Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 August	1 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. has been relisted thrice, so closing as no consensus with WP:NPASR applying. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alor Gajah Municipal Council[edit]

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

Proposed deletion, contested on the spurious grounds that "we keep almost all articles on locations". However, this isn't an article on a location—those already exist at Alor Gajah (for the topic of this article) and Alor Gajah District (for the "Regional overview" section tacked onto the end to try to pad it out). This pseudoarticle is just a piece of advertising from the local council about how great they are, and contains nothing of value (every local authority in the world is responsible for infrastructure, managing private sector investment in public services, and encouraging economic development). ‑ Iridescent 13:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing wrong with an article about a Municipal Council. It would satisfy notability. As for the advertising bit, it can be cleaned up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:18, 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 11:20, 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 01:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a municipal council and municipal councils in Malaysia are specifically for places with > 150,000 population. See this for more info. The council has a certain importance in the city/town so I would suggest to keep it. I have added it to my watchlist and I will continue to monitor it for any fluff. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no reason why a municipal council cannot be notable, but like every other article subject there needs to be Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What's available might be limited by language and digitisation, and we should be sensitive to that in assessing AfD's. But in this case there are no sources at all, other than the council's own website which does not meet the GNG standard. In this absence of any secondary sources, we can credibly proceed to remove this article from the encyclopedia without prejudice to recreation if/when there is credible evidence of its notability. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 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. Insufficient discussion, but WP:BLP is determinative here: this BLP article is sourced only to a WP:SPS and a dead link of unclear quality. Sandstein 17:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiwot Mamo[edit]

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

There is no evidence that Miss Ethiopia is a title of enough notability that the winner is default notable, and no evidence than any of Mamo's other actions rise to the level of notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe Ethiopia as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding redirect to Miss Universe Ethiopia, the subject is listed in the article. However that content is currently unsourced along with almost all of the other content. Gab4gab (talk) 11:59, 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 01:48, 24 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) 21:28, 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 Keep There is consensus here that the subject meets GNG independent of the Usain Bolt-related material. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Donato Pereira[edit]

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

Incorrectly declined as simply being a "drug lord" is never an actual claim of significance and there have not been any actual substantial improvements, several things apply here such as WP:BIO, WP:BIO1 and WP:CRIME; these are all essentially rumors and claims including about "a relationship with Usain Bolt" but none of it actually amounts to notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I declined the WP:A7 speedy deletion nomination (diff) because the claim of being a drug lord is a credible indication of significance. For example, a drug lord is (from the Wikipedia article) "a person who controls a sizable network of persons involved in the illegal drug trade". As such, the statement in the nomination of "incorrectly declined" is erroneous in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this was not an "incorrect" decline of a speedy deletion: only the entry's creator is barred from removing a speedy tag, and A7 specifically allows for proceeding by PROD or Afd rather than speedy if the credibility is even unclear. So a speedy tag can be legitimately placed, in good faith, by one person and just as legitimately removed by another without anyone having done anything "incorrect"--they just disagree on the merits. Having just been through some confusion about grounds for declining speedy on a different entry, I think it'd be very useful to strike "incorrect" here, lest anyone be misled on what's already a fairly difficult-to-grasp point of procedure. SwisterTwister would you consider that? Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per references, per WP:GNG. The article was not incorrectly declined speedy deletion. The nominator should learn about guidelines before doing something like that again, we do not speedy delete notable article subjects.BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes [ GNG and Significant Coverage. All the mentions of Usain Bolt in the English language overflow the coverage of Pereira in portuguese. BlackAmerican (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- all the coverage I see is related to his former girlfriend liaison with Usain Bolt. This makes this a WP:PSEUDO bio on an individual who's not individually notable. See for example:

'Dina Terror' was linked to woman who spent the night with Usain Bolt (in Portuguese) or
Revealed: Brazilian girl, 20, who spent night with Usain Bolt is the widow of bloodthirsty drug lord called 'Diná Terror' who died in shootout with cops (Daily Mail).

The latter headline pretty much sums it up as WP:BIO1E. Most coverage appears to be from non RS tabloids. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also only find articles about his former girlfriend and Usain Bolt, appearing two years after his death. If that tabloid story hadn't ever surfaced, the subject's name wouldn't even be in any WP:RS at all. Regardless, he's not the primary subject in any articles, and no books mention him either. There's just not enough coverage of him to pass WP:GNG. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Look at the article and sources he is the primary source in a number of articles. [1] , [2], [3], and [4]. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:32, 31 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) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in independent reliable sources. The people calling for deletion above seem to be ignoring sources that are not in English, against policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- it's easy to look for coverage in foreign languages with Google translate. I located some coverage related to the subject covering his death in the shooting with police, following the torture and death of a 18 yo girl. This is still WP:BIO1E situation. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS, and the coverage available is insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- With the closing editor's permission, I undid the close as I felt that the consensus to keep was not apparent, with three delete and three keep votes. Portuguese sources have been acknowledged; they provide limited information related to the subject's death, making it BIO1E. I suggest relisting for closer consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:BIO1E and that too a very weak one at that where the subject is in limelight solely because of the Usain Bolt stuff. Nothing shows that the subject is notable. Keeping this article would be like creating articles for each of Tiger Woods' mistresses. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Usain Bolt material should probably be removed, as it is conjecture and poorly sourced at that. However, the subject is a national figure in Brazil, with multiple reliable sources discussing the topic/person. Not known for a single crime, but multiple "events". Meets WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 13 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. Consensus appears to be that the sources discussing the concept are not enough to justify the article, and that it tends to violate other policies/guidelines as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionalism (religion)[edit]

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

This article was split from Tradition in 2011 and since then has served as a platform for various editors to express their opinions about the concept, with periodic trimming and insertion of OR. It is redundant with the dab Traditionalism, which gives a dictionary definition and various technical uses. The latest expansion of the article is a sustained exercise in WP:SYNTH, amounting to a broadside against "hidebound" forms of religion with jumbled references to various everyday and technical uses of the term. This grand narrative is not based on any source, and it is supplemented by various misuses of primary and secondary sources, including disregarding them altogether, as exemplified by this edit [5]. I don't see evidence of enough RS coverage of religious traditionalism as a coherent concept to base an article on, but even if there were, its current form needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. Eperoton (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept of traditionalism is widely used for, and applied to all religions, in our days. The term only derived from Catholicism. And the concept is always the same in all religions: Rejection of reason in favour of tradition. The spread of usage of the concept for all kinds of religion is expressed e.g. in the following given source Roger Homan: Traditionalism in: Robert Wuthnow (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, Vol. 1, Routledge 1998; p. 737. --IbnTufail (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the only cited RS that actually tries to discuss religious traditionalism as a coherent concept, and the pages visible in preview show that its treatment of the topic is far removed from your reductive and polemical take. Eperoton (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept the outcome of this, whatever it is. I think, it is more a question of lexicographic philosophy than of the thing itself. --IbnTufail (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR magnet, sadly - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD, WP:NOR and WP:NOT#ESSAY. The sources cited prove a number of miscellaneous points which can only be tied together by the uncited and unciteable portions of text in the article. Source point out, for example, that traditionalism exists and it has a meaning; they also point out that various religions use the term...and that's about it. Claims that other religions actually adopted it from Catholicism aren't cited and likely aren't provable, and claims that the concept of traditionalism in various religions share anything in common would be a great research project for someone's MA, but that doesn't form an encyclopedic article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary disambiguation page in disguise that is indeed redundant to Traditionalism (disambiguation) and its subpages. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:18, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pastoral (1944 novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable romance novel tagged as unreferenced since December 2009. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that this book is non-notable? For example, there are several pages of coverage about it in this book, which was just the first potential source that I found in a few seconds. Not having sources in an article is not a reason for deletion - we need to check whether sources exist before making such nominations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it also becomes a question of whether WP:NBOOK criterion #5 applies or not. Is Shute considered a major enough figure in English letters? On that, his biographical article doesn't have much to say about major literary honours. Indeed, a Google search has difficulty pulling up literary criticism of this book, but it may be just because I don't know how to find... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I'll get off the fence + say delete. Doesn't appear to meet NBOOK and~~ while On the Beach was a very famous work, Shute's status doesn't appear to confer notability on this work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to have a whole chapter devoted to it in this book. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found two reviews and evidence of a third one from the London Spectator, although for some reason I'm having difficulty pulling it up with my school database. I'll add it to the article just so the citation is there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that The Spectator has only been digitised as far back as 2001. At least the Nexis and Gale Cengage databases subscribed to by my university library only go back that far. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep: my rule of thumb for GNG is three reliable sources. I wasn't able to find them but thanks to some very good work, we now have them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that enough coverage has been found. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a keep per above reasoning, Sadads (talk) 02:33, 7 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 speedy keep. / Withdrawn - Unfortunately I have no idea how to get Australian sources and simply hoped Google would help, This was the best I got ..... Anyway thanks Kerry Raymond for managing to find sources. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 10:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whitecar Coaches[edit]

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

Non notable coach company, Been unsourced since its creation (2006) and unfortunately I can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree it does not have sources, but I think it can pass GNG (surprised the proposer failed to find any of these, perhaps not familiar with Australian sources). It has a book written about it:
Pelgrave, Frances (1993), Whitecars, F. Pelgrave, retrieved 1 September 2016

It is mentioned in a number of Queensland Heritage Register citations in relation to its role in opening up the Atherton Tableland, e.g. Malanda Falls quoting from the QHR "Established c. 1922, Whitecars was integral to the development of tourism on the Tablelands and the increased popularity of region's attractions". Also Lake Eacham Hotel. Also The Curtain Fig Tree.

It's the subject of newspaper articles, e.g. [6], [7] etc. Kerry (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:55, 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 Delete per consensus. Only keep comment is not impartial.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Morphology Group[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not host articles on individual university departments. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As much as I appreciate what these scholars are doing, Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Delete. See also this declined draft: Draft:Surrey Morphology Group. Cnilep (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search shows that members of this group have written articles that have been published in several academic journals and some books over a period of more than a decade. However, as noted in the previous draft review, there is a lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources, thus notability has not been established when judging this according to WP:ORGDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. First, let me say I'm a member of SMG, so I have an interest. SMG is a research group, not a university department. Given the types of entities which do appear in Wikipedia, including soap operas, it seems strange to want to block reference to a group which provides a lot of online resources for the research community and for amateur linguists alike. The page should serve as a pointer to those resources. AlphonseFG (talk) 09:03, 7 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 Speedy deleted per G5: article was created by CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Nagendra NJ with no significant edits by other users. The IPs that edited are, in my estimation, sock IPs based on my familiarity with this timesuck. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vega (film)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 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 Procedural close. Already speedy deleted per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 02:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DESMODIUM folk-metal band[edit]

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

Not notable at all. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7, non-notable band. Not really a need for discussion as there isn't a claim to notability, and there aren't sources to even show them as notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedied G11 A7, and the creator was already blocked - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 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 Speedy deleted per G5: article was created by CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Nagendra NJ with no significant edits by other users. The IPs that edited are, in my estimation, sock IPs based on my familiarity with this timesuck. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thalai Ezhuthu[edit]

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

No indication of notablity, fails WP:NFILM Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a commercial movie starring Pooja Gandhi and Pooja Gandhi is quite a big name in South Indian (mostly Kannnada) cinema. Here are articles from before the release: [8], [9] and here are reviews [10], [11]. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good finds. Yep, appears to meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 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 Speedy deleted per G5: article was created by CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Nagendra NJ with no significant edits by other users. The IPs that edited are, in my estimation, sock IPs based on my familiarity with this timesuck. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyanamasthu[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A review in The Times of India is certainly an indication of notability. Whether this film gets beyond an indication and is actually notable is the issue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:14, 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 speedy keep. SpinningSpark 22:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Financial District, Boston[edit]

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

Merge This article repeats information found on other pages.

Zip codes are on Boston and Neighborhoods of Boston
- As mentioned on this article, it is not an actual neighborhood of Boston
Points of interest can go in Sites of interest in Boston
Companies can go in Boston section Economy
Buildings and propose buildings are already mentioned on List of tallest buildings in Boston. Tylr00 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

Speedy keep: pointless nomination by new user who has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the AfD process and what articles belong on Wikipedia. This is an article on a well-defined area of Boston. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A typical article about a notable city district, part of a series of Boston articles that organize the relevant information for the reader. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This AfD appears to be technically malformed since part of it is not currently showing up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 31.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed this AfD to give it the standard formatting. No opinion at this time, other than that I don't believe AfD is intended for merge nominations. (Mergers can be an outcome of an AfD, but there are ways to propose mergers without going through AfD.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per User:Pi.1415926535 and User:Arxiloxos, distinctive neighborhoods and areas of Boston have focused, distinctive articles; why dissolve those? I see nothing "broken" here, hence no need to fix it. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:47, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lohanthony[edit]

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

Other than being a popular Youtuber, I can't find within the article (or even in Google) his encyclopedic relevancy. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Youtuber. I also think we need to have higher scrutiny for articles on minors because BLP issues are even greater, so all the more reason to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. I don't think WP:BLP is an issue, the article is sourced and the sources are reliable, they're just not independent, which is required by GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:47, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hill (basketball)[edit]

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

This article runs afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL in my view, but also WP:BIO1E. It is clearly stated that every award she received was as a result of her terminal cancer or death. The material here isn't a biography by any means, and is already more than adequately covered in a subsection of 2014 Hiram vs. Mount St. Joseph women's basketball game featuring Lauren Hill. MSJapan (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2014 Hiram vs. Mount St. Joseph women's basketball game as per nom. The information about Hill is well covered in the article about the game, and the two could be merged. That brings a better point, should there be an article about the game, with the info on Hill, or an article on Hill, with info about the game? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, put that way, this is how I see it - WP:BIO1E vs. WP:EVENT, and with 34 sources in the event article (only four of which are specifically about Hill), it looks like the game is really the more solid, more notable, and pertinent article. IIRC, it was the game rescheduling that occasioned all the other coverage. MSJapan (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hope that Wikipedia will not be seen as reducing this notable young woman to a cog in the machinery of a game. That is certainly not how the extensive coverage of her reads. After that game, she continued to receive significant attention for her continuing fight and her advocacy efforts, including raising more than a million dollars . CBS News Sunday Morning, for example, returned for further reports and in particular noted her continuing activities as a fundraiser.[12][13] The New York Times Women in the World section similarly described her as a "brain cancer patient and activist" and noted, "She became the public face of her disease, appearing on a Wheaties box and helping to raise over $1.5 million for the non-profit cancer research group 'The Cure Starts Now Foundation.'" [14] Similar reportage spanning almost 2 years can be seen in numerous major media outlets; look at the 150+ HighBeam search results for examples. [15] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has sustaining coverage per above, and thus satisfies WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep continuing significant coverage beyond how I would define a "one event wonder." Really, I think Lauren Hill the person is more notable than the game (event) at this point. She was made famous by one event, but the country latched on to her story and it has carried well beyond the event as she has become a symbol of perseverance and inspiration, which is why she has received continued press beyond a typical human interest story that shows up on the news for a week. Rikster2 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The point of WP:1E is that if someone's only notable for one event, it's better to just write about the event, assuming it's notable. However, the existence of continuing coverage of her makes that point rather moot. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a one event wonder, has significant coverage to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable merge or delete. BlackAmerican (talk) 20:55, 6 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Sherlock[edit]

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

WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC not met or demonstrated. (With every respect to the young lady's talents, a busking musician (however talented) captured on Twitter or blogged about, even if the Tweets or blogposts are then republished as "news" on the Dailyedge.ie, doesn't necessarily warrant or meet criteria for a WP page. Is why we have GNG and NMUSIC guidelines). Seemingly clear case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON Guliolopez (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete child singer who was the subject of a brief media flurry during the August 2016 silly season; it's waaaaay WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. There is coverage there, as shown on the page, however this is more a special interest article, and as it says in WP:NMUSIC appears to be "merely of trivial coverage". If more stories are expanded about her and not just clickbait like "This incredible 11-year-old Irish singer that you need to hear", I would be more than moved to keep the article. Right now, just not yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and a case of WP:TOOSOON. Ayub407^talk 19:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, and remember this is a BLP of an 11 year old girl we're talking about too, half of what's already in this very short article should be cut immediately anyway - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just cut article strictly to RSes - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable for only one event. Not enough to have a Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I for one do not see any WP:BLP issues like some have mentioned - the sources are reliable, it's just that the coverage isn't significant. Smartyllama (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too soon .... I could literally take up this entire AFD with "aaaaaa" but I won't ..... You get the jist. TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 7 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 speedy delete. Euryalus (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Balsan[edit]

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

Blank. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KATMAKROFAN:It would probably be better to just nominate for speedy deletion using A3. Woodstop45 (talk) 17:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abra (singer)[edit]

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

Doesn't rise to the level of notability for inclusion. Doesn't seem to pass MUSIC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BASIC as has significant coverage in a long article by Pitchfork which is a reliable source, also has a bio on allmusic another reliable source as well as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as well as magazine articles such as Crack, and others- these sources are already referenced in the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since, besides the sources listed above, there seems to be plenty of additional coverage on her just in the first page of Google News results. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources already cited probably adequate for establishing notability, and there's more out there, e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19]. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I gotta say, this is a WP:BEFORE. She has a chart hit (which I found by googling "abra site:billboard.com"), which suggests she may well be notable (and the record definitely is); combined with the above coverage, I'd go so far as to call the keep pretty obvious. The article doesn't cite all this stuff, and it really should, but nevertheless she's clearly notable - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#A3. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glow - Lamp International School[edit]

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

Consists solely of an external link. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy: WP:A3 ubiquity (talk) 18:56, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5 Rabbit Cervecería[edit]

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

One-off publicity stunt pulled by a Chicago brewery as a revenge over Trump's comments about Mexico. Fails GNG by a hundred miles despite quoting 15 sources who covered their joke. Delete per WP:PLUG. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for sure. The article has a number of references that are unrelated to the Trump beer situation. In the current version of the article that would be footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 22, and 23 (ignoring 24 because that's the brewery's own website). 5 Rabbit got more than an average amount of press coverage for a local brewery, because (1) they're pretty successful, (2) there were several lawsuits by financial partners a few years ago, and (3) the beer has a Hispanic theme, which is pretty unusual. The brewery easily meets the general notability guideline and the breweries notability guideline. — Mudwater^(Talk) 19:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No idea what the publicity stunt you're referring to is (I try to avoid the news whenever possible) but a specific beer name has absolutely zero relevance to the fact of the matter: this article is about an active commercial brewery in the Chicago area. It's also the first Mexian-American owned craft brewery in the area, which makes it culturally relevant as well. And not to mention5-Rabbit has been around a whole lot longer than Trump's 2016 Presidential bid. Lagunitas did a beer called Wilco Tango Foxtrot as a jab by owner (Tony McGee) at the current president's economic plan back in 2010, so if you're going to make the case for 5-Rabbit warranting deletion because of a beer name that mocks a politician, then you need to remember that it isn't an isolated thing and to keep it equal (i.e. no one suggested deleting the Lagunitas article after the beer's release). Whatever the case, please keep your politcial opinions out of the WP 'Deletion' process. This is clearly an unwarranted nomination... and, more to the point, Wikipedia is not about censorship -- which is what it appears you're basically looking to do here. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater and Ryecatcher773: Thanks for pointing out how this brewery is independently notable. I am in no way making a political statement or attempting censorship here: I stumbled on this article as it was cited in List of things named after Donald Trump with no less than 15 references to the same joke, so I sanitized that page and I came here to see the same long string of citations for this stunt. I saw that the article had been created in October 2015 during the primaries, talking only about the "Chinga tu pelo" anti-Trump beer renaming. I assumed that their sudden notoriety was only due to this feat, so the WP:PLUG alert rang in some part of my nervous system and I pushed the AfD button, admittedly a bit quick. If the business is notable, great. Let the process run its course. Somebody will have to trim the citations if the page is kept, because the current status doesn't look encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 01:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the references, adding a few new general ones, and removing a lot of the ones for the Trump beer incident, leaving in the best ones. I posted about this at Talk:5 Rabbit Cervecería#Trump beer footnotes. — Mudwater^(Talk) 13:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first Hispanic-owned brewery in the USA is notable Victor Grigas (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See the article for some of them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushish/Koshish/Koushish[edit]

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

I didn't tag as that may not work. This title should be fixed. The subject may be notable. But what should be the title? Marvellous Spider-Man 10:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Current article is lacking sources entirely. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unreferenced essay, possibly entirely consisting of original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 6 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 redirect to Miss Connecticut. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Tarpey[edit]

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

Tarpey is only notable for winning Miss Connecticut. The Miss America pageant system seems to emphasize causes more than the Miss USA pageant system does, but there is no evidence that the declaration of focus on a cause for the year of holding the state title transforms into notable actions for that cause enough to get press, let alone notable actions enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Redirect to Miss Connecticut as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The discussion is happening here, and there is no indication that the consensus would be that a Miss [State] would be considered notable. Thus I don't believe that suspending this AfD would serve a useful purpose. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this non-notable college student who won a minor beauty pageant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Changing iVote to Redirect to Miss Connecticut where the sources can be added to her name in the list. Reasons is, she is notable for nothing beyond this pageant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is is by no means a minor beauty pageant and calling it such shows a lack of understanding of the topic. PageantUpdater (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG PageantUpdater (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut. State pageant winners do not pass WP:GNG by themselves. Outside of this competition, she does not have any other notability it appears. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut. I do not see this article meeting GNG, as sources are either extremely local (Hartford Courant) or tabloid-like (Daily Mail; Inside Edition). Overall, it appears that this subject has not attracted significant interest from independent reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources include in-depth, and in-depth, and in-depth, and her photo and a paragraph here, in-depth here, and having a pageant motto as "Chin up, boobs up and rock it,", well, she meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- sources just above are unconvincing, They include: Stamford Advocate (local); TMZ (non RS gossip site); Daily Mail (non RS tabloid); CT Post (local), etc. If such sources were brought to a discussion on a local business, for example, the article would be deleted. BLP requirements are higher, and I'm not seeing this here. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CT Post is a statewide media source. Inside Edition is a nationally syndicated program. And this is an entertainment subject so coverage in tabloid papers is perfectly reasonable, such as the Daily Mail (which is a British publication). Stamford, Connecticut is not a small town by any means, but a major NYC suburb; it's newspaper, the Stamford Advocate is a daily paper, with 15,000 readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15,000 is very low for a daily paper. The Macomb Daily has circulation of over 70,000 and being a regular reader I know that their articles on local people, other than crime coverage, is total fluff. I would support deletion of an article on any person who had ever lived in Macomb County that had as its main source an article from the Macomb Daily.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then shall we suppose that the Orlando Sentinel which writes in-depth about Tarpey is a local paper since it only covers Orlando, Florida -- with a measly 150,000 daily circulation. And, shall we suppose, Irish Central is a local source when it covers Tarpey in-depth because, well, it's just a local country. Or, the newspaper of Pace University is only a local school (with a measly 13,000 students) when it writes in-depth about Tarpey. And, shall we suppose that New London, Connecticut (population: 28,000) is another "local" town -- when its TV station writes in-depth about Tarpey. And I suppose USA Today doesn't count when it has Tarpey's picture here. It's all local in your view, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the Orlando Sentinel coverage is in depth. It is one para and is sourced to Miss America's press release:

"Hometown: Stamford, Connecticut Age: 21 Platform Issue: Our Time To Serve: Hiring and Housing Our Veterans Talent: Irish Step Dance Career Ambition: To become a Human Resources Manager of a Global Corporation (Miss America)."

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, We are still in flux on the criteria for article such as these due to an open thread regarding this issue. As such (for now) this article is not non-notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:09, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wilder[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The references may establish the local notability of the subject's band, but do not meet notability criteria for the subject himself. ubiquity (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICIAN. I added three of the four refs in the article. They are either passing mentions or are about his former band, the Atlantic Pirates. Seems like the only leg to stand on would be WP:MUSICIAN #4, "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"" since (according to the article) "In August 2015, Wayne supported the Oddsocks Revival on the western leg of their Irish tour". However, #4 requires non-trivial coverage of this. Is there I any? I didn't find any. I'm not happy about about my vote since he might well be reasonably well known in Galway or even in Ireland generally. It's hard to judge small-country entertainers. He's not just some nobody, it seems. But he looks to be basically a bar-band musician, and anyway we need refs.

A sustainable article about his former band, the Atlantic Pirates, could be written I think, based on this in-depth article. And maybe that's the way to go, with a section for Wilder in it, that could include most of the stuff in this article. I hate do destroy this nice article, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Herostratus (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear that I don't think that failure to meet Wikipedia standards of notability makes him "just some nobody." I'm not a nobody -- I have 17 patents, publications, have made appearances on national television, was at one time well-known professionally -- but I'm not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, because no significant coverage of me exists. I am sure Mr Wilder is an accomplished performer who is very popular in Galway. But that doesn't necessarily warrant an encyclopaedia article. ubiquity (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I mean he seems to be sufficiently accomplished and known that 1) if we can just dig up some refs we can probably have an acceptable article, and 2) it wouldn't be surprising if we can dig up these refs. In that sense he's not just some person who's posted a few videos on YouTube or whatever. Here is a new ref added recently... it's not enough but we are working in the right direction. Still recommend an Atlantic Pirates article instead, at this time. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Even if the provided references established notability of the band of which the subject is a member (and even that would seem a stretch), they do not reflect WP:SIGCOV for the subject directly. GNG and NMUSIC not met. Guliolopez (talk) 22:15, 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. As noted "being real" is not enough to have an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chirophobia[edit]

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

Florence King once wrote of laughing at one of her dates when he said he'd been in hand-to-hand combat with a bear; her response—"the bear had hands?"—did not go over well. Anyway, even by the standards of made-up phobias this one doesn't leave much of a trace: only one of the six GScholar hits even seems to be about phobias at all, and it's the usual omnium-phobium junk book. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books shows that this is real.Borock (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely "real" in the sense that people can have a Specific phobia of literally anything. But the questions is, is there enough coverage of this term outside of defining it to warrant its own article apart from the one that already exists on specific phobias? I don't know yet as there are so many of these AfDs all at once that I haven't looked into this one yet, but my point is, let's not just keep it because it's "real". —PermStrump(talk) 04:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't enough coverage to offer more than dictionary definition. There's no indication that it has ever been used in a clinical sense, which is how the article presents it, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG as a social phenomenon like trypophobia or nomophobia because of the lack of in-depth coverage. —PermStrump(talk) 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge to List of phobias Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD. Ayub407^talk 19:29, 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 speedy delete. G11. Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Kitchens[edit]

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

No indication that this magazine is actually notable. A search of its title in Google News turns up zero results, and it seems to fail all five points of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals (even though that's just an essay). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable magazine. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this WP:PROMO of new magazine; my quick searchs found no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G11. It's just an advert. Ayub407^talk 19:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mashuru[edit]

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

article never cited any sources and is not notable as is. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of notability applies to the subjects of articles, not to the articles themselves, and in particular not to articles "as is". What reason do you have to think that the subject of this article is not notable per WP:GEOLAND? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were a large number of scholarly sources to be found, a few of which described the division in detail and can be used to fill out the article. When I looked at which other Kenyan divisions have their own articles, it didn't look too good. However, this is a start I guess? Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to clearly meet WP:GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close With new sources added, this clearly meets GNG. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:33, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anona Mmesoma Jasmine[edit]

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

This topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Search results bring up blog posts. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.

—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail NMODEL. If someone finds better sources, I am willing to reconsider my position. Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 7 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Ahmed Chalaby[edit]

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

Non-notable person, repeated removal of CSD-A7 tags by IP editor/new editor. GILO A&E⇑ 15:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable person and reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy A7: No reason that use of a WP:SPA account to remove CSD tags should extend the term of an autobiography which makes no claim of notability. AllyD (talk) 16:41, 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 Speedy keep, Olympian, no chance of being deleted. Geschichte (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnar Hargreaves[edit]

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

Only played in the 1948 Olympics, and did not even place. not individually notable. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in the Olympics is usually accepted as conferring notability, per WP:SPORTCRIT. Is there any reason why Ragnar Hargreaves should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth place in the Olympic Games seems pretty notable to me. fchd (talk) 16:21, 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 keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael H. Riordan[edit]

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

Doesn't quite seem to meet any of the points of WP:NACADEMIC. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my delete vote as nominator per the below. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page was flagged for deletion on the basis that it "Doesn't quite seem to meet any of the points of WP:NACADEMIC." In fact, it meets 3 different points. Quoting from the Wikipedia guidelines for academics biographies:

"Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). ... 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). ... 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."

The person in question was elected Fellow of the Econometric Society, one of the most selective learned societies in the economics profession. This person is also a chaired professor of a prestigious academic institution (Columbia University). Finally, this person was nominated chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. All of these facts are documented with references to reliable sources on the page just created.Popov1961 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)popov1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popov1961 (talk • contribs)

You're right, when I looked at it, none of those seemed to be quite at the level required to meet the guideline, but when I examine them further, they probably do give him a claim to notability. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holder of a named chair at Columbia and a Fellow of a historically notable society passes WP:NACADEMIC. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF#C1 (>1000 citations and a h-index of 16 on Scopus), #C3, #C5 and #C7. Joe Roe (talk) 17:55, 4 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. Seems like the coverage of the subject falls short of what is needed for notability. If more sources can be found, feel free to contest at WP:DRV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Thomas Batson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Article has only blogs as sources. Article has been tagged with notability tags for at least a year. shoy (reactions) 12:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I came across this when converting an article with no content about one of his books into a redirect. I could find no evidence of notability . He has clearly written books, and at least one has been self published, but I couldn't find any evidence of notability. No appearances on best seller lists. Nothing of any merit at all. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - is not utterly unknown in the field (I do vaguely recall ever having heard of him), but there's very little that passes WP:RS and none of it in this article. That's apart from it being a BLP without RSes. I'd be most pleased for someone to bring the RSes (even in-field) to convince me otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found a Kirkus reviews review - "Dream Traders, What it lacks in richness and profundity it makes up for in thrills; not a bad choice for a wholesome adventure."[20], a Publishers Weekly review - "The Door Within, Christian readers will likely draw the parallels as an interesting puzzle and perhaps an introspective exercise. And readers of any faith can enjoy the layers of action and adventure here, replete with knights, dragons and powerful swords in what is the first of a planned trilogy."[21], and he won a Silver Moonbeam Children Book Award in Young Adult Fiction – Fantasy/Sci-Fi for Curse of the Spider King[22], but more is needed, although he is on ISFDB[23], there are no awards or reviews listed there. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite enough for a BLP, but it's a good start. (I knew someone had heard of him somewhere ...) ISFDB is a not-very-discriminatory directory, but is good for pointers in the general case - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 4 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 redirect to United States Senate election in Idaho, 2014. That other candidates receive an article does not by default mean this one can as well, see WP:WAX. Picking a redirect instead of deletion, in case someone can reuse the content in the election article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nels Mitchell[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other people who ran for senate got recognition and got articles, Mitchell is notable enough for one.--James C. Anderton (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andertonian: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and, more generally, WP:N and WP:42. It's great that you're here to help, but you need to grasp the basics of "notability" - how we decide whether or not to have an article on a given subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett I can add more stuff to the article, it's not completely finished.--James C. Anderton (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Idaho, 2014. The nominator is correct that we don't generally consider an unelected political candidate to be sufficiently notable to require a separate biographical article, unless the subject has another basis for notability, such as receiving sufficient coverage for other activities to pass the general notability guideline. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians: "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article." A few of his bio details could be added to the description of Mitchell in the Senate election article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. This person lost an election and the article makes no other assertion of notability. MB 03:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While James Anderton is right that some unelected candidates do have Wikipedia articles, he's wrong about how and why that happens. It is certainly possible in some circumstances for an unelected candidate to already have preexisting notability for other reasons — Sharron Angle, for instance, was a member of the Nevada State Assembly for almost ten years before running for the US Senate, and qualified for an article on that basis regardless of her success or failure in the US Senate elections of 2010 — but unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles if their unsuccessful candidacy is the sum total of the notability claim. Mitchell's name can be noted in the articles where it's relevant, but nothing written or sourced here suggests that he had the preexisting notability necessary to earn a standalone BLP separate from his name being present in election results tables. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL as unelected candidate. At this point this is nothing but a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aage Nost[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsuccessful candidature fails WP:POLITICIAN; author of a book published by a self-publishing house [24]. No evidence of biographical notability presented or found. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even second place finishers in a congressional race are not notable. Those who finish 4th with less than 2% of the vote are not at all close to notable, and Nost's book does nothing for him either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. MB 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article because candidate, in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he qualified for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he must win the election, not just run in it, to become includable on the basis of the election itself. But self-publishing a book does not make him notable either, and primary-sourcing the article entirely to his own website about himself doesn't get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate; otherwise, it's a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nomineeRniterjr (talk) 22:09, 6 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 speedy-deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arcel[edit]

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

Just another product. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Previous AfD box seems inappropriate here: one to a band of the same name and the other to an entirely differently named firm with no relationship to this product? AllyD (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from some routine announcements, Canadian Chemical News carried an article about the product in 2006 ([25] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but it is bylined to the company's technology leader and market manager, so is primary. As per the nomination, I am seeing nothing to indicate this product is individually notable. (There could be a case for merging the article into a section under Nova Chemicals?) AllyD (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the article text is pretty much a word-for-word copy of the company's own page on the product, so I've flagged CSD G12. AllyD (talk) 17:14, 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. Based on the discussion here, the coverage of this bio is limited to brief mentions with no detail on the individual and his biography. Thus WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be met. Also, please don't SHOUT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Boy Styles[edit]

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

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO nor WP:MUSICBIO, lacks references. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It DOES meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO nor WP:MUSICBIO. What are you talking about? Everything is referenced, and the references are Reliable as referenced here from WP:MUSICBIO. Billboard is as "Reliable" as there can be. Please delete this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE. UNLESS YOU CAN STATE IN DETAIL what your argument is, don't delete. EVERY piece of information is sourced and reliable. Have you never heard of BILLBOARD MAGAZINE?! This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Billboard is reliable but the citations to it do not provide in-depth coverage of the article subject. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - To what specific citation are you speaking of? Please read the articles and you will see they provide sufficient information regarding the topic of discussion. Please also feel free to add to it and do your research if it needs a little more in depth coverage to meet your criteria. However, it does not warrant a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - All three Billboard citations. Two do not mention the article subject and one says that he was a producer-songwriter. That is not significant coverage. It did my research before commenting in this discussion. It isn't a little more in depth coverage to meet your criteria; there isn't any in-depth coverage. That means that it fails our notability requirements (WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO), which is a reason for deletion (WP:DEL8). — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here are the Billboard article citations in question:1. The Song hit No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100.[3] It clearly states in the article that ""Hot" was The Billboard Hot 100's fastest-growing track at radio for three straight weeks earlier this month, propelling to where it currently sits at No. 1 for a second week." 2. Beauty Behind the Madness charted at the #1 spot on the U.S. Billboard Top 200 Album list for 3 consecutive weeks.[5] - This was just referenced correctly the right Billboard article. Can we close this now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not disputing the accuracy of the Billboard citations or that they support information in the article; however, they do not have significant coverage of the article subject (Danny Boy Styles). — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again you provide absolutely no clarification to your dispute. The articles mentioned above do have "significant coverage of the article subject". All you have to do is read the article. I even stated the exact lines in the article that support the fact. This shouldn't be a topic of discussion if I provided the exact reference to the article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they don't. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This is useless. I have stated my point with more than expected clarity and language. "No, they don't" is not a valid argument. Please close this discussion down and remove deletion message from page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You need to learn what significant coverage is. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail.... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.... — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jiggamafu, you are missing the point. You say that the references "provide sufficient information regarding the topic of discussion". The topic of discussion is Danny Boy Styles – however the first Billboard reference and the Forbes reference do not mention him at all, so no, they don't provide any information whatsoever regarding the topic of discussion. And the Gigwise and second Billboard reference are passing mentions in articles that focus on entirely different topics. That is what JJMC89 is getting at. All those references you mention simply provide notability for the MIMS and Weeknd records, not for Styles himself – the fact those records reached number one does not necessarily make Styles notable: see WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard3120 - Thank you for clarifying something I've been asking for weeks now. The topic of discussion as you mentioned is Danny Boy Styles. 1. However, the first "Billboard" reference ONLY references: The Song hit No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100. It's just a supporting reference to the song that Danny Boy Styles had produced as his first major release. Yes, it does not mention Danny Boy Styles, but I only referenced it to support "The Song hit No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100". I can remove that if that's the issue? "2. In 2013 Danny Boy Styles worked on Kiss Land, the debut album by The Weeknd, producing all 10 tracks." - If you click the Kiss Land link, it will show that Danny Boy Styles in fact did produce all 10 tracks. Should I reference something else? The facts are there, if its a technical issue, let me know and I'll reference something else? "3. Beauty Behind the Madness charted at the #1 spot on the U.S. Billboard Top 200 Album list for 3 consecutive weeks" - Yes, this is from Forbes and does not mention Danny Boy Styles. However, its extremely crucial to highlight the success of the album that the main producer of the album was apart of. I've seen this on multiple artist pages. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the music industry but this is an accolade for an artist such as Danny Boy Styles. Regardless, these referencing issues can be resolved WITHOUT deletion of the entire page, which is the topic of discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point isn't that those sources aren't permitted. There is nothing wrong with those sources as far as supporting facts. The point is that significant coverage of Styles is required to establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Give me an example? You keep saying significant coverage, and it has nothing to do with the sources now...? WHAT DO YOU REQUIRE besides wasting time? Give me a direct answer so I can provide what you're looking for. This is the problem with Wikipedia. If you're going to spend 2 weeks arguing with me over what significant coverage is, why not just DO THE RESEARCH AND ADD TO IT. If its a specific line in question, discuss that. This article for deletion is about the entire page and that is completely uncalled for. This is incredibly counter productive. How about you just add to the page and be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Significant coverage ("Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail.... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention....) is required. I did the research before I first commented here, and such coverage does not exist; thus, the article should be deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. Significant coverage has been established here and no original research needs to be completed. We're talking about a single line that states an album he produced ranked X on a billboard chart...with billboard referenced. Common sense would be appreciated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It most certainly has not. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DEL8 as lacking notability. Despite the shouting above, the sources given in the article and those I found with the {{find sources}} links don't add up to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as required for GNG. I see no indication that any of the additional, specific BIO or MUSICBIO criteria apply in this case either. Rebb ing 12:14, 8 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 redirect to List of places in Singapore. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Singapore[edit]

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

Very incomplete and its content overlaps with List of places in Singapore. WdS | Talk 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ redirect--Prisencolin (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That would result in a loss of some info, though. For example, I see Airport Logistics Park is not in the proposed target. The nominated list seems to cast a wider net, for better or worse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay I removed speedy from my vote. This should be a merger that takes some careful consideration.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Redirect to List of places in Singapore I have recently been working on SG places. I would urge to keep this article as it does a better job at classifying the places - which included neighbourhoods, towns, industrial area etc. I would prefer to rather redirect List of places in Singapore to this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC) On second thoughts, the convention is to have a single list and organise in the list itself. Accordingly the list article should be kept and this article should be redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of places in Singapore per nom. It's almost like the same article. NgYShung ^huh? 10:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of places in Singapore as suggested. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 3 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 02:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship[edit]

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

Although this was previously included in my mass AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup which was closed as keep, I am renominating this one in particular since at least one user other than myself argued that this one in particular was non-notable, and no arguments were made specifically that it is. Presumably this would include Israel at the 2012 European Baseball Championship and Israel at the 2010 European Baseball Championship as well. This is a minor tournament that Israel failed to even qualify for, and the notability issue is certainly very different for this than for a major event like the World Cup or EuroBasket. I would argue, as at least one other user did on that page, that it fails WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator is not giving any reason what-so-ever to be deleted. His only argument is based on @Nfitz: stating "European Baseball tournament (if there really is such a thing!)". Enough with these ridiculous nominations based on nothing! - Galatz ^Talk 13:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since rather than replying to my comment, the original posted edited above, ill respond to him here. His argument is very flawed. Even though they did not qualify the tournament made, this tournament was huge news. Israeli Dean Kremer got signed by the Dodgers after this tournament where he was clearly the most impressive player, and was named Most Valuable Pitcher. Israel's success in the tournament made big news and definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Galatz ^Talk 13:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Technically sources are legit and the event has broad coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this seems like a reasonably sourced and encyclopedic entry, focused on a particular country. Unless it violates some sports-specific consensus, I don't see a reason for deletion. The "Roster" section should probably be removed, keeping only the blue-linked entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Ward[edit]

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

Non-notable fencer - junior title did not compete at the highest level- this was a contested PROD. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a bit more meat to this than shows up in the article, but not enough to establish notability. He represented Guernsey (population of less than 70,000) at the 2010 Commonwealth Fencing Open Championships (not part of the main Commonwealth Games) but only won one match. Meters (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fencer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Tiwari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's been a month and still nothing much to support independent notability. GSS (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC) GSS (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Inviting some users who vote in the discussion about another director of the same film (Shorgul) (Utcursch—AKS.9955—SwisterTwister). GSS (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film director and case of WP:TOOSOON. Redirect to Shorgul. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:31, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Mustafa (DJ)[edit]

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

The draft submission had been deleted many times by editors while reviewing. I am not sure how this page got accepted in its current form. I cannot make out much from the page history. Abdullah Alam (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The latest draft (20 Aug.?) was rejected, but the editor created the page in article space anyway. 220 of ^Borg 09:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: before i created draft with less information but this time i have full information , i was approved but this man abdullah has submit the request for deleting the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmraanHashmiNawab (talk • contribs) 09:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC) (indent etc added--220 of ^Borg 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. The DJ List source doesn't show anything. The Reverbnation source is for no. 1 DJ in Karachi, not the whole of Pakistan: he comes out as no. 2 for the country, but how is this list calculated anyway – radio plays? user votes? The three interviews are from single-person blogs, none with an editorial team. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Richard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the dj list was down thats why he was not able to check here is my list i m number 1 DJ in pakistan according to my bio and vote http://thedjlist.com/world/pakistan/djs/

official tweet https://twitter.com/nightstarprod/status/769121312262553600 and on reverbnation also i 'm number 1 , and haven't you seen the imdb of MR-X bollywood film ??? my IMDB and name is there i've made official music for film too http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3848938/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.201.211.99 (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that you are in fact the subject of the article and have a WP:COI? The tweet is from Kamal Mustafa's own account. Neither Twitter nor IMDb are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, one being WP:SELFPUB and the other unreliable user-generated content. The DJ List is just a general vote by the users of that site, it doesn't really count for much in the way of notability. Richard3120 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a WP:COI case as the editor is himself the subject of the article. --Abdullah Alam (talk) 04:24, 7 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. Seems like the current notability criteria aren't met, changing them would require a separate discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rukis Croax[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. All sources are self-published. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because this type of content does not typically inspire cognoscente, I think we as an encyclopedia should lower the criteria for inclusion slightly. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be notable in the field, but this supplies no evidence even of that. (I'm willing to be convinced ...) Also, it's a WP:BLP with zero WP:RSes, and we're not actually allowed to do that - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added WP:RS to the page, removed self-published source. Kawayama (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You added what appears to be another self-published source - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't even see one good reliable source providing significant coverage (in the article or via searching), nevermind enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of critical analysis of Croax's work anywhere. Mduvekot (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another BLP without independent reliable sourcing. While the article has 16 references, two are to a self-published book, two are to a self-posted (non-notable) award announcement, eleven to pages offering the subject's work for sale, and one to a fundraising page supporting the subject. This is an abject sourcing failure, especially for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Verma[edit]

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

Non notable as a musician--only element that has actual coverage falls under BLP1E. The purported references asserted in the 2nd afd are album covers and the usual sort of pr in Indian newspapers. Please note that this was started (and the earlier AfD defended) by a declared paid editor, moving the article from an differently named sandbox to avoid NPP, and worked on by what would seem to be a coi editor, AllaricMedia DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I added some more recent coverage from the Deccan Chronicle which shows the subject's continuing activity. However I am inclined to think that the available coverage would not exist were it not for the original song-by-dying-student myth so still falls under WP:BLP1E at this point. AllyD (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the creator of this page and I do not have any WP:COI here other than this. Gajendra Verma is a notable Bollywood singer which can be seen from his discography (any Indian movie buff can confirm it!). However, besides the references given in the second deletion nomination here are a couple more: DNA, Deccan Chronicele, DNA, mid-day, TOI. Mr RD 19:28, 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 11:01, 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 16:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more commentary on the sources provided. Also, as with all Indian topics foreign language sources need checking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 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 Call signs in Canada#Assignments. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2281[edit]

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

Delete. Low-power community radio station, for which it's unverifiable as to whether it satisfies WP:NMEDIA or not. The only source here is the original CRTC authorization, but that actually says nothing about what the station was going to broadcast (i.e. whether it was an originator of its own programming, or a community-owned rebroadcaster of another service.) And because VF stations are now exempt from CRTC licensing requirements, in the same manner as Part 15 stations in the US, they are no longer granted a presumption of notability if their operational status and/or programming source are unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the presumption of notability for broadcast stations doesn't necessarily extend to VF stations, and I'm not finding much in the way of reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. (Plus, with so little out there in general about this station, it is unlikely to be anything more than a permastub anyway.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Call_signs_in_Canada#Assignments. Alternatively, create a new VF Radio Stations In Canada (or something like that) and redirect there. Sounds like it might make an interesting topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 8 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 redirect to Call signs in Canada#Assignments. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2477[edit]

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

Delete. While Canadian VF stations formerly had to have full CRTC licenses, making them eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia under the same standards as a full-power station with a real CXXX call sign, they have since become exempt from the licensing requirement and are now equivalent to a Part 15 station in the US. It is now impossible for us to properly verify anything about a VF station -- such as whether it's still operating today, or when it ceased operations if it's not -- in the absence of RS coverage beyond the CRTC authorization alone. And if we can never verify anything about it to expand the article with, then we can't keep the article anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; VF stations do not have the automatic presumption of notability, and on top of the verifiability issues surrounding such stations I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. (There's actually nothing about this station out there that doesn't come from either the CRTC or Industry Canada, as best I can tell…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Call_signs_in_Canada#Assignments. Alternatively, create a new VF Radio Stations In Canada (or something like that) and redirect there. Sounds like it might make an interesting topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:13, 8 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. Sandstein 19:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparse representation of a number[edit]

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

Original research. Largely unsourced and searching turns up nothing. The sources seem to be on another system, e.g. the one described at skew binary number system, and are only associated with one section; the main body of the article is unsourced. See also the talk page for a discussion after it was Proded and de-Proded. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first example given in the article is basically run length encoding for the digits of a binary number. RLE for binary strings is well known and has been used in some compression schemes. While figuring out arithmetic algorithms for the RLE representation is an interesting academic exercise, I was unable to find sources (other than the section of the paper discussed above) discussing this representation either as a sparse number or as a run length encoded number. It leads me to believe that the article, while well-intentioned, is original research. Without multiple in-depth reliable sources per WP:RS, this topic fails notability thresholds as described in WP:GNG. Given the mention in the paper above, this could be selectively merged into Skew binary number system, but just a single section of a single primary paper is a thin foundation for a merge. Deletion, until multiple sources become available that discuss this number system, may be the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sparse representations of bitvectors are definitely important, and there has even been some interesting research on algorithmic problems of arithmetic with sparse binary numbers (those with few 1's in their binary representation; see Plaisted, "New NP-hard and NP-complete polynomial and integer divisibility problems", FOCS 1977). That said, this article doesn't touch on any of that, its references are useless for establishing notability of this topic (they're on something peripheral to it), and to the extent that what it says is non-obvious it appears to be original research. So, per WP:TNT, if this were to be turned into a usable article it would need to be completely rewritten, and there's no point in keeping the present version while we wait for that to happen. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, since it is an unrelated subject. The only common things between both of those topics is that the adjective sparse appear in them and they are used for data structure Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote. I think I can find more sources, but not after the end of the summer holiday, when I'll be back in my university. Since it's going to take at least a month, and that I understand very-well that there is no easy way right now to assess notability, I understand that it will be deleted. But, no original research, even if I clearly see that there is no way to distinguish OR from non-OR without sources. Even if it is not merged to Skew binary number system, if (when) this page is deleted, the Skew page will need to be edited in order to explain how sparseness can be used on numbers presetend in a Skew binary system. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 16 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 19:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Seeing as sources may be forthcoming in the future, might as well do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... there's two refs. The one I can read uses "Sparse representation" and describes it and its benefits (some). So it's not like the article creator just made this up. On the other hand, that's about all Google can find... JSTOR finds nothing... "Sparse representation" by itself mainly refers to other things, such as signal processing and stuff. As far as I can tell the authors of that one paper made up the term and its description. My guess is that they didn't, so keep the article is my gut feeling. Math is hard. I tagged it as being poorly referenced. Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saarah Hameed Ahmed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Person not notable. Only claim is "only known Muslim pilot in Indian aviation sector". Has no encyclopedic value. Pinging involved users For (;;), Lemongirl942, Adog104, Dharmadhyaksha, SwisterTwister, Aoziwe. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG when all biased pro-Islamic references are removed out for also being non-RS. The false propaganda of "first female Muslim pilot" was struck in previous AFD discussion. Refer supporting references there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put those so-called biased sources back into the article. A source can be biased and still be reliable. If she was any other religion, I am sure no one would be worried about Islamic sources. It is natural for people of Islamic faith to write about Muslim women. I expect to see articles about Jewish women in the Jerusalem Times and Mormon Women in the Deseret News, for the same reason. Please see WP:BIASED. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims the information is not encyclopedic but WP:NOT does not seem to support this. For notability we look for coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources (and in this case find it). We do not substitute our own views of what is important. The existence of the coverage is was matters – the reason for the coverage is not of primary concern. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide those "multiple, independent, reliable sources". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article and you will be able to find them. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article and removed non-independent, non-reliable sources present in it. There are only two sources present there now and that is not what multiple is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that some substantial sources have been removed without discussion but that is merely an example of biassed editing and does not affect whether the individual is notable. We are concerned with what coverage exists, not what has been allowed to remain in the article. Thincat (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's less than two months since the previous AfD was closed as no-consensus. What has changed in that time? The Hindustan Times and Deccan Herald are both long-established daily newspapers in India: simply asserting that they are not reliable does not make it so. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note that all of the users pinged as "involved" voted "delete" at the previous AfD. I don't have time right now, but someone should notify the other involved editors: as it is, this is inappropriate canvassing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing needs to change. The page was non-notable then and non-notable now also. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dharmadhyaksha. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Megalibrarygirl, For (;;), Montanabw, GSS-1987, Lemongirl942, The Drover's Wife, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, Adog104, Dharmadhyaksha, SpacemanSpiff, Miyagawa, Jiahimedluke, Drmies, Keilana, SSTflyer, SwisterTwister, AKS.9955, and The Masked Man of Mega Might: All those previously involved.

I do not like the biased canvassing at all.

I think this article should be replaced with History of women's aviation in India or such as per the previous AfD. Current content and the previous AfD research, especially that by Lemon Girl, should be salvaged. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to starting a new article about History of women's aviation in India; but I wonder what would be added in it by salvaging this article; her opinions and false publicity? That would be undue in the topic. Also, History of women's aviation with a small para about India would be sufficient enough for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument about first-woman-Muslim-pilot-India is spurious. The question is not whether this is a notable combination but whether it has created notable discussion in reliable sources. Claims have been made in these AfDs, but no such notable discussion has been added to the article. As such, the article in its present form is not supportable, but I don't know if that is just bad wiki skills on the part of its supporters. In essence, the article needs to explain why the first-woman-Muslim-pilot-India is so significant and to cite sources for that explanation. I also agree that the canvassing for this new AfD appears biased and should be investigated by an Admin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as well as a probably weak initial article there has been a lot of removal of sources recently, combined with tagging that sources are required. Here is the article at a possibly high point for referencing. Personally I don't see the benefit removing [26][27][28][29] although the extent to which they contribute towards notability is reasonably debatable. It must be a nightmare editing articles in this topic area! Best wishes to all concerned. Thincat (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Here is an RS explaining the religious context: A flight away from religious stereotypes, The Hindu, 8 March 2015; "Said to be Karnataka’s first Muslim woman pilot, Saarah has defied religious and gender stereotypes." and here is the HuffPost giving background to the gender context:[30]. There is more out there to be found. One might argue that the article comes too soon to meet WP:BLP, but if so then the content should be merged elsewhere or moved to draft space, it should not be summarily deleted. For what it's worth, the "first" issue is also an irrelevance. maybe she was factually first in some aspect or other, maybe not, the claims are widespread and can safely be sourced as claims.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging to counteract unbalanced canvassing: User:Megalibrarygirl, User:SusunW, User:Kate A. Steel, User:Montanabw, User:Miyagawa. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please do not ping me further on this article. The number of times this article has been nominated for deletion is like an edit war run amuck. Time is better spent elsewhere. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What SusunW said. Also I do not wish to see this article deleted. Move on, folks. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ridiculous. The subject of the article passes GNG. I think the amount of times the article has been listed for deletion is insane. This is borderline harassment, feels like an edit war and is certainly a waste of everyone's time. It's very WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I'm adding citations to the article right now as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is clearly WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Earlier, Dharmadhyaksha claimed it a propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources[31] and I don't see him coming up with anything to substantiate his claim. The article should stay and please do not ping me for this topic. Thanks, Luke J.^talk 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the last deletion discussion. Since nothing has changed, please feel free to read my comments there. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that this is a WP:BLP1E which is precisely there because of WP:NOTNEWS (which is a policy, unlike WP:GNG which is guideline). In cases of BLP1E, we might have an article on the subject, if it can be proved that event is notable. The problem is that her claim to fame "that in March 2015 she was (possibly the only) a Muslim woman employed by SpiceJet" is actually not a claim to fame. In the previous AfD I showed that she is "NOT the first Muslim woman pilot in India" which might have been a notable claim to fame. But the present claim is unfortunately not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also GNG is not a free pass to an article. The spirit of the guideline is more important than the letter of the guideline. GNG is supposed to be used in the context of WP:NOTNEWS which manifests as WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E. A certain "Casey Shomaker" would probably pass GNG by these [32], [33], [34], [35]. That's doesn't mean we create an article on the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the reports is from 19 October 2013[36] and it says she has been flying for 18 months as a commercial pilot. And, without claiming she was the first at anything, the paper sees fit to write about her with a biography. I find it very hard to follow the BLP1E argument. Thincat (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An event could be anything (See Wikipedia:What is one event). Over here, the claim that she is "one of the few Muslim woman pilots in India". If a person is solely known for this, then it is a BLP1E. (If you look at the examples I gave above on a certain "Casey Shomaker", you will realise that we should not create an article on that individual). Often newspapers interview people and publish articles - (for example this guy who was invited to Wikipedia's prestigious teahouse). The deccan herald source is also such an interview. I'm also about the reliability of the articles saying that she is the "first" or "only" when she has herself clarified that she never made any such claims. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close speedily The nominator has clearly opened this third AfD in bad faith. The last AfD closed with no consensus a month ago, and the nominator's response was "the article wasn't notable then and it isn't notable now." That constitutes a blatant rejection of the previous closing and of the obvious lack of consensus in the community. This third AfD shouldn't have even been opened. Also pinging @Jujutacular and KaisaL: as the previous closers, you two deserve to be aware of this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "first Muslim woman" / "only Muslim woman": See http://www.siasat.com/news/i-never-said-any-such-thing-islamophobia-875778/.

In my interview I never said any such thing as Islamophobia

She also clarified that she never claimed as a first Muslim woman pilot in India but one amongst the few Muslim women pilots.

I'm just wondering if we should actually consider this Hindustan Times article and others like this source reliable here. To be honest, this is a low profile individual who got interviewed, the newspapers published inaccurate claims using her name and then she disappeared from view. The fact that the subject had to clear her name, speaks volumes about the source articles. Not only is this BLP1E, the article contained inaccurate claims about the subject such which should have been removed considering this is a BLP. I'm sorry, but this article is about someone who is hardly notable and actually does a disservice to the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If she's in the news, she's notable. She passes GNG. There is a lot of edit warring going on with this. We've hashed it out in the other AfDs and to have another is really in bad taste. Two sources say she's the first Indian woman Muslim pilot. That's been inspirational to others over time and she's made the news. That makes her notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject herself denied all these claims. The article contained a bunch of stuff about Islamophobia and stuff about how her family treated her. Keeping false claims in the encyclopaedia harms not only the encyclopedia but also the subject. Ultimately, this is a low profile individual. Not only does WP:NOTNEWS apply here, it is also a BLP issue with all these claims. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If she's in the news, she's notable" is not correct, see WP:BLP1E. On the other hand the truth of the claims is less significant than the amount of media interest they have generated: WP:NOTTRUTH. What we have here is essentially a poster child for a notable topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes – Don't ping me about this article and (possibly) future nominations please, I'm agreeing with SusunW and Drmies. If you can, I would suggest all of you to WP:TIO (Take it outside) please. Also, pinging users with prior knowledge of previous stances could result in a WP:FALSECON; as to why I'm not participating as others shouldn't either. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adog, I would have participated anyway, because I regularly participate in AfD discussions relating to topics on women. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl– Which I have no problem with, I meant that for the people who were pinged first (because it's clearly a WP:VOTESTACK). Mainly I'm not voting because this still could be biased (because of the number of users pinged for Delete compared to the Keep) and per SusunW comments, it would be better to just TIO or better move on. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I just want it to be clear for others reading the AfD. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again. And yes, TIO. And ANI if it gets nominated again. Montanabw^(talk) 17:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above keep arguments. And yes ANI if renominated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again). Current nominator does not cite any policies in rationale. Article meets WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. references show notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:34, 7 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. Even the people arguing to keep couldn't work up much enthusiasm. There's some RS show up my search results. is pretty meaningless; if you found some sources, share them with us, so they can be evaluated. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Barnard[edit]

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

This article has one source, a facebook page. Beyond this, I do not see any indicators that she would pass any notability guidelines for models. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a weak one) There is a brief quote here, a photo of her at the NYSE, another photo shoot, there's in-depth coverage in a blog (eh) and coverage in a fan magazine and more fan magazine coverage and coverage of her and several other models doing various inane things and dubious sponsorships and the usual model-beauty-promotion crap, but she probably meets the WP:GNG although just by a tad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I don't think that NMODEL is met for basically one major photo shoot and a group of fan pages and blogs. Though I know this is an OTHERSTUFF argument, I am seeing musician, academics and other folks deleted on more than this. Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because having two appearances is not anywhere near enough to suggest her own notability and, at best, she's best mentioned at a lost as a whole, not for her own actual article and this is because there's no independent notability substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 21 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 19:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's some RS show up my search results. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more discussion on the sources provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. We look for coverage in reliable sources. Female models usually tend to receive coverage on a lot of fan websites (due to the male dominated internet) but many of these are user-generated content/blogs. I tend to look for significant coverage in mainstream media. I am finding mentions in a lot of articles (some of them in reliable sources), but there is not one substantial article about the subject. A photo and a brief quote does not add up to significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmer Barnes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

About half of the sources are works created by Barnes. The coverage he has received is not of the level to indicate that he is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the fourteen sources referenced in the article:

Three (the Gay Times and NYPress articles, and the yahoo link) are broken links. The Gay Times article is archived here and is an interview with Barnes. The NYPress article is archived here, and is another interview, this time with him and another of the founders of the Initiative Collective. The yahoo link is his contributor profile for yahoo, archived here. None are independent, and so they don't contribute to GNG.
One photograph of him (not significant coverage) on the website of the real life superhero project (an initiative he is involved in: not independent coverage). Another photograph of him as part of a series of photographs of real life superheros (not significant coverage).
One article about the Wall-Street Creeper, which doesn't provide significant coverage of Zimmer Barnes.
One announcement of a lecture by Barnes -- not significant coverage, not independent.
A staff profile of Barnes for "Magic Camp" -- again, not independent.
A summary of a court case his mother was involved in -- no significant coverage.
An article by Barnes -- not independent.
An imdb profile of a documentary. Not a reliable source, though the documentary itself may be.
Two videos of interviews with Barnes -- not independent.
Finally, an in-depth article in the Boston Phoenix -- which only mentions Zimmer once. Again, not significant coverage.

There may be sources out there, but the ones in the article as it is do not demonstrate notability... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 20 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 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: no one has provided new sources that show Barnes meets any notability guidelines, or provided any reason to believe the existing sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and insufficient RS. This is a vanity page, serving to promote the subject only, with trivial details such as "he attended a conference". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't find adequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hania Barton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Barton appeared in 2 works, a TV production and a film, when she was 10 and 12 respectively. In neither case did she have anything approaching a significant role. The article was deleted back in 2006. The only thing since then has been extremely tabloid coverage of her going to drug rehab. She does not pass the notability guidelines for actors, and the article as it stands has major BLP issues. I do not think the sources justify mentioning drug rehab, and Barton is just not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - that article is a BLP disaster area, with no RSes and all tabloids. Seriously, most of it should be removed immediately - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 23 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 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as BLP violations based on non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh gosh yes delete, and I'm only sorry it's taken this long. Thank you David Gerard for removing the inappropriate material. I'm not super familiar with the various kinds of protection available but given that this had already been deleted once, then returned and was up for years, I do think it's worth adding an obstacle to recreation. If something changes dramatically and she becomes truly notable, someone will put in a request to revisit. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:07, 8 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 Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A Kimball Jr. - Healthcare Expert[edit]

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

I am not seeing any sources that would meet the notability guideline at WP:BASIC. Snippet-quotes does not significant coverage make. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources consist of 1-2 trade magazine "interviews" of questionable independence and notability, some short quotations as mentioned above, and a few trivial listings and routine business messages. Other sources via Google-search (mostly tabloids and columnists with branche-internal gossip) report about some scandals and criticism, but I wouldn't consider such sources "reliable" for WP:BLP-purposes. Apparently Kimball is somewhat known within the branche, but there is no independent in-depth coverage to establish general notability. A last point: listing "America’s Advanced industries" among his published works is misleading, even with the added disclaimer. He is merely thanked as one in a list of 30+ additional persons for minor assistance or support. GermanJoe (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have nominated the article for speedy deletion, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard A. Kimball, Jr.. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marianwolfe86 for some background information about the article's history. GermanJoe (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Yes, it looks like this article qualifies for WP:G4 and WP:G5. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 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 redirect to Artisan Entertainment. Based on the discussion here, it seems like there is no indication of notability, just of existence, which is not enough to justify an article. There is a redirect suggestion and another comment that moving the article to draft space to preserve the content; seems like a redirect would serve both purposes so this is what I am going for. I will also semi protect the redirect to prevent any premature (without better sources or a WP:DRV discussion) restoration of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family Home Entertainment[edit]

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

The page has recently been subject to massive edit warring, in which IPs incrementally added some material and other users were reducing it to a redirect, saying in the edit comments that the article is not independently notable, however, nobody ever cared to bring it here. Rather than continuing edit-warring, we need to discuss whather the company has any independent notability. My quick search did not reveal anything useful. Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References are spammed with links to directories. There are a small handful of articles and books that mention the company in passing, so we know it exists, but that is about it. If sources can be found that write about the company in more depth, the article should be kept. Maybe move to Draft space until that is done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of independent notability. By their very nature, obscure entertainment companies are covered so little in reliable sources that they are inevitable WP:CORPDEPTH failures. A look a Google Books only furthers this impression; there are simply scattered mentions of "Family Home Entertainment" to specify the distributor of a film or in a film catalog. The article's current sources, while numerous, are all mentions in directories or trivial coverage amounting to a single use of its name to identify a film's source. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it shouldn't be deleted. I mean, FHE isn't an obscure company, and without an article for it, nobody (not even VHS buffs) would even know what the company is anymore. 47.34.190.100 (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Artisan Entertainment and protect I would suggest a redirect. I don't see enough to have a separate article on this company. It can be covered adequately in the successor company. I suggest redirecting to Artisan Entertainment (with history intact) and protecting the redirect. This allows anyone to add material from the history while the article is no longer disrupted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a redirect to Artisan won't help things. I mean, without an article for FHE, nobody (not even VHS buffs) would even know what the company is anymore, and it's NOT a predecessor to Artisan in general, it was a DIVISION of the latter since 1985 when Artisan was established as IVE to keep FHE and U.S.A. as its separate imprints. Do you not see the parent company history in the infobox? 47.34.190.100 (talk) 05:07, 6 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 redirect to AVN Award. Consensus appears to be that the sources offered either don't display significant coverage to establish notability or are not independent, and that the Shepherd Express is not considered sufficient to establish notability. The claim of Pwolit iets that Google results are "sufficiently notable" does not appear to offer any evidence. There was a suggestion of a redirect by one of the keep !voters and a support for a possible merger, which appear to be reasonable options to facilitate restoring the article in case independent sources should appear, thus I'll go for this - it's functionally equivalent to deletion anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year[edit]

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

This "product" produced by AVN Magazine (Adult Video News) is not covered in independent reliable sources and uses only industry related promotional materials for references WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Keep. Using industry-related sources for something in said industry has never been prohibited. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, would you expect the Michelin Guide article to not include any sources from the food industry? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd expect it to include sources from places other than the Michelin Guide itself - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Primary sources aren't prohibited either. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever said, and no guidelines say, primary sources are prohibited. It is just they are not applicable when determining notability. Per GNG - "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...". The sources are not reliable because they are vested in the industry, and consist of passing mentions for this award. The sources are also not reliable because these are AVN (Adult News Video), private corporation, produced publications, which are not independent of the subject. In this context, comparing this to the Michelin Guide is well, no comparison. That article shows that Michelin Guide has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are indeed independent of the subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources are independent of Michelin Guide. Which is the article title. Which is the subject. AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year is the subject here (pornography isn't, sorry), and there indeed are independent sources. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For GNG, the sources are supposed to be independent of the topic, which in this case is the content pertaining to Michelin Guide; it has nothing to with the title. The function of a title is to distinguish one article from another article; is the name of the file by which Wikipedia electronically stores and sorts the article on a server, the name under which it is categorized; the name by which it is is found in recent changes and on a watchlist; and serves as the distinguishing part of the url; and so on - see WP:TITLE first, and then footnote #2.

Multiple independent sources serve to demonstrate a given topic's notability, not to demonstrate the title the article per WP:SIGCOV. From the page you cited, I don't how you came up with the comment you wrote. Also, I really don't know how you switched from "BBW Performer of the Year" to "pornography" as the subject. No one said pornography is the subject. Only you have.

And the end of your statement, "and there are indeed independent sources" is vague and does not refer to anything specific. To what exactly are you referring? Independent sources pertaining to the Moon? or the planet Venus? It is not clear to what you are referring. For this particular product ("Performer of the Year"), there are no independent reliable sources available which is a requirement for satisfying GNG. This product has not been demonstrated to be a notable topic sufficient for a stand alone article - see WP:NRV and WP:WHYN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, in your above post you have acknowledged these are "primary sources" that are used to source this article. "Primary sources" in this context are not independent of the subject. It is probably not the correct meaning anyway, in that all the references are somehow affiliated, in that they are not independent, and serve as promotion rather than serving a neutral point of view. WP:NOV. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I did a google search and found the results sufficiently notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could post several of your sufficiently notable results here. Sorry to say, but the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding here is several sufficiently notable results. Also, are you indicating that "results" are the same as "sources"? Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 as not meeting GNG: I could find little nontrivial independent coverage worth mentioning with the possible exception of the Fleshbot and X Critic pieces, and they're not anywhere near enough. There is nothing wrong with using press releases and other non-independent sources on occasion, but such sources do not count towards the notability requirement. Rebb ing 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I think the Shepherd Express article counts as significant coverage in a reliable and independent source. Unfortunately, there isn't much else: The Fleshbot piece, while likely reliable, offers little more than a passing mention. The same goes for the Daily Dot article that interviewed Ms. Karla Lane. (Remember her from last week's AFD party?) The X Critic piece squarely addresses the award but not in depth; moreover, its reliability is doubtful: the lack of copy-editing alone suggests that X Critic lacks any meaningful editorial oversight. Therefore, my vote remains the same, but I thought it appropriate to acknowledge the source Erpert uncovered and to re-evaluate all of the coverage with an open mind. Rebb ing 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete literally only primary-sourced. I'm willing to be convinced that this particular award is noteworthy in the industry, by WP:RS (even in-industry) evidence being provided of it being noted - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very sound arguments of Steve Quinn and Rebbing. No significant independent sourcing provided. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a source from mainstream publication Shepherd Express. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the above publication is a free weekly; not sure it would be considered RS or SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm slightly amazed there's that much - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a free weekly (above) is not sufficient independent RS coverage to meet the notability requirement for this award. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve: Actually, I said primary sources aren't prohibited. Those kind of sources aren't all that's in the article. And you agree that pornography isn't the subject but then you argue that there aren't any independent sources in the article? The last time I checked, all the sources aren't from AVN.com. And as for the sources being affiliated...are you saying AVN is related to XCrtic, EnStars and Shepherd Express? If you can provide proof that they are, I'd love to see it.

@K.e.coffman: Do you say the same thing about articles that source The Village Voice?

The thing is, the delete !voters are using reasoning that not only are inaccurate, but aren't even requirements. And the subject was already notable as-is, but now it's suddenly non-notable after more sources are added? Again, primary sources aren't prohibited, and non-industry sources wouldn't make sense because, frankly, they would have to be about a different topic. (And even if the article had zero sources, that wouldn't necessarily mean it would be deleted either.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worst-case scenario, why couldn't this just be redirected to AVN Award? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Rebbing and User:k.e. Coffman. The Shepherd Express comes closest to a reliable source, but it is a local alternative weekly, and the coverage is meager. In any case, this being the only one close to an acceptable source is not enough. I also doubt X-Critic has much in the way of editorial oversight. User:Rebbing is correct in that the coverage is not sufficient. And besides that, it is closely affiliated to the porn industry in that it promotes porn videos on every page, besides its so called reviews (including graphic stills from the "reviewed" video) - which is another platform for promotion. Fleshbot is a blog and closely associated with the porn industry[37]. They were considering creating a porn award ceremony for promotional purposes, but I don't know what has become of that (quote: "That might mean more live events like the Fleshbot awards; it probably means even further alignment with the porn industry.") In any case, the coverage of this award is passing mention, inside an interview. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erpert. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steve - fails GNG, No objections to merging if desired however there's no evidence of notability and therefore doesn't warrant an article. –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 7 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sohail Mashadi[edit]

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

Delete. Person not notable and fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Nominated due oversight. Please keep the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject was an elected member of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh; does this not meet WP:POLITICIAN #1 as "a national, state or provincial legislature"? AllyD (talk) 08:59, 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 delete. — ξ ^xplicit 04:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jungkook[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jungkook

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability,this is the third or fourth time a page for this person is being deleted and while it seems to be different from the last version I saw nothing has changed in the time since that page was removed to have made this person individually notable.he just was guest in one or a few episodes in some variety shows and a member of web variety show his songwriter work is for his band BTS he has not his own song without any chart he has not any notable work delete this page and redirect to BTS.(Toomass (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete redirect and protect. Per WP:NMUSIC, group members with no notability outside the band are redirected to the band's page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has established quite a notable presence other than BTS. His variety appearances actually have some importance, especially his recent 'King of Masked Singer' appearance, which his songs were actually released on Melon, which actually counts as a song that could be counted on the chart and therefore counts as one of the criteria on Wikipedia's notability guideline. Also wouldn't his collaborations with other artists count as his own solo work other than BTS, as these songs don't count as work under BTS. I'm not really sure why this page keeps getting deleted as he has a lot more notability than other Kpop idols who have their own wikipedia page, and I do not mean this to offend in any way. The other members besides Rapmonster do not have wikipedia pages themselves and I say that is fair but Jungkook has been increasingly showing his notability nowadays. A lot of "new" fans want to learn about him so this page would be a good way for them to get to know him. Also under WP:ENT I see that he fulfills the "2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" and also "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", especially with his recent appearances which are pretty notable. Hahahey568 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. no notable solo work in his career he was just guest in some varity show no cast member,no drama ,no own song (even kim taehyung "other BTS member" that has more variety appearance and acting in drama is not notable yet) his solo work is not notable enough for separate wikipedia page.redirect and protect.(Shin hi (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. A bunch of variety show appearances don't make a person notable. I note that Hahahey568 appears to be turning a lot of pages into fan pages, judging from the addition of songwriting credits for a lot of these kinds of artists, and from non-neutral and inflated headings such as "2015-Present: Recognition With BTS and Variety Show Appearances" in this particular article. Return to the redirect. BTW, I didn't see this AfD until after I removed those credits; I was led here because I just redirected Suga (singer), a very similar case, back to the main article. For fan base and all that, there is simply no evidence that he has a fan base apart from his band's fan base. And none of those roles are of course significant in any real way; they are just appearances on show programs which frequently are vehicles of the entertainment companies that own the bands. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as was the case with Minzy's page before, just because a member is popular does not mean they need a separate page. Peachywink (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I do see that those petitioning for Delete do have valid points, I'd like to point something out. While BTS (admittedly, Jungkook is their most popular member) have a very large international following, they do even more so in Korea. I think a lot of people are forgetting that, just because he has made "appearances on show programmes" which don't seem very "notable" for international fans, I lived briefly in Korea a few years ago for a student exchange, and popularity works very very differently over there. K-Pop idols in themselves are the equivalent of our A-List celebrities. So, very popular or well-known people such as G-Dragon are Korea's equivalent popularity-wise to say maybe Sam Smith or Miley Cyrus (although I'm not comparing the artists themselves, mind, simply the popularity scale). So while these appearances may seem insignificant, they carry a lot more meaning in Korea. I'm not saying that those asking for delete are wrong necessarily, as they are valid points, I'm just merely stating that things are very different in Korea and this should be taken into account when it comes to the pages of celebrities from non-English speaking countries. - Cora Quinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.165.36 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability,Due to wekipedia's standard page for living people he does not have any solo work to need separate page in wikipedia,,,, to BTS's fans and non-wikipedia users:wikipedia is not a fanpage that you create article just for kpop fans for enjoy,he is not popular if he was, he must have many solo work just like EXO and BOGBANG members even BTS member V,i can not find any notable work in his career,delete and protect.(1chinchin (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination was never properly listed at WP:AFD/Today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 06:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No solo work, nothing notable. Information is nothing that of a fan page rather than an informative wikipedia article. Keep argument is nothing more than a fan trying to argue for it to remain but references idols such as G-Dragon who do have a strong solo presence. He may be an idol but he has no notable solo work and therefore does not require a solo page. Popularity ≠ requiring an individual page. Delete and protect. 217.42.59.250 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how many times this page was deleted and created again? he is not notable yet without any notable solo work,delete and protect (Pikhmikh (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep He has established notability outside his band. He has had appearances on notable shows without his band (King of Masked Singer and host for MBC Music Core) as well as a strong fanbase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19jshi (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 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 Speedy close as a bad faith nomination by creator of more recent article. Merging Cherry Girl (film) into Cherry Girl per below. Closing discussion per WP:IAR. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Girl[edit]

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

Page already exists in more detail on Cherry Girl (film) Xenobia4 (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. There's no reason to bring it up for deletion. I would also suggest moving Cherry Girl (film) to Cherry Girl unless there is some reason for a disambiguation page to exist. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cherry Girl has existed since 2007. Cherry Girl (film) was created by the nominator this past May. The latter should be redirected into the former. — ξ^xplicit 06:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. In fact, I'm going to take this as a bad-faith nomination and shut it down. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:49, 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 speedy keep. Per SK1. Merge suggestions can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 02:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Fogdö[edit]

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

can't find any reliable sources for "Fogdömästaren" or "Master of Fogdö". http://www.kyrkokartan.se/058261/Fogd%C3%B6_kyrka doesn't look reliable, http://medeltidbild.historiska.se/medeltidbild/visa/foremal.asp?objektid=930502M2# looks reliable, but it's hardly significant coverage. The last source "The Concise Grove Dictionary of Art (terms)" is in print but I don't know if it's actually covered in there. I initially suspected a hoax, but it seems like this person might have actually existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment – Interesting subject, and not a hoax. Below are some sources found using Google Books. Here's a link to the Swedish Wikipedia article (English-translation). Here's a link to one of the subject's works. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hourihane, C. (2012). The Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture. OUP USA. p. 541. ISBN 978-0-19-539536-5.
Sveriges kyrkor, konsthistoriskt inventarium...(et al.). Generalstabens litografiska anstalts. 1982. p. 133. (subscription required)
Lindgren, M. (1987). A history of Swedish art. Signum. p. 80. ISBN 978-91-85330-78-2. A long way away from these Sodermanland churches, in Skane and on Zealand in Denmark, there are very similar suites of paintings, and for this reason the author has been dubbed the "Union Master". He ought, however, to be regarded ... (subscription required)

(Possibly) Merge to Union Master § Relationship with the Master of Fogdö. There may not be enough coverage available in online searches to qualify a standalone article. Perhaps more offline sources are available, such as in Swedish libraries. A merge will serve to improve and enhance the latter article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added "(Possibly)" to my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, we do not expect tons of references found online for a XV century artist, are we? But even with what I can simply find in google, there are enough evidences and information for standalone article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grove is a reliable source. Google books has a snapshot of the entry here Mduvekot (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- I am not a fluent reader of Swedish, but the second source does give the attribution. The Grove reference is mislinked, and the first is linked to a tourist comments site. More worryingly, the Swedish WP link is to an article on the Union Master. Deletion should not be an option. The worst that should happen is we merge or redirect to that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article because the old frescos in the churches of Denmark and Sweden are of considerable artistic importance. I'm afraid that quite often sources about Denmark and Sweden are mainly in the Scandinavian languages and cannot always be identified on Google searches in English. Could those of you who have access to Grove, etc., please add references to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the data base of the Swedish National Heritage Board (which is as about reliable as you can get for Swedish history), www.kringla.nu, Fogdömästaren and Unionsmästaren (Union Master and Master of Fogdö) are two alternative names for the same person, something that the Swedish article also states. According to that article he was called Union Master in Scandinavia but was given the alternative name Master of Fogdö in Sweden. cart-Talk 16:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a copyright free picture of one of his works in Hallshuk chapell in the picture collection of the Swedish National Heritage Board. It can be uploaded and used in the article. cart-Talk 22:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, to complicate things further there are TWO Masters of Fogdö, one painter and one sculptor - the existence of the sculptor seems even more dubious (or, rather, obviously there was a sculptor as we can see but there seems to be questions of whether it's reasonable to use this name or not). Art history can be a but messy ;) Yakikaki (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, indeed! --cart-Talk 08:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Withdraw, clearly exists, merger discussion can continue elsewhere. No point in continuing afd.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As somebody who has studied art history in Sweden, I think this article should remain for the time being or be merged with the Union Master -- it doesn't matter all that much -- but there is a more subtle problem with this and similar subjects: early 19th century Swedish art historians tended to identify individual anonymous "masters" and attribute large numbers of artworks to them. The tendency in the last few decades has been to question these attributions to individuals and talk more vaguely of workshops or schools. Nevertheless and somewhat confusingly, the "names" often remain in use out of convenience. This is still a legitimate subject for an article, but eventually, this and other articles of this sort need to be reworked to clarify these historiographical issues. --Hegvald (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I've consulted "Signums svenska konstihistoria. Gotiken." which is, both in my views I would dare say in the general view as well, the best contemporary comprehensive art history of Sweden. On the subject, it says (in my translation) "Paintings very similiar in style [to those in Strängnäs Cathedral] can be found in Fogdö Church not very far from Strängnäs Cathedral. These paintings have traditionally been grouped together with the Zealandian decorations in Undlöse and Nöddebo, dated to around 1425, and the painter has been labelled the "Union Master", an attribution which later has been questioned. However, in 1981 frescoes were uncovered in Rörby on Zealand which in their unspoilt condition convincingly show that the similarities are not only the result of a style of the time but that it is in fact the same painter who has worked in both Sweden and in Denmark. A close inspection reveals a number of characteristic details which unite the Danish and Swedish paintings. The name "Union Master" can therefore be retained for this in all probability foreign artist, who worked in an international style of high quality, with parallels in Westphalian and Bohemian painting." (page 385) Since the name Fogdömästaren nevertheless certainly still is in use and at the end of the day it's after all a question of attributions and assigned names, I would suggest to incorporate the article on the Master of Fogdö into the Union Master page with a short summary of the issue of attributing these paintings. Yakikaki (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Yakikaki (with usual redirect). What I saw when I looked before writing my earlier comment made me wonder whether that might not be an appropriate outcome. I hope Yakikaki can be persuaded to undertake the merger, using the sources found. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Binfire[edit]

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

Notability: I cannot locate significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; all coverage is trivial or PR-like. Article is written in a promotional tone, so WP:PROMO applies. Article has been created and edited by single purpose accounts such as:

So COI is possibly a factor. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself am frankly nearly speedying, it's that blatant. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly by putting in a bin and setting on fire. Reference check shows a few actual proper reviews in RSes, but mostly press releases. Also, if a source lists "White papers" in its top bar, it's an analyst site whose opinions are for hire and the link should be regarded as sponsored content - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (I can hardly believe that they literally called their product a dumpster fire) - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been finding mentions of "bin fires" when I was looking for sources :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zibika.com[edit]

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

4-year-old promo. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little coverage in reliable sources, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The provided references relate to the original start-up, period of difficulties and later relaunch as a functional service of an insurance brokerage firm. These are simply evidence of a firm going about its business (intermittently); no evidence of notability in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage. All I could find online that was semi-reputable and semi-significant was [38] article in Silicon India News. Note I only searched in English. Yvarta (talk) 18:24, 4 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 speedy keep as the nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Graham (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Moore (sculptor)[edit]

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

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

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

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

~~Stub, 2 sources, may not be notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

KEEP this article has been posted for all of 4 minutes, it is still a work in progress. It is also created to remove a red linked name in another article as an attempt to increase coverage of women artists as per the Women in Red initiative. Carptrash (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just remove the redlink, then? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's just ridiculous to nominate for deletion one minute after creation. Also please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. The point is to turn red links into blue links. Sro23 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: I am being harassed because the article's subject is female. Better to move on. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:28, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasdie Hasnan[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiographical stub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible CSD A7: Looks aspirational (see the Associated Acts) more than actual. Searches are not finding anything other than the usual social media and nothing to indicate notability per WP:MUSICBIO or broader WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim of notability, no better references found. --Finngall ^talk 22:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:42, 7 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. —Cryptic 02:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hutchinson[edit]

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

Stub, unsourced BLP. I took this to AFD because I want this deleted BEFORE "Tuesday, 6 September". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but this is the wrong process if the nominator wants the page deleted before a week passes. The page could be put up for speedy deletion (even while this AfD is still going on) if it deserves to be, and that could result in a faster deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article that is an unsourced WP:BLP (though realistically a weak source such as this could be used to address a BLP Prod). A man with a job; no evidence presented or found that he has encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My news searches didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business people-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced BLP created by an apparent relative of the subject: Special:Contributions/Calumhutchinson. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by DGG per WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Planners, an American Express Travel Representative[edit]

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

18 sources are good, but still looks promotional. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 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 speedy deleted. Speedy deleted by User:Espresso Addict per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janaiah Green[edit]

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

CSD tag says "test page", but this is an autobiography. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:58, 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 speedy delete. Unsourced G11 deletion ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of Kings And Men[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Unsourced and promotional. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Niter[edit]

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

This bodybuilder has won a competition (Musclemania) whose notability is itself in question and performed CPR on a person. That doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article's creator and only significant editor is the SPA User:Rniterjr. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In reviewing this bodybuilder's references and links, their may've been some oversight as the nominator for deletion states, "this bodybuilder has won a competition."--meaning 1 competition. Upon careful review, the references cite a plethora amount of reliable sources to support the bodybuilder's claim; specifically, winning multiple championships. In addition, the bodybuilder has won the competitions to such a degree that he has earned professional cards at some of the highest levels. In light of Musclemania's notability, the brand appears to be global at various continents upon reviewing the website www.musclemania.com/event-schedule. It was discovered that the bodybuilder was listed as an athlete on the cover. However, the article's creator should reference additional sources to strengthen notability. In review of the Facebook Page of the bodybuilder, it was discovered that the page has been verified by Facebook and reads, "Facebook confirmed this is an authentic page for this public figure, media or brand." According to Wikipedia, "Celebrity is fame and public attention in the media, usually applied to a person, group of people (celebrity couple, family, etc.), or, occasionally, to animals. Celebrity status is often associated with wealth (commonly referred to as fame and fortune) and fame can often provide opportunities to make money. Although the term is often intended to refer to famous individuals, it is commonly used to refer to anyone who has had any moderate public attention in media, regardless of how well-known they are beyond their niche." This verifies the bodybuilder has some sort of public attention to earn a verified badge. In addition, performing CPR on an individual does not warrant significance. However, saving a life through the performance of CPR is certainly commendable. The article's creator must continue building this page. In its current standing, I recommend more contributions to the page over deletion. 81.215.4.199 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted because the topic of this article is "worthy of notice" according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, the bodybuilder has received significant coverage in multiple published and secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. The bodybuilder's article clearly aligns with Sports personalities (see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable or secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This athlete also appears to be verified by Facebook as an authentic public figure or brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rniterjr (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article should not be deleted, though it has room for improvement. The competition that the athlete has competed in is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page to begin with. The athlete is also a decorated veteran who was well known for training hundreds of his peers. He also meets the criteria for notability.WikiGuy1980 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The athlete is also sponsored by a well known brand, which also has its own Wikipedia page. WikiGuy1980 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have read the article. The article presents very reliable sources *note (official military web address). The review of his articles encompassed with his fan page strongly demonstrates he is a verified and active public figure. The article doesn't seem to contain any biased information that violates the criterion for biographies on living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.17.79 (talk) 14:18, 6 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 speedy delete, copyvio formatted in such a way it looks like gibberish--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's Funeral[edit]

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

Useless. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G1. Right? RunnyAmiga (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A1. Nothing much here, but it's not G1 gibberish. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. It was only two words long when I lvoted. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a long compilation of notes in stream-of-consciousness style, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filled with copyvio. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 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 speedy deletion (A7, G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utility Connect[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible CSD A7: The extent of independent coverage provided for this firm is a name-check in a brief article whose focus is another firm, and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. The only WP:RS in the article (and that I can find) is trivial coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:10, 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 merge to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons). Possible meanings in chemistry may be handled by a disambiguation page or hatnote, or alternative redirects such as proposed by Mark viking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-elemental[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons), which has a section on this topic. If, in the future, it is expanded with additional material and citations, it can be broken back out into a freestanding article. bd2412 T 02:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) for the reasons already stated by BD2412. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merge seems appropriate, but I wonder whether this page should instead redirect to something chemistry related; there are a number of hits on Google Scholar. I know nothing about the subject; I'll leave a quick note on the WikiProject Chemistry talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I haven't found quite enough sourcing for independent notability, but the basic facts are verifiable and there is an appropriate merge target, so per WP:ATD a merge is preferable to deletion. The merge will require a redirect to preserve attribution. Regarding JM's point, there is a substance called quasi-elemental carbon in the literature that is mostly elemental carbon with a little organic content (I think). No prejudice to creating such a quasi elemental carbon or quasi elemental (chemistry) article or redirect in the future. --Mark viking (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BD2412, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:51, 4 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 merge to List of Greyhawk characters#Lum the Mad. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 01:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Machine of Lum the Mad[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Greyhawk characters#Lum the Mad. I created the original redirect, but not the actual content of the article. I took a look at "find sources" above, but I still don't see enough secondary sources to truly establish notability. While I feel it is important, I can't really back that up via the standard Wikipedia process. My impression is that this article belongs on a different kind of wiki, perhaps one that uses an "in universe" perspective. That said, I think converting this article back to a redirect would be better than utter deletion. BOZ has offered his suggestion and I have offered mine. Either redirect would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. GentlemanGhost (converse) 02:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk characters#Lum the Mad per the above, then put a link to the merged content into List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons and Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons)#Artifacts. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Jclemens's idea sounds good. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Jclemens, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:50, 4 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Valli[edit]

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

At the help desk, Castlemate asked if someone can please call for the deletion of the page. I agree as I do not think it means WP:BIO. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As an unsourced BLP, this would be PRODable except that it is grandfathered. If references showing notability are found within seven days, can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability. --Varun FEB2003 13:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand how anybody can state "No real claim to notability" when the article states he has competed at the a wold cup race in rowing. That is assuredly a real claim to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rowing World Cups are not like Olympics or soccer World Cups or IAAF chamionships. They have 3 per year with near 1000 competitors at each.

Athlete notability is tricky because it can change from even to event. Outside the above competitions, this is the pertinent line, I think: "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships." It should be noted that while Valli did compete at one World Cup, he was in the 2nd Australian team that did not make the finals.

Just my opinion of course. Not trying to badger you. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, your reply isn't badgering; this is a discussion after all. My issue is that competing at a rowing world cup is a claim of notability, not that competing at the rowing world cup was sufficient to establish notability, and as such requires more elaboration to support a delete opinion. Your reply has clarified your position, and makes the case that the individual does not meet the threshold. -- Whpq (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, he has appeared only in one world cup race, as a crew member on the second Australian boat in the M8+ which placed third in the B final (9th place). In terms of coverage about this rower, he is listed as a team member, or in photo credits when covering some races but that represents just passing mentions. There is a little bit more with respect to him participating in the Clipper Race, see [39], and [40] which is are more than passing mentions, but not what would be considered significant coverage. There is no rowing specific sports notability criteria, but in the spirit of how others are written, the participation in a single world cup where his boat did not make the final does not seem to be something that is sufficient by itself to indicate notability, and the coverage in reliable sources does not rise to the level that would meet WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 05:10, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Alexsandra[edit]

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

Alexsandra is not notable as a magician or philanthropist. The coverage of her work has been too minor to pass the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made a good faith search for significant coverage in reliable sources, and found nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability; vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 01:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Patient[edit]

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

Delete. Plot-only summary of a film, which makes no substantive claim of notability per WP:NFILMS and is sourced almost entirely to primary sources and blogs -- the closest thing to a reliable source here is its page on Rotten Tomatoes, and the only review present on that page is by an online film critic who reviews films only on his own blog rather than in a real media outlet. As always, a film is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists -- but nothing written or sourced here suggests that it's notable enough to have earned one. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two reviews: [41] from San Diego Gay and Lesbian News and [42] from DVD Verdict. There are also a few scattered trivial mentions, such as [43] from the Tampa Bay Times. It's not much, but it's better than nothing. I admit that a review in DVD Verdict doesn't carry the same weight as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, but I'd consider it reliable. Not 100% sure about SDGLN, but it seems reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF even if not having the same extensive coverage as a big studio's highly touted and promoted blockbuster. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was kind of hoping there might be more discussion, but I guess I'll err on the side of caution. There does seem to be coverage, as listed above, even if it's a bit lighter than I usually like to see. An IP editor recently added a few more sources to the article. I haven't gone over them carefully, but they seem a bit questionable. Still, maybe we can use one or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 4 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 and salt. Also noting prior salting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-exceed Technology Solutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I declined a speedy deletion request for this article because on balance there are sufficient breadth of references in reliable secondary sources to make at least some claim to notability. However, most are simply reprints of company press releases, so they may lack sufficient depth. Bringing to AfD to allow a wider audience review on whether this company meets the general notability guideline. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concurred with considering speedy delete, none of this comes close at all for actual substance; and I myself actually even voted Delete at the 1st AfD. I honestly believe Salting is best here because it simply shows the persistence. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They have been trying to get this article up on Wikipedia for a long time now. All kinds of name permutations have been tried. The coverage about the company is simply routine coverage - the best I found was this. None of this satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Considering that they have been trying to get this article up for a long time, I would say we can SALT the title. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the various name permutations per Lemongirl942 - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Games[edit]

Delete as nominator. Plot-only summary of a film, which makes no substantive claim of notability per WP:NFILMS and is sourced almost entirely to primary sources and blogs -- the closest thing to a reliable source here is its page on Rotten Tomatoes, and that contains zero actual reviews to actually count as media coverage about it. As always, a film is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists -- but nothing written or sourced here suggests that it's notable enough to have earned one. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer "plot only". And a topic's notability is determined through sources being available, not per article content ot the article ever saying "this topic is notable because..." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a reasonable WP:BEFORE effort to locate improved sourcing (which I did) and come up dry (which I did), it is not my further responsibility to psychically divine that improved sources might actually be available in some specialized location that I don't have access to — things can change if somebody does find and add the proper sourcing, but that fact still doesn't mean I deserve to be condescended to about how notability works. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just fine, and take no offense as my response was not for an experienced editor such as yourself, and was meant for less-experienced-others who visit here who might see your argument as somehow stating that the article must itself state its topic is notable. I perhaps should have simply pointed visitors to WP:NEXIST which clarifies in simpler words. No admonishment was intended. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Delete~~ Had a hard time finding even fringe coverage. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per my work on the article and a bit of digging showing multiple sources covering the film's production... GT Magazine! and Albuquerque Journal for two. There is likely more... and though I do not watch that genre, I am convinced it is worth keeping and improving, not deleting. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your archive link gave the address of the ABQ Journal article search engines couldn't find: [44]. This is probably the strongest source. I also remember there being some rule about fringe coverage, concerning the others. I'm not sure about it now so I'm rescinding my delete. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. It is clear that there is deliberate confusion going on here. Author blocked until he can explain himself. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon (British band)[edit]

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

Delete - So far as I can tell, this article is a hoax; it appears to be based on Bring Me The Horizon. The various links to people, albums, etc, relate to a variety of acts which don't mention this band. Quite a bit of work has gone into it and I'm not an expert on this genre so I thought I'd bring it here rather than class it as a blatant hoax, in case I'm missing something. Warofdreams talk 00:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know if it's a deliberate hoax or not, but it's definitely the work of some confusion – not just Bring Me the Horizon, but also records by Blink 182 and My Chemical Romance mixed in among others in the discography. This edit suggests the article's creator did base it on BMTH's article, but I'm hesitant to call it a deliberate hoax... but whatever the reaasons, it's not a genuine band and the article should go. Richard3120 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:not even a real band. based on blink 182 and my chemical romance. Wasabi,the,one Talk 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't the only hoaxing going on – see Frank Iero (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Bring Me the Horizon (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Template:Diary of a Reckless Emo Kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by CraigMackie. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:57, 4 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Glen Pitre[edit]

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

This article seems not to meet notability guidelines. Per general notability guidelines, there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage from reliable sources of the topic. Per specific notability guidelines for creative professionals, the individual does not seem to be widely cited by peers or successors, has not been cited as having invented any important theories or concepts, does not appear to have been involved in the creation of any overly significant bodies of work (most works cited on this page being either stubs or non-existent pages), and, finally, is not credited for any significantly monumental work. The Midnight Murk (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:BASIC Apart from writing and directing multiple films (several of which have won awards), there's plenty of coverage of this person: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:CREATIVE. simple news google here: [50]. Article just needs expand, source, as many articles do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn M. Bennett[edit]

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

Only one anime convention, little nobility, some roles are unsourced. Therainbowsend (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couple of potential sources, but nothing that establishes notability. Esw01407 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Rico in Sky Wizards Academy and Ritsuka in Dance with Devils are lead roles, those aren't notable titles; not appearing on Adult Swim or cartoons found on television. In Garo she is listed in the cast list but not as a lead. Fairy Tail her character is way down on the list so it isn't a significant role. I'm not seeing much on Dallas news. WP:TOOSOON. AnimeCons lists only one anime convention. [51] and it is in-state, although in San Antonio. There's a Dawn J. Bennett that has more media coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Hard for voice/anime people to get write-ups unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:35, 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.