search via the fchd finds just four seasons in which the clubs were in the same league, of which two were in the regional, semi-professional Isthmian League and two in the mixed pro/semi-pro National League, both of which are well down the English football system. One of the clubs, Farnborough, have never competed as a professional team.

Beyond this lack of evidence of the rivalry existing, there is none of its notability. The general notability guidelines require independent sources, but none are offered on the page and none seem to exist; there is little evidence that the phrase has cachet beyond this Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's rivalry notability states that "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline, " and this page falls well short of that. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not notable per WP:RIVALRY. No indication of GNG, simply because teams are geographically close does not mean there is an inherent rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG, no evidence that this is a significant rivalry Spiderone 07:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same reasoning as the others. WaggersTALK 13:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close: Article has been speedily deleted as WP:G11 by Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataPortability[edit]

DataPortability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination: I've just declined a proposed deletion request on the grounds that a very old nomination was declined a decade ago thus making this immune from WP:PROD. This article is at best very, very outdated to the point of uselessness, and at worst outright spam.  ‑ Iridescent 08:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I'm only finding trivial mentions. This group does not appear to have made enough impact to gain sufficient coverage to meet GNG and NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 24 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aldershot Town F.C.–Woking F.C. rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aldershot Town F.C.–Woking F.C. rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was recently listed for deletion as part of a group of articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A62 derby. Though it was closed as no consensus, I'm relisting this article as there were no particular claims made for its notability in that debate, which got swamped by the discussion of other articles. Both sides compete in the fifth tier National League in England and one of them (Woking) have never competed in professional football. There are no sources that this rivalry is notable; there is no evidence of independent reporting on it, certainly beyond general news coverage that follows most football matches. The teams do consider each other rivals, but that is not the point of contestation here; the point is that this rivalry has no evidence of notability under general notability guidelines, and that sports notability states that "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline." Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough evidence to show that this rivalry is notable, so fails WP:GNG. Only one of the sources even calls this a derby, and then its just in passing in a quote from one of the managers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY, simply playing a few times is insufficient, the article needs to show wider GNG where the notion of the rivalry is discussed (e.g. Old Firm), not simply an aggregation of a number of match reports. No indication this would ever be anything other than a stat dump. Fenix down (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing more than stats Spiderone 10:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG. WaggersTALK 13:35, 26 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S-Bus[edit]

S-Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article claims that S-BUS is "targeting to become the Asian and African Standard protocol " for intelligent buildings. The text of the page was recently edited to change the name to "BusPro" without changing the page title. I suspect that this is an attempt at commercial promotion, but in any case, I'm not seeing any evidence that this has, in fact become a standard, or even exists, under either name other than on the HDL Automation website that promotes it. I suggest that the page is returned to its original function as a redirect to SBus (which is a different thing). SpinningSpark 00:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum  AfD is for discussion about worthless articles, not content disputes like this one that belong on the talk page of the article, in RFC on the talk page of the article, or in the yet-to-be-implemented central forum for merge/redirect discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Unscintillating: I think you have misunderstood, my deletion rationale is that the subject is non-notable. That is very much an issue for this forum. The change of name is a side-issue, but the promotional inspiration for doing this makes the article even less desirable. SpinningSpark 16:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But your deletion argument appears to me to seek to coerce the content to be the content of your choice.  That is a content dispute.  If you are correct that your preferred content is notable and the content to which you object is not, you can achieve your desired result without AfD.  What is your objection to moving forward with the central discussion forum for merge/redirect?  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really are missing the point. The SBus article is completely unrelated to the subject of the article I am nominating for deletion. A merge is utterly inappropriate, as explained by NapoliRoma below. The similarity in name is merely a disambiguation issue. Yes, I could have unilaterally simply turned the page into a redirect, but I did not consider that to be appropriate as it would be deletion by the back door. To be clear, I propose delete and redirect rather than a simple edit to the page. S-Bus is a non-notable network protocol, whereas SBus is a well-established computer bus standard. SpinningSpark 18:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, since "delete and redirect" is an argument for deletion, I'll strike my !vote.  Have you considered other possible merge targets?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't have a merge suggestion, and I wouldn't be in favour of merging uncited promotional material in any case. SpinningSpark 22:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "its original function as a redirect to SBus" is not strictly correct.
The origin of the article was an editor adding material about the S-Bus protocol to the existing (and unrelated) article SBus and at the same time creating S-Bus as a redirect to SBus.
I fixed that by moving the content to S-Bus, making it into a standalone article as should have been done in the first place.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleted this should redirect to SBus, since it is found as an alternate spelling of that topic also. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could not find reliable secondary sources that say "Buspro" is WP:N. A search for the alleged "Patent No: 201110123081.0" (something that looks more in the manner of a design patent or a patent application), turns up some documents about "Smart Bus" (Generation-4 SBUS) including an extensive protocol specification. Also links to a domain http://smarthomebus.com, "The Home of Smart-Bus". A google search for "Buspro" turns up other products such as a battery charger of the same name but unrelated? Searching for "Smart Bus" leads me to http://www.smartbus.org, which is a website about Michigan public tranportation rather than a website promoting the protocol. From a technical standpoint, the article is uninteresting (e.g., 9600 baud). The technology is old (e.g., RS-485), and its design goals are suspect (e.g., no terminations). The claim of "64000 Devices in one single Net" seems fantastic for RS-485 hardware (yes, the protocol may support 16-bit addressing, but that does not mean you can connect that many devices). Also, who wants 16,000,000 devices communicating at 9600 baud? The article wants notability by association, but that association is just name dropping: "Many Other Manufacturers and Giant Technologies where [sic] the source of inspiration"; "Industry Giants that we have learned from...." The article is WP:FUTURE: "with clear targets to become the world’s new standard of automation Industry". One of those targets is "6. To create a consortium of many manufacturers that can create solutions as PnP". In other words, other manufacturers have not come on board yet. The hoped-for products list is a wish list rather than an accomplishment (and the goal seems to say "Buspro" over and over). "Buspro Enabled Dimmers" seems to be the wrong technology: compare X10 (industry standard) powerline communication. The article does not provide sources. My take is that Buspro currently fails WP:N, so the article is inappropriate right now. In addition, I believe Buspro fails WP:DUE, so a merge is inappropriate. The article sounds in advertising for a single company's product line. Glrx (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:14, 22 August 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 23:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Case[edit]

Charles A. Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

declined prod. as per WP:NOTINHERITED. simply being a friend of someone notable doesn't make you notable. all I could find is 3 small mentions from gbooks but not enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As per nom, this seems unlikely to be a candidate for an encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since being Ike's friend is not grounds for having an article. Fails GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem here is we lack any secondary sources that consider him notable. The Eisenhower papers are in this case a primary source. If we had biographies of Eisenhower that made mentions of Case, we might well have a case that he was notable, but the papers themselves can not win the case for Case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I nearly speedied as A7 myself, nothing at all substantial. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no claim of notability and WP:A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice piece of Kansas history and local color, but doesn't meet standard for inclusion in this encyclopeidia. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 29 August 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 23:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Tan (entrepreneur)[edit]

Leonard Tan (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Rather self-promoting without significant coverage by independent secondary sources. justexamples 06:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation Since when did Singapore become a part of China? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this suggests he may be notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speaking as a local, I agree with the nominator here. I went back to look at the SG Newspaper archives and I'm not convinced that the individual is notable. Firstly, this is a BIO1E - the subject seems to known solely for starting PurpleClick Media - company in Singapore. The references are not convincing and many of them are passing mentions or primary sources or plain not reliable. For example, the NUS Biz alum page tends to solicit suggestions for alumni - and it is pretty easy to get an article up there. The SBR periodically publishes these "10 hottest..." lists and it thrives on suggestions by local companies (I'm also not comfortable using SBR as an independent source due to their close links with companies in Singapore). That leaves the Singaporean/Malaysian media. As far as I could search, I didn't find any mentions in Malaysian media which generally tend to cover notable Singaporean personalities. In Singaporean media, I see that essentially we only have 2 distinct articles in the Straits Times (and their reprints in AsiaOne which makes it appear 4, but it isn't). 2 articles in the same newspaper is pretty weak for someone who claims to be notable. I'm also concerned that this article is essentially being used for promotion by the company. Overall, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With The Straits Times' article since 12 February 2011, it appears that after 5 years there isn't sustained attention WP:SUSTAINED, where "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.". The context with which he was featured in Straits times as a "Serial Entrepreneur" also lacks notability as a subject/topic itself, let alone being only featured in one credible source. Many other serial entrepreneurs would be in the same boat and could be begging for articles. Falsepredictions (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PROMO; this is strictly a vanity page. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A cursory search only gives coverage of someone else with a same name. --Antigng (talk) 05:49, 28 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FXstreet[edit]

FXstreet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not covered independently in reliable sources - fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND - but plenty of coverage in press releases WP:PROMO. Not a notable organization. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I've found brief mentions here: The Sensible Guide to Forex and FT Guide to Foreign Exchange Trading. These are RS but the mentions are rather trivial, not rising to the level of COPRDEPTH. Another consideration is the article's promotional tone, with red links for the founders (to be developed later, I assume). Thus I vote "delete" as there's potential of COI editing and promotional intents. A substantially similar article was speedy deleted / userfied in 2011: link, so that confirms it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as everything has shown there being nothing close to the needed substance for both a non-PR and then also a substance article, both are enough for delete alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 28 August 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 23:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman Zia-e-Taiba[edit]

Anjuman Zia-e-Taiba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails in a number of ways, first and foremost being WP:GNG, since there don't seem to be any sources on the organization which aren't connected to it. In addition, there's the wider issue of South Asian religious figures and organizations of little or no notability whose followers constantly create poorly written articles. There also seems to be a major WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:VER issue, as articles of this nature are almost always written in order to exploit Wikipedia as a means to generate buzz. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No hits at all on GNews and GBooks, so in that sense, it fails GNG. The page creator also has an obvious conflict of interest, considering the name and the continuous attempts at adding links to the organisation's website in the form of references (which often do not support the text being referenced; the cited sources are highly hagiographic in tone and contain few actual facts). --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Localization[edit]

Jensen Localization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was referenced by own website, blog, etc. I removed these references and inserted CNs and a warning. These were removed but the new references are not independent of the subject either. Moving to delete. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a company. They translate stuff. Nothing particularly notable.--Savonneux (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- entirely promotional. No indications of notability nor sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely PR, none of this actually contains information for a convincing article; thus with nothing even genuinely convincing, there's nothing to accept. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to DeleteThe article is meant to present the historical side of the company and how this company was Pioneer in this area. Please, allow me time to rework it and provide me with the guide on what I am doing wrong, other localization companies are in Wikipedia and not deleted as Lionbridge, could you explain me why is that? I have added new info and new ref. This company made a real impact in society and is a good example of comunity integration of a foreign company in Spain, as most foreigners in Andalusia they just go to party&destroy and that is what makes the difference these people care about the community, please give the article a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NicolasMartinFontana, in the article and here you make superfluous and incorrect claims. For those who care to look at the article's history, I found a repetitive all PR article, cut it back to the factual minimum, requested quality refs, and received close to nothing. You grew the article back again and both there and here add more sob stories about this wonderful company, while implying that there is something wrong with most other foreigners in the same region. That is libel. To make things worse, both on my talk page and the article's talk page you lie that you have POVd the article, while you actually ruined the POVing by others (notably me). gidonb (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you claim that the article should stay because Lionbridge has an article. This is an "other stuff exists" argument that does not hold water in AfD discussions. We disregard these claims because it is possible that the other article should not be there and then we do not allow to use it to justify the existence of more excessive articles in our encyclopedia. Lionbridge, however, is not an excessive article. It has a revenue of over half a billion dollar. The article is verified with high quality sources and also contains a list of controversies. It is a balanced article on an important company. Jensen Localization is neither balanced nor on an important company. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lionbridge is a WP:LISTED company, for starters, that has 6000 employees. The article under discussion says that the company has "circa 11-50" employees, which is rather small and indicates a non-notable (yet) business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb thank you for the detailed explanation and sorry if I offend you or anyone with what I wrote. What do you mean by POVing the article? I won't add more sobbing stories, and I will only refer to the facts (I will start deleting what was added recently). My apologies as I told you is my first article creation, before I was only translating them. K.e.coffman I forgot to add the 400 freelancers to that amount. (I know it is still small). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC) gidonb and K.e.coffman I have updated the article, I hope that now matches the Point of View (POV) required, if it does I won't mess with the article more. I also added more info and reference about the amount of employees and freelancers. Regards to you both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NicolasMartinFontana, don't let me scare you. Of course I'll push back if you claim to have done work that I did or if your claims do not prove the significance of the company. For example now you say that your company works with a lot of freelancers. That does not say much as you can provide a little work to many subcontactors or a lot of work to fewer. What matters is if important publications wrote extensively about your company. The article can always be fixed! gidonb (talk) 20:26, 29 August 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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Boloukat[edit]

Leila Boloukat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IMDB sources are not WP:RS. Fails WP:NACTOR. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please take some time to read WP:NEXIST. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep famous Iranian actress with an infinity of sources to choose from... Just type "لیلا بلوکات" in your favorite search engine. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination You could have simply made your comment instead of taunting "Your favorite search engine". The English name had no news about this actress. --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Reeve[edit]

Stephanie Reeve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unsourced BLP, appeared in a bit part in one series of Are You Being Served? and that was the biggest role of her acting career, which is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. MSJapan (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Actress does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Strong delete. Not only does this article not meet the specific requirements of notability WP:NACTOR - it's not even be an interesting read. 80.193.74.158 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDb alone is not sufficient sourcing. Nothing here suggests she passes the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 28 August 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Zan[edit]

Tomasz Zan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: fails notability. Quis separabit? 01:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have the Polish language ability to make this serve as an inline reference, but see the biographical content on pages 19-21 of this book. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The links to the subject in the en.Wikipedia articles on Polish literature and Romanticism, as well as his inclusion in this emblematic image are suggestive of notability. That said, the article was clearly deficient in sourcing, so I have added several references. There was also a Polish radio broadcast on the subject last year [43]. All in all, I think there is sufficient for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable per the sources found by AllyD (I do understand Polish and can confirm that they are as good as they look) and the many others found by the book and scholar searches linked by the nomination process. I'm curious to know the reasoning behing the claims by the nominator and the other delete supporter that Zan is not notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets notability requirements. The Polish version of this page also provides a wealth of information for expanding this article. There's many search results from reliable sources on Polish pages as well, such as this one. Recommend that someone who understands Polish expands this article. ArchieOof (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that some English-language sources anglicise the first name:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).
86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
nice catch ArchieOof (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (preferently speedy). While not really a major writer, he is known to any highschool student in Poland (mostly as a friend of Mickiewicz), has at least a few paragraphs (or pages) dedicated to him in any history of the Polish literature, an article about him in any encyclopedia, etc., etc. Definitely a well-known figure. Laforgue (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references cited in the article alone include a mention in a general history of Poland, significant coverage in a history of Polish poetry, and an entry in another encyclopaedia. Google turns up many, many more. There are lengthy articles on Zan in 11 other Wikipedias, one of which is featured, showing there's ample room for expansion. Seriously, why did you nominate this? Joe Roe (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Russians seem to have considered his activities as a Polish Nationalist significant enough to exile him. The problem with the article is that it is little more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 28 August 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. After being open for 23 days this AfD has only summoned one !vote to delete so there doesn't appear to be a burning desire on the part of the community to delete the article in question. @BlueWind13: has scared up a number of sources and appears to be eager to improve the article. A Traintalk 09:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gitin[edit]

David Gitin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be mostly copyvios, (See [Copyvio report]) AntiCompositeNumber (on vacation) (Leave a message) 01:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If he was notable, the copyvios could be cleaned up. A search for sources shows that he is a minor, non-notable poet. I will happily change my recommendation if significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is discovered. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put together the page, and yes, I did use other source material which was all referenced to the source. If that is a violation of copyright - I can easily rewrite the information. David Gitin is not a minor, non-notable poet. How do you make a determination like that? Who are you to put yourself in that position to make such a statement? This seems to me to go against the whole principal of Wikipedia - for one person to determine what history should be and who should be valued - particularly in the arts. As you can see from the publications list he had many books published, by multiple publishers. He is widely respected in the poetry world. See this interview with Michael McClure in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-shivani/exclusive-beat-poet-mcclure_b_823425.html "McClure: In spite of the smothering effort by many in the academy and by the ignorant, poetry is alive. It is often hard to find, because it is dodging the samsaric breakers and one-dimensional undertow, or it is in plain hearing in the art of Bob Dylan, or kept a little out of the way from readers in the dimness of misinformation about poetry. There is no finer poet than Diane di Prima who, like Joanne Kyger, does not broadcast or flaunt her rich creation. Amiri Baraka seems to be in the midst of a personal renaissance of commitment and clarity. Jerome Rothenberg continues bringing me news of poetry that I never imagined. Clayton Eshleman is exploring the Paleolithic galleries of his person. Philip Lamantia’s almost lost poetry will be published soon, in a Collected Poems by a major university press. Poets of modesty, brevity, and intense genius like David Gitin can be found in small press editions. Online sites contain shimmering ongoing streams of poetry by younger people who do not press for public recognition—they have to be sought out."

An article about David Gitin which may explain his lack of notoriety: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/after-a-long-hiatus-local-poet-david-gitin-publishes-a/article_be620444-0da2-5cc7-a40e-5fa61ff6c155.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueWind13 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC) BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlueWind13. When you point out that Michael McClure devoted a single sentence to Gitin, that is not a good argument for notability, since we require significant coverage and one sentence does not meet that threshold. A source that, as you describe, explains his "lack of notoriety" is also not a positive contribution to the debate, since our job here is to delete articles about topics that lack notability. When you ask "Who are you to put yourself in that position to make such a statement?", my response is that I am an editor with lots of experience at Articles for Deletion. An editor who has written the biographies of many notable artists and photographers, and saved many others from deletion. An editor who is always willing to switch to "Keep" when solid evidence of notability is presented. So, please bring forth better evidence. Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


David Gitin's papers are in the archives at: Stanford: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/ft7v19n8w4/entire_text/ Worcester Polytechnic: https://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Library/MS34_David_and_Maria_Gitin_Collection.pdf Cornell: http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/RMM04679.html UC San Diego: http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/findingaids/mss0075.html Northwestern University: http://findingaids.library.northwestern.edu/catalog/inu-ead-spec-archon-112 BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328- I could give you many more quotes from Michael McClure. I pointed out that one sentence because it was recent and because it was available online at Huffington Post. If you want more sentences, I can provide them. But that seems besides the point. You can also read quotes from 'notable' authors about his work on the back of David Gitin's books. (Or both - blurbs on the back and Michael McClure: Michael McClure's blurb on a back cover: "Gitin is a master of subtle rhythms that ear and eye blend on the field of the senses. Meadowlarks and irises move in spirit-dances and ellipses through Legwork. Objectivist poets and Issa might converse in this world." [1]And quotes from 'notable' writers & artists in the Gitin correspondences in the archives. And quotes on blogs. But none of those are the kinds of sources which Wikipedia seems inclined towards. David Gitin is what is known as a "poet's poet" and did not achieve huge commercial success, although he had a number of books published by reputable smaller publishers like Ithaca House- and in the days when authors did not have to pay publishers to publish their books. Commercial success, or widespread fame, in the poetry world is not a measure of the value of one's work or worthiness. So, please, tell me more about yourself and your qualifications to moderate who is, and who is not, notable in the poetry world? Just because you've edited many Wikipedia pages does not make you an expert. Do you have an advanced degree in literature? How cognizant are you of the modern poetry world? Have you read much modern poetry? Have you, for instance, at the very least, taken the Coursera MOOC ModPo? (If not, and you have an interest in modern poetry, I highly recommend it!) I have been involved with the poetry world since 1973 when I worked at as an assistant poetry editor at The Antioch Review, and then at The Poetry Center at San Francisco State College. And, yes, as I mentioned to Marchjuly I am connected to Blue Wind Press which was one of David Gitin's publishers - as well as publishing three books by William S Burroughs, and poetry collections of Ted Berrigan, Anselm Hollo, Merrill Gilfillan, Michael Lally, Lorenzo Thomas, and Jack Marshall among others - and all of whom already have Wikipedia bio pages. Here is Ron Silliman's post on first meeting & publishing David Gitin "...Gitin as always is at once the most precise writer imaginable & a very restless imagination, a great combination. These poems push-pull on the reader in ways that are as unpredictable as writing as they are as real-world experiences...."[2] David Gitin was also friends with some of the great poets of the day, particularly the Objectivist poets and his letters, as you can see from the references, have been archived in major library collections. I can't imagine it would not be useful to a scholar to know more about the person whom the author one was studying was writing either to or from. 

BlueWind13 (talk)

References

  1. ^ From the backcover of Legwork published by Oyez https://library.usu.edu/specol/art_book/index2.php?startrow=3688
  2. ^ http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/2005/02/blog-post_16.html
  • Article is pretty bad, and yes, appears to be very notable--yet I cannot bring myself to vote delete. Poets have it hard already. This one has almost a dozen collections published, his papers are being held in two places--I'm going to go with weak keep. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies if you think the article is 'pretty bad' I have no objections to you improving it. Isn't that the whole concept of a crowdsourced database? If someone is 'very notable' what would be the justification to not include them in Wikipedia? Wouldn't it make more sense to improve the article instead? As for poets having it 'pretty bad' I'm in complete agreement - and it's one of the reasons it's been difficult to find online resources to link to, or to provide more information. Poets get little public coverage - which is why Wikipedia can provide a true resource. How would you suggest I, or others, go about improving the article?

BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marquee Music Group[edit]

Marquee Music Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much evidence of notability that I can find. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this actually amounts to the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:CORP. Lots of primary sources and blogs – references (1), (3) and (4) don't even mention Marquee Music at all. MTV and Billboard are reliable sources, of course, but the MTV bio is a straight licensed copy of the bio on Marquee Music's own web page, and the Billboard and Reverbnation sites tell you nothing about the label. No evidence of notability found, either for the label or for its acts. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: one of the article's contributors has posted a reasoning for keeping the article on its talk page, but I directed them here to make their case. Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE: The article appears to be about a band or musician, but DOES credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia.This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...(the page is including the most credible and popular industry standard verifiable links from MTV, Billboard Charts, ASCAP Performing Rights Organization, Slacker Radio, Beatport and Vevo which provide contributions to the music industry from this label and if you were to take it down on that merit, one can make the case to take down hundreds of other Wikipedia record label pages with less credible links than the this that have been up for years. There are nearly 7 more new credible links, including Slacker Radio Top 40 Countdown.

In addition, any quick google will show label is on the biggest music sites around the world such as Apple Music, iTunes, Spotify, etc. The artist on this label are popular and all over the internet with popular songs and huge social media presence with numerous interviews in biggest blogs mentioning record label as well as being featured on homepage of Vevo. Links also provide contributions to label working with Michael Jackson's Sound Engineer. The article is not biased and produces plenty of Wikipedia approved links to remain.

Lastly, Marquee Music Group logo has been on Wikimedia for months without any problems making the case even stronger for this article to stay. Per section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia speedy deletion states, "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation" this was the case here too as the page was flagged before more important updates were added by author.

Again per section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia speedy deletion states "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." I believe above case and point that the article should stay and be worked on by the community to make better page so that more people can readily find information about this label and its artist.) --Osrius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osrius (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands - sources tangential, nothing about the label itself, no claims of notability even for its artists - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no indications of notability nor could I find sufficient RS to meet GNG or CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a quick check on the news tab of search results show nothing — not about the label or its association with any acts on the label. Not to mention that none of the acts are notable enough themselves. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 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. North America1000 22:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still nothing actually substantial as this was even only started his year, no substance at all. Notifying Velella. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As I noted at the first AfD - "An article about a company that has been around for 6 months but for which there are no references showing any notability. Searches yield very little which is perhaps not surprising when it was only constituted in 2015. Almost certainly too soon for a Wikipedia article."  Velella  Velella Talk   08:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a private company. This is a government body, Municipality. The population of Kolkata is greater than North European countries as Sweden and Finland. They have more than one Municipality. And this corporation is covered in reliable, independent sources. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- may be notable as a governing body of a town, Bidhannagar. The town is on the small size (200K population), so I'm not sure about actual notability. I believe this falls under "Politics" rather than "Company". There could be a case made for a merge to Bidhannagar, but I believe it's worth keeping for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 24 August 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Hedayati[edit]

Mansour Hedayati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

effectively unsourced BLP biography, as Wikipedia is not a suitable source. Also fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep im expanding this and i will bring the sources . please let us expand article . i just start to expand the article Amir Muhammad 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have at least a week to provide sources and make sure that they prove his notability. The Banner talk 19:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject has been dead for 7 years, so the article is not a biogrpahy of a living person (BLP).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems there is a blindfold deletion cuz its not a BLP(Biography of living person). it can be a vandalism if there is no evidence for this wrong purpose. Amir Muhammad 17:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like there are far more sources when searching the Farsi name than the English one. Notability may come down to non-English sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the accomplishments of the subject of this article seem notable enough. More sources should be added though. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Inter&anthro: Do you understand that we don't decide if the accomplishments are enough but if a subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Can you show how this criteria has been met? Doug Weller talk 10:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm afraid--I can't even see what he did, let alone gauge his importance without secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 30 August 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. Without prejudice to recreation when/if additional sources become available. Euryalus (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Saga[edit]

Twin Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No significant results in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this title, besides three sources from Siliconera. Unfortunately, they are not discussing the game's significantly, and will definitely be insufficient when it comes to writing an article. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 23:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:00, 22 August 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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Chiropractic Education – USA[edit]

Council on Chiropractic Education – USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Self-cited article on a minor association. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:00, 22 August 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 03:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demons of Mercy[edit]

Demons of Mercy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Video game that has been "upcoming" since 2007. No evidence or statement of notability. Single reference is to a press release. David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The game is pure vaporware, will probably never be released now, and is not notable. The article should never have been made until the game garnered more reliable sources.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:38, 25 August 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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Adamson (adventure racer)[edit]

Ian Adamson (adventure racer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable racer. New York Times source has a brief mention. No recent news. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a multiple world champion, he's a certain keep. I'm not sure what you mean by "no recent news", but you might want to read WP:NTEMP. Schwede66 19:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 August 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) 06:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperwallet[edit]

Hyperwallet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Every reference is either their own site or a press release, mostly payments.com, -- which , while it may contain some genuine editorial material, seems devoted mainly to providing a place for companies in the field to advertise their products. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is straight-up spam - I did a reference check, and the sourcing is largely to sponsored content sites. (hint: if there's a header for "white papers", it's a sponsored opinion analyst site, not an RS engaging any sort of editorial critical faculties.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable. I'm seeing PR or PR-like mentions, or trivial coverage, such as in Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 28 August 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golden Globe winners[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Golden Globe winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced contentfork of Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama, Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama, Golden Globe Award for Best Director, Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama and several related articles The Banner talk 08:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the nominator's complaint that it's "unsourced" is completely pointless here, if not incorrect (it's obviously verifiable who won a notable award in a given year, and the name and year of the award is arguably a citation itself), this seems like just some editor's view of the "most important" awards for a given year. So I'm leaning towards this being WP:POV and duplicative rather than a workable summary. postdlf (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Far more useful of a list for anyone who just want to scroll around and see who won things in each category. The other list offer up more details for specific things. Dream Focus 18:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful to see that, for example, The Lost Weekend won three of the four then-major awards, which would not be apparent in the individual award lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The individual list would tell you that it was nominated for 7 awards, but this one does not tell you that. By the way, the article "The Lost Weekend" does tell you that anyway. The Banner talk 12:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems useful to have all this information in one place. If readers want to see it in more detail, they are welcome to go to the relevant pages. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is far easier to add source references than to recreate the tables again in the future. Lack of sources should not be the sole criterion for wholesale deletion of articles or article content. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 13:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:58, 27 August 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, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti[edit]

Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't have a single solitary reference to a secondary source; the footnotes refer exclusively to the organisation's own website and publications. Google doesn't find anything else either. Nobody has attempted to do anything about the June 2016 tags, which are if anything understated: written like an advertisement, may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information, relies too much on references to primary sources. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete These sources are the best I could find: [44], [45], [46]. While they are reliable, they are not quite detailed enough to count as substantive coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have spent some time looking into this and cannot spot any real evidence of notability. Furthermore, the article is clearly intended for promotional purposes etc, as indicated by the socking, the SPA nature of the major contributors, and by statements such as this. Even if kept, it would need to be massively trimmed. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:51, 22 August 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. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syk Sense[edit]

Syk Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources cited in the article either mention his name only, or don't even mention him. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. DBrown SPS (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS: Please explain what "appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" mean. I've seen this stale message being used multiple times before and it looks like spam when being used to nominate an article for deletion.Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on WP:ANYBIO (which preceded the statement you are confused about), you will see those exact words. If you have questions about the statement's meaning, you may wish to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Magnolia677 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to have produced some notable records, and in a genre where the producer can make a major contribution to the music, but I found very little coverage of him, the best being these: [47], [48] which don't offer a lot. The article claims he was nominated for a Grammy, but the Grammy website has no results when searching for him. He may have worked on something that was nominated for a Grammy but that's a whole different kettle of fish. --Michig (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Little coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass notability criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@206.125.47.10: Please explain how this article is "nonsense". Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:59, 24 August 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 Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons)#Elementals from the Monster Manual II. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire bat[edit]

Fire bat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:49, 22 August 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  06:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Purser[edit]

Shannon Purser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people- short term "viral" fame only. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wouldn't have created an article on an actor with a single credit, but there's certainly coverage. I'm not too sure that a burst of recent coverage would disqualify someone from an article, as notability isn't temporary. She may pass WP:NACTOR criterion #2, which requires a cult following. For example, [49] from Vulture.com describes her character's viral popularity, though it seems to stop short of saying Parser herself has a cult following. This article from Esquire explicitly calls Purser a "cult icon". Perhaps because she's only had this one role, it's tough to separate the coverage of the character from the actress. So, I can see an argument that the character is the more notable of the two. If we made a new article on the character, Parser's article could conceivably redirect there until it's easier to establish notability for the actor beyond the role. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's had about 5 minutes total screen time in her entire career. Wikipedia is not buzzfeed and should not get caught up with internet memes. Could be considered for an article if she gets more roles. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has at least two reliable sources discussing her to some degree, and was in three episodes as more than a bit part. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A role in a notable TV show doesn't make the personality notable. Let her act in some more ventures and then we can possibly talk about a separate article. Yes, she is a subject of online virality, but what is that based on: the TV show. Hence, delete. Best, Mr. Nair Talk 11:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her portrayal of Barb should be considered her breakout role (performance of an actor or actress in a film or television show which contributed significantly to the development of their career and beginning of critical recognition), even though it's the first credit. The resulting notability has served to bring attention to her acting.
  • According to the Duffer brothers who are the show runners, with the introduction of the second season the character will still be a part of the show in some form [50] [51]. I believe it would be premature to delete before then, regardless I am open to the suggestion made by NinjaRobotPirate on having Purser's article redirect to a Barb character page.
  • She is a fan favorite for the titular role of Squirrel girl in a proposed marvel movie [52][53][54]
  • She passes the following criteria of the notability requirement:
  • WP:NACTOR Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • WP:SUSTAINED WP:NTEMP Due to on going coverage and recognition from numerous reputable sources.
  • WP:ARTN WP:CONTN Article content does not determine notability. Irregardless of whether we choose to delete this article on her, it will have no bearing on ongoing coverage of her in other media.
  • WP:NRVE WP:NRV Notability guidelines require that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
  • According to WP:BASIC People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria. She has been interviewed and written about extensively in the Los Angeles Times [55], Huffington Post[56], Hollywood Reporter[57], Vanity fair[58], Tech Insider[59], Washington Post[60], Entertainment Tonight[61], Glamour Magazine [62], BI [63] and numerous other media outlets.
The Squirrel Girl stuff is trivial and not even worth mentioning in the article. She wants to play a part in a movie that hasn't even been announced? Big deal. Plenty of other actors have had their articles deleted on the basis that they only had one notable role, e.g. Hannah Pilkes in The Woodsman, Wendy Grantham in The Wire. The comparison with Peter Ostrum is erroneous because Ostrum had a lead role in the movie. Purser played a minor character with 5 minutes of screen time who for some reason went viral. It's the character rather than the actor who got so much attention. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Squirrel Girl stuff is only mentioned here in accordance to WP:ARTN for purposes of demonstrating that she meets several criteria of the notability requirement, which Nairspecht and MaxBrowne claim doesn't exist. Both Hannah Pilkes in The Woodsman, Wendy Grantham in The Wire don't meet the bare minimum of WP:BASIC , irregardless of that Hannah Pilkes still has a wikipedia article.
I can cite numerous examples of actors with single credits who have had their own Wikipedia pages since their breakout roles. But for brevity two come to mind Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Rubina Ali who acted as the child versions of Salim K. Malik, Jamal's elder brother and his girlfriend. They obtained notability due to their acting and their socioeconomic circumstances as homeless slum dwellers. Despite not meeting any of the three major notability requirements for entertainers WP:ENT.
While the time spent so far on screen in her recurring role is indeed short, the claim that it's only five minutes is inaccurate and can be considered irrelevant rhetoric if she more than meets the wikipedia notability requirement, the premise of this discussion.
No where in the guidelines does it state that having a singular credit or "five minutes" screen time serves as a disqualification. RubenSuben (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually there is indeed a notability guideline that relates to actors' screen time, and with only 3 episodes of one show she definitely does not qualify under item 1 of WP:NACTOR. She does not meet item 3 either ("unique, prolific or innovative contributions"). I don't see sufficient evidence to suggest she meets item 2 either ("large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"). This doesn't disqualify her from being notable. but it does mean she has to meet WP:BASIC and I'm not seeing it. Most of the coverage of her seems to be of the "Here's this great new character, and by the way, let's mention the actor who plays the part." If this show was cancelled tomorrow and the actress never had another role would she be notable? I don't think so. WP:TOOSOON. Meters (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per what Meters said. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:NACTOR. Edison (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guidelines do not require one to meet all three items of the WP:ENT section of WP:NACTOR, or even any of them if WP:GNG and WP:BASIC is met. Since WP:ENT is considered additional criteria, should WP:GNG be in doubt. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included as stated by WP:BASIC.
    • The subject (Shannon Purser) has been shown to fulfill all five aspects of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
    • Meters misquotes WP:TOOSOON which is very clear that the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. If sources do not exist, it is when WP:TOOSOON applies.
    • WP:TOOSOON also applies if WP:INVALIDBIO as is the case with the WP:TOOSOON guiding example Paris Jackson in WP:NOT YET (actors) since she has zero acting credits and notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED.
    • However in this case as already shown above. The subject (Shannon Purser) already has an acting credit as a recurring character in several episodes in a popular on going tv show and continuous coverage by numerous independent reliable secondary sources, according to guidelines set by WP:GNG. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply.
    • According to Meters, "If this show was cancelled..", this alone violates WP:BALL and WP:SPECULATION since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:NOT. The guidelines state, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses."
    • Quoting WP:GNGACTOR "Conversely, an actor with a brief career might receive wide coverage in multiple reliable sources and merit inclusion through meeting the requirements of the General Notability Guideline WP:GNG even though his short career might fail WP:ENT. Failing ENT does not exclude him."
    • The guidelines are quite clear and well defined. Meters it would be great if you provided the specific notability guideline that you claim relates to screen time and acts as an absolute dis-qualifier for the subject by overriding WP:GNG .
    • Edison, WP:BIO and WP:N are simply shortcuts that all redirect to WP:NACTOR and are superseded by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. RubenSuben (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's too much WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! going on. Plain English is always preferable. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While MaxBrowne might have a point. Guidelines state that AfDs are not about voting or personal opinion. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount. As per WP:SUPPORT It is possible for an AfD that has 1 keep and 10 deletes to be kept (or vice versa).
  • By directly referencing specific policies the intention was to be precise and unambiguous. RubenSuben (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RubenSuben, I did point to the exact guidelines I was referencing. WP:NACTOR and the more general case of personal notability, WP:BASIC. As I expleained, in my opinion she does not meet the requirements of notability for entertainers, and she does not meet the more general requirements of notability. Since I don't see her as being notable now, I quoted WP:TOOSOON as an indication that she may become notable in the future if her career continues. Meters (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Internet fame is still fame; shortlived fame is still fame. This actor is the subject of numerous articles in the media,so I ludge her notability to be greater than mere "viral fame" would create, satisfying WP:GNG. And if, a year from now, this proves to be mistaken, we can delete it then.j· rodii · 16:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate to disagree with Cas Liber, I do not think that a few minutes and a few mentions, even if positive, add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has had a significant role in television series, which has extended to cult interest in her. I also note that she was cast today in the upcoming television series Riverdale. Clearly this is an actress on the up, and it would be completely pointless to delete the article, especially as she clearly meets notability guidelines. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gained significant media coverage from role on Stranger Things, and has been cast on the upcoming broadcast series Riverdale, which adds up to notability.Bjones (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per NinjaRobotPirate plus check out 3000+ pageviews per day (unofficial measure, but strong correlation with notability).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:40, 1 September 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. Very little evidence of notability, but there's clearly diverse views on how to consider shopping malls in the context of WP:NPLACE. Mildly it would be good to have this clarified as a policy outcome, somewhere more central than this AfD. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CentralPlaza Khon Kaen[edit]

CentralPlaza Khon Kaen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another generic shopping mall article with no notability whatsoever. Does not pass WP:GEOFEAT. Entire article is written as a shopping directory. WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTADVERT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 23:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. All of the cited sources are first party sources. This might meet WP:GEOFEAT if somebody wanted to scare up third party references. If kept, needs a major formatting and wikification pass. A Traintalk 11:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm using WP:UCS as there is a strong presumption there is sources in the Thai language as this appears to be a major shopping center that would never get considered for deletion if this were in the US or UK (see WP:BIAS). The first parting sources are in English for the benefit of international investors. --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPLACE: "Larger shopping malls are often found to be notable." This article, the Thai wiki article and the images do indicate that this is a major mall. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article as it stands has no evidence of notability. Approximately 95% of it is a directory of stores and opening hours, none of which has any encyclopedic value and is What Wikipedia is not. Ajf773 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a major mall meets WP:NPLACE, the current state of the article isn't going to change things. If you object to certain content in the article, you're free to edit and remove text. The article lead gives a sufficient indication of its notability. We have enough WP:V to verify it exists. This is not a "generic mall," as you've claimed, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist MBisanz talk 00:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  363 stores puts it in the largest category of malls.  I found that "Central Pattana Public Company Limited" is listed by bloomberg.com.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 25 August 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.

Eunice Chiweshe Goldstein[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhtree[edit]

Bodhtree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was actually PRODing when I noticed the 1st one removed, I still confirm mine: "Sources themselves are either trivial coverage, PR or interviews, my own searches including of Indian news sources summarized it to 1 find: an Indian business listing.". Frankly this should have never been accepted from AfC as none of it is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is a book appearance: in "Best of Andhra Pradesh: a salute to the spirit of the state" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would still not be enough actual substance for sustaining the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some coverage found, e.g. [64] and Times of India. --Michig (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- CIO Review linked above is generally non-RS (if I'm not mistaken it's pay-per-play or close to it). Best of Andhra Pradesh: a salute to the spirit of the state is clearly a promotional vehicle for local business development. I saw some local coverage, but that's about it. This company appears to be an unremarkable IT consultancy as the article does not provide any indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the CIOReviewIndia is clearly a PR link. Hence, none of the Keep votes are substantiating themselves with actual coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"none of the Keep votes"? There is only one keep !vote. --Michig (talk) 07:53, 29 August 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Uzochukwu[edit]

David Uzochukwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I frankly would've PRODed, but for the chances it will be removed, here we are; none of this is actually convincing at all since it's all either trivial coverage or nothing at all convincing (there are no major coverage sources or collections); the listed sources also include either galleries and interviews. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of this article seems to meet GNG fairly comfortably; see [65], [66], [67], [68], and [69]. There's quite a few more results available in a google news search. Vanamonde (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my own surprise it's even not WP:TOSOON. He has quite enough established notability. It's a Keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:ARTIST. Here's another source and another short article. North America1000 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here are two more sources: [70], [71]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several of the articles sinply consist of galleries, one of the listed sources is actually repeated twice, and some of them are simply then interviews. There is still not the sufficiently substantial amount needed. Some of them are then sinply a few paragraphs, take the BBC for example. The 24hora.cl source is not even close to 6 paragraphs. The New Haven source is not actually focusing with him and only consists of a few paragraphs, while the Nigerian source then only consists of a few paragraphs and lists a taken interview. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." North America1000 08:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just enough in the coverage to merit keeping. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once again, the articles simply consist of photos and galleries, none of it actually amounts to substance and coverage. As an artist, he is not notable because there are no museum collections, exhibiting as an artist is never a claim alone for notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 29 August 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 based on research provided by debaters. Valoem talk contrib 09:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Husain[edit]

Owais Husain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing actually convincing such as having permanent collections, the listed soruce....is his own website; my own searches are barely finding anything and what there actually is, is unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ran a Proquest news search on his name, news and feature articles about his careeer, art that more than suffice to keep. Page needs improvement - what else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage identified easily established notability. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The commenters must not be noticing these are essentially actually simply interviews where the subject himself is talking, it's not substantial coverage by the sources themselves because of this. The News 18 is clearly simply a local piece talking about a local subject of interest. This honestly would need to relisted as the comments are thinly simply saying "Hey, it looks like he's notable but not actually commenting in-depth about how and why the sources are actually notable. The DNAINdia itself is labeled as an interview from the get-go, thus it's not independent, none of these sources are. Some of these are then only a few sentences and paragraphs, take the Daily Star for example. Simply having "articles" about his career is nothing substantial unless they are of actual convincing coverage. Has anyone also cared to actually see this is still only sourced by his own website, apart from the interviewing links above? Even after the links above, the two other comments are not substantiating their votes by listing the links they actually believe including what their own searches allegedly found. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 29 August 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. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Allen (actor)[edit]

C. J. Allen (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:ENT. From what I can find out the actor has been in 1 play which is also questionably notable and has been in a handful of episodes of Juliet Bravo. Suggest either deleting or redirecting to Juliet Bravo. 5 albert square (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although there is scope to expand the article on the play in which this actor had a lead role, it seems to be his only significant role, therefore fails WP:ENT. anemoneprojectors 08:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he appeared regularly (41 episodes) of Juliet_Bravo#Regular_cast. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing any coverage on the actor himself. There's a book on a sculptor of the same name. [72], a college athlete [73]. Juliet Bravo would be his most significant role. [74] The Coming Clean claims to be award-winning but it does not list what award it won, but that's a different AFD discussion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 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. No explanation has been given as to why WP:TVSERIES is met; also that appears to be an essay or something essay like rather than a guideline. Everyone citing policies appears to endorse deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Sitara[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Roshan Sitara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. The first AfD discussion back in August 2012 was closed as no consensus. North America1000 09:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks significant notability. The page's current references are also poor. Meatsgains (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:TVSERIES. Not the best written article, but I think it is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two references are invali. The first reference is a dead link. The second link is a vertical of an entertainment gossip portal. This can not be considered reliable. http://www.tv.com.pk/aboutus.php. I believe that the page should be deleted.Manoflogan (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable TV series with no claim of notability or significant RS coverage. It looks to be created by "notable" figures, but their articles, such as Abdullah Kadwani and Siraj-ul-Haque, are not convincing. So there's a potential for a WP:PROMO or WP:WALLEDGARDEN situation. For example, the editor who created the article on Haquel also created "Category:Television series directed by Momina Duraid", and some of these articles look really similar. Anyway, delete.
PS -- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momina Duraid Productions; that's why the Momina Duraid sounded familiar. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as shown above, not notable series and no valid independent coverage, nor RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 31 August 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 Leicester#Shopping. Sam Walton (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Martin's Square[edit]

St Martin's Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable shopping centre/high street, Has been unsourced for 8 years and has barely been edited, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG (Forgot to add: I have no objections to redirecting or merging, Thanks) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)(Updated 10:22am, 22/8/16)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if there were sources, it's hard to see how they'd establish notability. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 22 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_August_22&oldid=1142623590"