Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 August 9 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to F.E.A.R.. MBisanz talk 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of F.E.A.R. characters and organizations[edit]

List of F.E.A.R. characters and organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely unsourced video game trivia. Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Everything that needs to be said on this topic can be adequately covered in the appropriate sections of the series and individual game articles, but I frankly don't see anything sourced and worth merging. czar 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 22:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does not establish notability. The main articles can easily handle core characters in either summary style or very brief lists without causing any size issues. TTN (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This would be too much for an international best seller video game. No independent sources have been proffered, and I doubt any exist. Nha Trang Allons! 15:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: As much I disagree with all the merging of character list articles lately, I'm not seeing quite enough coverage to have this one as its own article, as I've found barely anything in Google searches. However, this should be redirected, not deleted. Deletion should be a last resort, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R, as well as to preserve the content for any future potential the article may have. The character section at F.E.A.R. works as a target. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. Characters in a notable franchise doesn't make the characters automatically notable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:58, 12 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. MBisanz talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scrivito[edit]

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

PROD removed with absolutely no explanations thus I still confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obvious WP:NOTPROMO violation is obvious. No independent sources proffered, none found. Nha Trang Allons! 16:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sum total of the article is "this is a company". Nothing even claimed regarding notability. There is an admitted COI by the author, and we appreciate the honesty, but you need to become more familiar with policy or use the WP:AFC system so you can get guidance. Farmer Brown (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Infopark where it's already mentioned. I'm not finding any sources on the product; but the company may be a target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick glance at that article says it is ripe for AFD itself, so I wouldn't agree with a redirect. For instance, the large list of "customers", something that is normally not allowed, is being used in an attempt to inherit notability. I may send that one myself. Farmer Brown (talk) 17:33, 11 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. MBisanz talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Dairies[edit]

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

This is an oddly formatted stub for three 19th century dairy farms in Idaho that I found while working through a backlog. The article makes no claim to notability that would pass WP:GEOFEAT, and searching Google and Google Books for the article subject turns up nothing but the self-same Wikipedia article. A Traintalk 21:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you do see passing mentions in published books in Gbooks -- but nothing significant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All I could find was this self-published interview and this passing mention, not nearly enough for GNG. The editor who created this was apparently using Wikipedia to publish genealogy studies. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and only trivial coverage being found above. Since the farms do seem to have existed, perhaps they might warrant a short mention on the the page of the nearest Idaho town, or that county (I'm assuming Caribou County, Idaho). A long shot even that. Yvarta (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- If this is about a place in Idaho, it is certainly NN. If it were about Colonial Williamsburg, I would have wanted to merge or redirect there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:50, 15 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. MBisanz talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Perez[edit]

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

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of the needed solidity and substance, there's essentially nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish Delete; I denied the speedy deletion of this article on the grounds that there's a credible claim to significance by way of being inducted into the Nevada Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame and that it could be reworded a bit to step away from being promotional. I did that, and added in two refs in the process. But, there's not a lot to go on here. Never made it to professional baseball, as established at the last AfD 7 years ago, so no claim to fame there. Definitely exists with a fair bit of broadcasting experience, but the experience doesn't appear to be notable. Ok, 600 boxing matches called, but apparently no significant bouts that I can find. Broadcaster journeyman, I can't find anything to sustain a notable career, other than having a career. I cast about looking for better refs to support notability, but there really isn't anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


REALLY happy you have Rich on here, he has done so much and really people and kids need to know just how far he came to make a great career from athlete to broadcaster. He is a solid contributor to society see you tube, he has numerous interviews with the games greatest players. THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.201.196 (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable local sports announcer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No doubt he's a hell of a swell fellow, but there are hundreds of millions of swell people in the world who don't have Wikipedia articles. Just fails of notability. Nha Trang Allons! 16:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- there are so many Rich(ie) Perezes that searching for sources is a real uphill battle against swarms of Ghits. I know of two alone in NYC - one the husband of an old friend of mine, and one who is a local celebrity of a minister - either of whom could be more notable, but I think they're all run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are not based on whether the subject is a nice guy or not — lots of nice guys don't qualify for Wikipedia articles, and lots of people who do qualify for Wikipedia articles aren't or weren't very nice. A person gets a Wikipedia article on the basis of reliable source coverage verifying that they pass a notability criterion — which local radio personalities quite commonly do not. If the article were supported by much more solid sourcing, I'd say that the Nevada Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame constituted enough notability for a keep — but it's not an inclusion freebie that entitles him to an exemption from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable per WP:ENT and better sources do not appear to exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 15 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. MBisanz talk 00:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Schiller[edit]

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

Deletion was requested at BLPN by a user who claims to be the subject of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and I had actually PRODed for exactly this but it was drive-by removed by a user, completely ignoring the comments I made.... Nothing actually convincing, even if there may be a few sources here and there. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on WP:LPI (specifically the "Appearances and performances" section), I do not feel that he qualifies under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as he has published a book about his story which was made into a movie. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm ambivalent as to whether or not we should keep or delete this article. Just thought I'd bring it to AfD to get other users' feedback. Meatsgains (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs work however. I generally go with the 'subject has requested deletion' and vote delete, however here there are a couple of things that tip him over to keep. Firstly as well as being the victim of a particularly vicious crime, he also pled guilty to a large medicare fraud shortly after. Making him both victim and criminal in a short period which was well covered in the media. Secondly, he is the author of two books. Had he not capitalised on his experiences (which to be fair, he is entirely entitled to do) I would just say delete. But its a bit late to be doing that once your life has been turned into a motion picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has brought out attacks against me based on ignorance and I would prefer it was deleted, so I could fade into obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optiontrader11 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LPI, The article indeed needs work but that is not a reason for deletion a we follow the notability guidelines. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Only in death's cogent statement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Quite aside from that I think the subject's passed a notability bar, and that not appreciating that the negative parts of your life (for which you sold a movie deal) are being publicized, I want rather more in the way of bonafides than a SPA's entirely unsubstantiated claims that he's the subject. Don't you? Nha Trang Allons! 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not sell the movie rights nor was I involved in any manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.107.41 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the assertions of notability in the article are in dispute, this person easily passes the bar. Sperril (talk) 21:10, 11 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 G5. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vape Shoreditch[edit]

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

PROD removed by SPA. Company lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 8 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 (nac) There is strong consensus that this individual meets the notability guidelines. Editor !voting delete does not help their case by voting twice. Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Petersen[edit]

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

Nom does not believe page should be deleted. This is a procedural RfD to resolve repeated redirects. LavaBaron (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 as per previous nom. The articles cited don't add up enough to meet the "significant press coverage" requirement of WP:NPOL IMO. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Biographical profile stories (not just incidental mentions), published in Kansas City Star, National Review, Reason Magazine, and KYW-TV substantially overcomes the 'significant press coverage' requirement of WP:NOL. This is established through wide precedent of other minor party candidates, see: Darrell Castle, Evan McMullin, Rocky De La Fuente, Ken Fields, etc. etc. WP:IDONTLIKEIT by Libertarian Party fanboys is not a reason to delete. LavaBaron (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:LavaBaron, I never said WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nor am I any kind of Libertarian Party fanboy. I made my judgment based on the information given, both current and previous. I may wind up being outvoted, but it is still my opinion, and whether or not we agree on it, I am entitled to it, so please avoid the personal attacks. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Keep, the arguments made by the other reviewers here speak for themselves, I am convinced. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LavaBaron. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Petersen is notable by a mile, as Lavabaron has shown, and I'm hard-pressed to find a reason for deletion. Not currently Newsworthy does not mean not notable, especially considering that the subject was very recently newsworthy. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not taking a position at this time. But I wanted to let discussants know that the article was expanded by about 50% in August, but the additions were mass-reverted a few hours later, just before the latest expand-vs.-redirect war started. For evaluation, this was the expanded version.--MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Disclosure: I was the admin who closed the previous discussion as "redirect". The current version is substantially different from the version I redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, we have editors like Bunco man descending on this page inserting claims sourced to non-RS like LewRockwell.com and "The Libertarian Republic" hobby blog. These were the issues that resulted in the previous article's deletion and, I assume, are being air-dropped into this article to pave the way for its redeletion by process of obfuscation of the RS. LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Just a note, blaming my sourced information as being the reason Austin Petersen is not noteworthy enough for an article is downright silly. Deleting sources to articles written by Austin Petersen as not being RS is petty and disruptive, not to mention an attempt to hide the truth that Austin Petersen publicly opposes the Libertarian principles, thus not an actual libertarian (lower-case). Bunco man (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except in exceptional circumstances, sources written by a BLP are not RS for biographical facts on said BLP. LavaBaron (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to surpass the usual routine coverage received by political candidates, and pass the WP:GNG bar.--JayJasper (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly has enough coverage (CNN, LA Times, etc.) to surpass general notability guideline. Other issues about BLP, RS, POV, etc. are editing issues, not deletion issues. Any concerns that arise outside notability can be cleaned up through editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the amount of coverage as shown above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous articles about his candidacy and some networks still recognize his notability even after the campaign ended. Hamez0 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has become more notable that the article is necessary and needed.Suite1408 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the nominator of the two previous Afd's for this article which resulted in deletion/redirect, I am now convinced that the subject is a WP:GNG pass based on the addition of multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is kept then the two draft articles (Draft:Austin Petersen and Draft:Austin Wade Petersen) should probably be taken to WP:MFD. I might do that myself, but I just wanted to note it here. FallingGravity 00:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FallingGravity, it is not necessary to take an abandoned draft to MFD; it will be deleted after six months of inactivity. If an editor continues to work on/submit the draft(s), then I could see a valid reason to nominate for deletion. As it stands, there's no reason to take up others' time with a (somewhat) pointless MFD. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Petersen has been recurring on numerous shows and media outlets including multiple appearances with John Stossell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.51 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The media attention ended when Petersen lost (third place). There is no new information or attention towards him, minus what he himself creates on his websites. Bunco man (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Voting twice won't likely sway the discussion or change consensus. Also, all evidence I've seen suggests that Petersen got second place though you seem convinced he got third place. FallingGravity 00:15, 16 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 – please discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D'Ambrosio (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Ambrosio[edit]

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

Still nothing at all actually convincing and he's not majorly listed at WorldCat, only 21 listings. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 8 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) 07:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Le Ngoc[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing and I'm not convinced by anything listed at the other AfD, there's nothing to establish convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Weak Keep - Looks like there's enough in the sources linked above to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Keep votes themselves are not even confident as they themselves still question whether there's the needed substance and solidity for accepting. Looking at a few of these found them to still be rather questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – My !vote is confident; the opinion above is entirely non-congruent with my post. North America1000 07:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources provided above by North America seem to me to enough to meet WP:BASIC. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 16 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. MBisanz talk 00:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATrueChurch[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing and my own searches are not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it should be said that I just nominated this for deletion last month, and the first AfD was non-admin closed no consensus only 2 days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATrueChurch. As I said there, this is non-notable and largely self-sourced. I felt that it failed WP:ORG as well. WA Post 2005 article linked mentions it only in passing. Outside of Christianity blogs, it does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. I don't consider passing mention in the WA Post to be an adequate source. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing found in the previous discussion. Jclemens (talk)
    • This would still not be enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously you and I disagree if you're nominating it for deletion and I'm arguing that it be kept on the basis of essentially the same sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not quite as notable as churches such as Westboro Baptist Church or Dove World Outreach Center (even though I'd argue it's more extreme theological-wise). There's not enough sources outside of Christian blogs and the one Washington Post article (though there were some other articles about them, including one from The Tennessean, that have since been removed from the web). Because of the lack of third-party sources, I'd say delete this, but if more extensive media coverage about them ever comes about, it could be resurrected. NBA2020 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 15 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 as a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Yona Railway Station[edit]

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

I've not found any thrace on Google, Kfar Yona article says that there is no station, and this Israel Railways map (past and present) shows no rail nearby the city (between Netanya and Tulkarm, see OSM). Btw, in the lead text, I've not understood a fact: the station belongs to British Railways too... This AFD is just to clarify the situation. Dэя-Бøяg 19:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the author, a new user named Itailevi44444, has a sp named Itailevi33333, that contributed to the same article. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Per Israeli Railways stations list - [6] there is no such station and it's not even being planned. Clearly it's a hoax. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to let you know that I had placed a speedy deletion tag indicating that this Afd had identified this article as a blatant hoax -- but it was refused. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stupid policy that AfD has to be closed prior to making a bold actian. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not really policy, I think, because I've seen many admins take this very action. It's really luck-of-the-draw, I think, as to which admin happens to come along. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 10 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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. MBisanz talk 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hajama (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This character article currently does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 15 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 KBTC-TV#Local_production. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 02:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full Focus[edit]

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

Hardly any information so a merge cannot actually be an imaginable option, including also considering this is simply a local TV show about local matters, searches are simply not finding anything close to establishing notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to KBTC-TV § Local production, where this is already mentioned. Redirection is also appropriate because this is a valid search term. North America1000 23:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided The asserted multiple Emmy wins would make it notable... but I don't see any of those awards in a cursory Google News search. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 18:41, 8 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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728[edit]

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly arcane and obscure subject, with very narrow geographical and chronological extent. No references or discussion of notabililty (WP:A7?). Specto73 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • wow... I just started developing this, and will take some time. Did you see the {{under construction}} template?
As to the ground of the matter, the article is by and large about Bach's third cantata cycle, currently a redirect to a very short summary. I didn't want to change the redirect until the article was somewhat developed. I chose the longer article title because the period of Bach's third cantata cycle, between Trinity Sunday 1725 (= end of Bach's second cantata cycle) and St. John's Day 1728 (=start of the Picander cycle a.k.a. fourth cycle), also covers several cantatas performed under Bach's direction, but not composed by him, and also a few church cantatas composed by him but not part of the cycle (such as the new council cantata). On these cantatas there is of course extensive scholarly coverage, as well as there is biographical coverage on the "third cycle" of Bach's own cantatas, just give it the time to develop and provide sourcing. I'd rather not wikilink to it too much prior to covering the basics in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, the title, which played a large part in my nomination, is deceptive. An outside observer would not necessarily draw the connection to Bach; the title makes the topic sound considerably more obscure than perhaps it is. If you were to make the connections to Bach more obvious (at the moment the article consists purely of a table, hence my belief that it qualifies for WP:A7), so as to establish its notability, or to draw upon more secondary sources (so as to satisfy WP:BASIC), then I would, of course, gladly withdraw my nomination. As it stands, however, I believe that the subject matter, as currently expressed, is too narrow to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. See: WP:NOTEVERYTHING Specto73 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to move to "Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig", but am not sure whether I can do this as long as this AfD is open. Is a snow close possible? Or withdrawal of the AfD by the OP (as it is clearly going nowhere AfD-wise, and this is not the right forum for page name discussions)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good approach, compares to second cantata cycle. The title, however, is awful, but can stay for a while if eventually it will by Bach's third cantata cycle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gerda Arendt. Nomination appears to be premature. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  WP:BEFORE C1, C2, and C3 suggest that 27 minutes is too fast for an AfD nomination.  The talk page is currently a red link.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reluctantly withdraw my nomination for deletion. I still believe that the contents of this article, as currently expressed, are too obscure for inclusion in an encyclopaedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:A7), and, furthermore, that this article does not satisfy WP:BASIC (all but one of the references come from one secondary source). I recognise, however, that I have a "snowball's chance in hell" of persuading anyone to agree with me on this, so, I suppose there isn't any point continuing with this process. I welcome the decision by the author to rename the page, and encourage him to do so. --Specto73 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the Zedler, Wolff and Boyd references who give general descriptions of this series of cantatas (the first two including "third cycle" tables comparable to the one now included in the article). If this isn't enough, feel free to add more specific references (I provided an extensive list of sources too), or add a {{refimprove}} if you think that would serve a cause. I also moved the page as discussed above, but don't know about procedures in case of a withdrawn AfD: I feel uncomfortable removing the AfD tag on the article – I suppose an admin will pass by for the formal closure? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - this topic will be familiar to anyone with even a nodding acquaintance to Bach's work, even if his cantatas aren't his most widely-known music. See WP:BEFORE. I do, though recommend to User:Francis Schonken that it's considered good practice to have inline citations to reference works these days, not just an ending bibliography. I've added some sources from Google Books as a start on this. Blythwood (talk) 16:48, 9 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. Consensus in the article seems to be that defining the scope of inclusion is difficult, and that the sources presented to try and push this over WP:LISTN refer to African American players, not "black" players in general. There are also concerns about the inclusion of players of Indian and Southeast Asian descent in here. No prejudice against the contents of this list being restored to draft space and used as the basis for a list of African American tennis players, as suggested b multiple folks in this discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of black tennis players[edit]

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

Article title/subject is way too problematic: "black" in the context of the worldwide sport tennis is entirely unclear. How is the Indian tennis player Leander Paes black? In the same way as Venus Williams is? and what about the French player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga? I note that the one source cited actually discusses African-American players, so how it is supposed to establish the topic as worldwide is not clear to me. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; basically per nom. We could have endless debates over who is black and who isn't. This list isn't encyclopaedic and it isn't what Wikipedia is. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where goes the line if you are black (or brown, white or yellow) or not? This list would bring ridiculous amounts of debates over that. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 03:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources determine who is black. We go by sources not truth. If there are conflicting sources note that also. Otherwise it is arguing for the removal of any article that highlights black accomplishment (Black players in ice hockey, Black players in American professional football), is a step backwards. -- GreenC 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? Sources of the players themselves declaring their "black" status? Sources of third parties declaring these individuals to be "black"? Or any source at all, including self-identifying sources, where these individuals are identified as "black"? Can you clarify please? It absolutely does not mean what you claim, by the way. The two articles you note are actually attempts to discuss the relevance of black individuals in the sports in questions, whereas this is an indiscriminate list of "black" tennis players and nothing more. Stop making strawman arguments, they don't serve you or your cause well. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable third-party sources determine who is considered a "black tennis player". There are plenty of third-party reliable scholarly sources that contain information about black tennis players. Verifiability not truth. -- GreenC 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suppress" is full of bad faith, but this is par for the course. Unfortunately the basic question isn't even addressed: what does "black" mean? Andrew Davidson should notice that one of the books he mentions is already cited in the article, and it's a book not about "black" players in general but about African-American ones; the same applies to the other book. At the very least "black" is a misnomer here. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid the editor in question likes to vaguely wave at book titles as sufficient evidence to keep anything in Wikipedia, without ever answering the real questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the choice is keep or delete for the original article, I would say keep since the concept is certainly notable. Readers are mostly capable of figuring out the different shades of meaning involved in saying someone is "black." There are lots of other articles with the same issue.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it complicated by European nationals who are black? Easier to define the scope in the lead section criteria, rather than the title. -- GreenC 16:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughtmonkey and me are simply proposing we repurpose the list for African Americans. But I suppose, wider options are possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major sources do not limit the topic in this way. Blacks at the Net: Black Achievement in the History of Tennis covers "identity and black tennis in aboriginal Australia, North and South Africa, the Caribbean and the Americas". Black Tennis Magazine covers "all news, activities, events and programs relating to minority tennis in all parts of the globe." Charging the Net: A History of Blacks in Tennis includes Hall of Fame players like "Evonne Goolagong, and Yannick Noah". We should follow their example as we aim for a global view. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I want to make clear that I'm certainly not opposed to that, either. As a Canadian, "Black" is not a problematic term for me. I don't see the need to delete, regardless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we call it African-American and narrow it only to USA black players? That really sounds bizarre to me in this international sport. We use categories for that sort of thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that these kind of lists are mostly better off as a series of categories. Then you can have all tennis players, men and women, all races, all nationalities, and any combination you like.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what's the objective definition of black for this list please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clue: if we don't have an objective definition, then this list is pure original research. Anyone can be black, anyone can self-identify as "black", anyone can be "called" black (with or without justification). The fact that other lists have similarly poorly defined inclusion criteria shouldn't ever be used to justify keeping yet another one. For other "experienced" users to try that tactic is lame and they should know much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a main article Black people which is linked to in the lead of a main list of lists, Lists of black people, and of course Category:Lists of black people. It's not like we're working from scratch, here. But of course the lead in Black people indicates what a shifting and nebulous concept it is: that's why I'd opted for Thoughtmonkey's solution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask the question again, what's the objective definition of black for this list please? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, my preference is List of African-American tennis players. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was, as before, aimed at the general audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what's the objective tennis criteria for this list? Any player who happens to be black? Players who have won a major championship? In the category, there are currently 50 African-American players listed. That's not worldwide, that's just the US. Do we include all of them? And what about players like Oscar Johnson, who was the first black American to win a USTA event? Do we include players from the old leagues such as the "Black Tennis Association", "American Tennis Association", "African American Tennis", or "Negro Tennis League"... or just modern Open Era players? So lot's to discuss other then the definition of Black. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that anyone notable enough for a WP article for being a tennis player and is black by whatever definition of that is being used belongs on the list. I mostly suggest leave this kind of thing to categories, but people like lists too. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, WP:LISTN has some good background on the questions of notability, inclusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added Oscar Johnson as he's in the Hall of Fame and so quite notable. Note that I created an article for him too as there wasn't one, which is quite telling. Per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN, this is one of the advantages of lists over categories - they are better for under-developed topic areas because they support red-links and so facilitate the creation of new material to fill gaps. Andrew D. (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andrew. That is an advantage of lists. Mr. Johnson's previous absence from WP might be partly due to the fact that tennis fans don't tend to spend a lot of time on their computers writing WP articles. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel much the same. I prefer categories. However what you describe is normal for WP and lots of people like it and remind us that "WP is not paper."Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of Muslim tennis players was created on 13 July 2016‎. It has no references. Is this something given coverage in reliable sources? Totally different situation than here. No shortage of space on Wikipedia, no reason to delete something that has references in reliable sources. List articles allow for far more information than a simple category. For things like this, I believe looking at the category is useless, since you just have a pile of names. This way you can easily look through what articles exists, and see information for them, to determine which you'd want to click on and read. Dream Focus 15:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This was created 22 July 2016.... both by the same new editor. He has created so many articles that needed to be either deleted or fixed, it's hard to keep up with him, to be honest (though he is thankfully improving). Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:12, 1 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 17:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after some consideration. The essential difficulty here is the inclusion criteria. While it might theoretically be possible to define this list as "tennis players who self-identify as black or with recent African ancestry," there do not seem to be sources to support this; thus the list is a hodgepodge of African-American tennis players, African-French tennis players, African tennis players, and a handful of other unsourced entries which seem to have been dropped in to make the list appear global in nature. Entries such as Mahesh Bhupathi and Nick Kyrgios are particularly problematic: we cannot make unsourced assertions about peoples' ancestry. The folks citing LISTN are off the mark, as the sources do not explore the topic in a global sense, only a regional one. An article that was List of African-American tennis players would be quite okay. Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTICE - the creator of the article was found to be a banned sockpuppet trying to avoid detection. So it should never have been created to begin with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Drmies and inclusion criteria is not clear.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 19 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 I think I am reading keep for Bradford derby and no consensus for the others. Whereas arguments have been made that these are too minor to be notable, also some sources have been found, and at this point is was not really possible to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A62 derby[edit]

A62 derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources provided to show this to be a notable rivalry, and a quick google search doesn't bring much up either. Probably fails WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also appear to fail WP:GNG
Bradford derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nene derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rushmoor derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aldershot Town F.C.–Woking F.C. rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There were a few other local derby articles that look a bit iffy, but these ones seemed fairly clear to me. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree - there are plenty of articles on the internet relating to the rivalry between Huddersfield and Oldham. You only need to read articles before the two meet on either club page - it's a proper local derby... only Bradford or Leeds are bigger rivals in my opinion, and that's coming from a Terriers fan.

A rivalry is a rivalry regardless of whether people supporting other clubs agree or not. But if we're going to remove games based on a difference of opinion, then by just browsing through a few on the list of derbies it is quite clear that there are others far more worthy of removal. For instance:

Milton Keynes v Wycombe - no history to it| Cambridge City v Cambridge Utd - not been played for decades| Cambridge Utd v Histon - no real history to it bar a couple of seasons in the Conference| Milton Keynes v Northampton - no history to it| Kettering v Rushden - non-league at Rushden have barely played Kettering| Milton Keynes v Peterborough - again, no real history to it| Dagenham v AFC Wimbledon - not aware of any genuine rivalry| Crewe v Port Vale - similar to Huddersfield v Oldham - not the main rival but certainly a genuine one| Port Vale v Walsall - again, aware of it - but no more notable than Huddersfield v Oldham| Nuneaton v Tamworth - local derby for sure, but more notable?| Shrewsbury v Telford - barely ever played, despite being obviously local| Bolton v Wigan - most Bolton fans don't see Wigan as one of their biggest rivals| Altrincham v Macclesfield - local for sure, but again?| Fleetwood v Blackpool - very local game and definitely a derby, but one with virtually no history to it| Bournemouth v Southampton - a local derby yes, and Bournemouth fans dislike Southampton, but it's rather one sided| All of these are no less worthy of removal - if we're going to be fair about it then we'll have a rather empty page remaining. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.116.131 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@86.129.116.131: if deleted, these derbies will still be listed at Local derbies in the United Kingdom. The question is whether to have a separate article on them- see Ilikeeatingwaffles's comment below --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • If this gargantuan sentence had a decent in-line citation I might be inclined to vote keep: {{boxquote|Although neither club considered the other as a major rival until more recent times, with Huddersfield having more traditional rivalries with fellow Yorkshire clubs such as Leeds United, Bradford City and Barnsley, and Oldham with traditional Lancashire clubs such as Bolton Wanderers, Manchester City and Blackburn Rovers, a lack of competitive fixtures against these clubs led to increased significance and intensity in the fixture, particularly when both clubs spent a number of seasons in the same division whilst vying for promotion from the third tier. Otherwise, delete. 94.8.65.103 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bradford derby - article needs improving, yes, but this was a sizeable rivalry back in the day, and as Jmorrison230582 says WP:NTEMP applies. The rest look to be non-notable so delete the rest. GiantSnowman 07:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - You may see this as biased on my behalf, but seeing as I wrote much of the original article I obviously oppose deletion of it. I also added numerous links citing (what happened to those?) that this is a genuine football rivalry. In my lifetime Huddersfield have always been classed as a rival of Oldham's, in my case the major rivalry alongside Bolton, and I've attended games at Boundary Park since the late 1980s. Attendances at both venues are often much higher than other fixtures, including when Oldham have played other local derbies against teams such as Stockport and Rochdale. To remove it and yet leave fixtures such as Bournemouth v Southampton, Blackpool v Fleetwood and, even more bizarrely, Plymouth v Portsmouth (which isn't even a derby in the true sense of the word, let alone a major rivalry), is more than a little baffling. DShamen (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Not seeing any significant third party coverage to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY. Willing to be correct, particularly on the Bradford Derby, as sources for this are probably predominantly offline, but I'm not seeing much online. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has become a bit unfocussed. Please not that it is specifically about whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the individual articles mention in the deletion debate are inherently notable, sufficient to pass Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. It is not a discussion about the page Local derbies in the United Kingdom, nor is it a discussion about whether any of the rivalries exist, or that the particular sets of fans find them to be of importance. It is about whether there is sufficient, reliable, independent info to write an article that is more than a list of results. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nene, Rushmoor, Aldershot-Woking. I'm hovering towards weak keep Bradford but share Fenix down's concerns: the article as it stands appears to have only one reliable source, and the rest that I can find is run of the mill news reporting (eg [7]) or only brief mentions (eg [8]). It'd be nice to get an extra source or two in there! In the other direction I'm tending towards weak delete A62: it doesn't look like there are the sources to back it up but I'd be happy to be proved wrong? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve all football goes beyond your Sky Sports package, your made in China ManUtd mug, and half Barca half Real scarf. If only people spent as much time improving these articles as they do attempting to delete as many as possible. If we agree these rivalries are legitimate and exist, then really we should be looking to improve these articles not delete them. To the bloke who wanted online sources about a rivalry dating mostly back to before computers even existed - well done. Otherwise let's just limit Wikipedia to the 4 rivalries everyone knows and delete half this website because we all know if it's not in 1.3 trillion articles in specific 5 or 6 national online newspapers it doesn't exist. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also to person who is attempting the myth that no history MK Dons v Northampton and Wycombe rivalries - not true whatsoever, fierce rivalry for well over 10 years at least now. AFC Kingston v Crawley has no history, because they're all Chelsea fans 6 days of the week. Also at what point do you say it's not notable? Nuneaton v Tamworth is notable if you supported one those teams. If they were promoted to the Championship would that suddenly make it more notable? It's highly subjective. If it's referenced it's a rivalry, simple as that. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on nearly all of that, bar your criticism of my comment on some of the derbies. I didn't say that they don't exist or are 'not important'. All derbies are important to supporters, players and fans of the two clubs involved. As for MK Dons v Wycombe or Northampton - no, I wouldn't personally class them as major derbies as they're fairly new. But they will obvious grow into one in the same way that Bournemouth v Southampton or Fleetwood v Blackpool will do over time. Removing local derbies because most supporters of big clubs aren't interested in them is the wrong thing to do in my opinion. These articles should be expanded on, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
I wouldn't personally class them as major derbies - major is very subjective. I certainly would class it as major, as it's strong rivalry for at least 12 years now, and anyone who went to the derby matches last season you would know how hostile the two clubs and fans are to each other, the amount of police outnumbered the fans by about 2 to 1 at both fixtures. Flares were set off and several people were evicted at the Sixfields, and both sets of casuals were out in force. The return leg was about the only game the Dons players could've been proud of last season. Northampton took more away to stadium:mk then they usually do at home. Granted if you live outside the area most people would be oblivious, but the same can be said for Tamworth v Nuneaton or Huddersfield v Bradford. Doesn't make it any less notable, or any less deserving of an article than e.g. ManUtd-Liverpool. How far do we go with major? Prem only? Championship? What if one of the clubs or both get promoted? There's no way of measuring "major", so if someone has made an effort to make an article which referenced and we agree that the rivalry itself is legitimate, why on earth are we wanting to delete it?
I'm glad someone agrees with me regarding how we should go about Wikipedia. There a lot of editors who their main focus is to just reduce the number of articles and delete stuff rather than actually add anything constructive or attempt to improve it themselves. Look on my talk page and you'll see this is what is putting me off Wikipedia, I even had a guy complaining I didn't use the right citation format when referencing. When challenged I always raise a point "well why don't you add something rather than having a go at me for adding stuff" and I'm always met with the same stupid response of WP:BURDEN. What's sadder it's usually the more active "contributors" who just go round AfD debates going "delete" and challenge every source until they bludgeon the poor person who created the article into deleting it. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is subjective. Who is anyone to tell someone whether their team's rivalries are significant or not? I'm very aware of the rivalry between Tamworth and Nuneaton, in fact, and as a Huddersfield fan, even more so of the rivalry with Bradford! Both rivalries are every bit as important as Arsenal v Tottenham or Liverpool v Manchester United in the eyes of supporters. I strongly agree with you that deleting articles rather than trying to expand on them is a rather odd way to go about things on what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia - the removal of Bury v Rochdale (a very well known derby if you leave in the Granada region) being a strong example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.129.119.85I (talk · contribs)@Abcmaxx: there are two key things we need to note though:
1. We do have a general way of deciding if something is important - we look at what has been published on it. The reason Wikipedia works, is that we require topics to have a certain notability, judged on whether reputable organisations, independent of the thing itself, have written about a topic. People know that if something is on Wikipedia, it has a little credibility or noteworthiness. If the site becomes a directory of all things everywhere, then it loses that usefulness. Google "A62 derby. It gets very few results (1508 on my computer), of which the vast majority are coincidental (eg not about the Oldham-Huddersfield rivalry) or mirrors of this website. The term seems to appear in passing on some message-boards and in three newspaper match reports - well below our standard for acceptance. A search for either "oldham huddersfield rivalry" or [oldham ahtletic huddersfield town rivalry" gets no results at all. There's very little evidence that the rivalry between Oldham and Huddersfield is any more notable than the rivalry between thousands of other professional clubs globally.
2. We have a more specific approach for football articles in addition to the above, namely that we presume that clubs, players or matches in professional leagues are inherently more notable than activities in semi-professional or amateur leagues. Of course 'non-league' rivalries are important in the eyes of their supporters, but we're not a website for the supporters of those clubs; we're a website of the world. For these articles I think that this does for the two Aldershot related derbies. It does mean that a well sourced article for clubs that compete or have competed together in professional leagues (eg Bradford, A62, Nene) might be valid - we have, for comparison, perfectly good articles on the Luton Town F.C.–Watford F.C. rivalry, the Severnside derby and the Cross-border derby, which have rarely or never been top-flight derbies. Indeed, the latter is currently like the Bradford case not a derby between two clubs in fully professional leagues, but due to its history as such and the strength of evidence of its existence is a good article.
Your arguments miss the majority of the reasons for deletion here - this is not about whether to have articles on lower league rivalries, or about (inherently) whether these rivalries are important to the clubs. It's about, first, whether the article is about a rivalry that has sufficient evidence of its impact and, second, whether the article is about a rivalry involving or previously involving two clubs in fully professional leagues. None of what you've said really responds to these concerns. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. let's just limit Wikipedia to the 4 rivalries everyone knows and delete half this website because we all know if it's not in 1.3 trillion articles in specific 5 or 6 national online newspapers it doesn't exist. - pretty much my point. Not being talked about as much as other rivalries shouldn't mean that a less known one should be rejected.
2. does mean that a well sourced article for clubs that compete or have competed together in professional leagues (eg Bradford, A62, Nene) might be valid - so my point is rather than delete it why don't we improve it.
but we're not a website for the supporters of those clubs; we're a website of the world - which should mean a website of all supporters surely. Also it's an encyclopaedia, and should be a comprehensive one at that, which means it should cover all topics even if they are somewhat more obscure than others.
3. whether the article is about a rivalry that has sufficient evidence of its impact - and you measure that impact by how many times Daily Mail has mention the words Aldershot-Woking derby? To me that's not really measuring impact of anything, that's just skewing stats to favour higher league rivalries.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we favour higher league rivalries. Of course we do. Just as we have articles on the players who play for Manchester United, Bury and Accrington Stanley, but not those who play for Droylsden, Curzon Ashton or Nelson. We favour these things because they are more notable and more important. And yes, our measurement of that is the number of times that these rivalries are mentioned in independent sources. That is how Wikipedia works: it is not a website for all topics, it is a website for all topics that are of notability - this is a core Wikipedia principle. Asking for evidence of notability is not the same as wanting to limit the website to "the 4 rivalries everyone knows", as you put it - as I showed before, we have plenty of articles on rivalries between Football League or former Football League teams.
So we come to point 2: the argument being made is that we can't improve these articles beyond their current state, because the independent published work does not exist. I believe (as I voted above) that it does exist for the Bradford derby and therefore we should keep this page, and may exist for the Nene/A62 derbies. However, as I have not found any evidence that it does - and no-one has offered it here - at the moment I conclude that while there clearly are rivalries between these teams, these rivalries are not of sufficient notability for an article. That is the only claim being made - your responses do not allay these concerns. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
they are more notable and more important - to you, but not to everyone. If I'm a Tamworth fan Id probably think the derby with Nuneaton is the most important rivalry there is, and a Stafford rangers fan might back me up. I think you forget what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. It's inexhaustible. A more obscure subject does not mean it's unencyclopaedic at all. If all we wanted is Premier League rivalries then people wouldn't turn to Wikipedia, or any encyclopaedia, because you look up things that you don't know, not what you can find anywhere. And you certainly CAN improve any article - all you need is a bit of effort and time, rather than putting all your effort into reducing an already shrinking Wikipedia. Also you seem to get muddled in your reasoning - you concede that these are real rivalries and they could be decent articles - however because your 10 second Google search doesn't really cut the mustard that leads to the conclusion that suddenly it stops being notable? Notability does not change, that's a core Wiki policy too. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that any of the rivalries are notable then please provide evidence to prove this. That is the way to end this discussion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following was edit conflicted with ILEW's post above, but that is the much more succinct way of responding!
Either I'm not expressing myself very clearly, or you're misreading my argument. I'll try and state it again. The judgement as to whether or not these articles should stay is if they are notable. We judge notability of a topic based on its appearance in verifiable sources. This means that people have to have written about these rivalries, beyond simple news reporting. There is some evidence that people have done this for the Bradford Derby. No one has offered any evidence of this for the other derbies.
With regards to saying that these are real rivalries and could be decent articles - yes, they could be, if the sources existed which showed them to be notable. What I'm trying to say with this is that the following claims you're repeatedly making, despite evidence to the contrary, are wrong: (1) that we're only interested in Premier League rivalries; (2) that we're saying these rivalries don't exist; (3) that we're saying these rivalries aren't important to anyone. It is more likely that rivalries between bigger clubs will have been written about more, yes, but the inherent question comes back to this issue of verifiability and notability. I grant you that with regards to football, we have a specific judgement about the inherent notability of articles regarding clubs in the National League and below - but under the general notability guidelines that doesn't preclude an article, if sufficiently supported by references.
I've done more than a 10 second Google search, thank you, and either way the policy that notability doesn't change is a completely different issue. That policy reminds us that something may only gain notability for a short period of time, but if it does so then it's worth recording.
Nowhere in this debate have you offered anything saying why these articles should be kept according to our policy, or perhaps more importantly, according to the aims of an encyclopedia. I point you towards WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." The assertion that these pages should be kept because the information is real and that it is important to someone is not an dissertation for keeping the pages.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely muddled your WP policies. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says that not all topics are notable; football rivalries ARE notable so that does not apply. Also on the one hand you say yes, they could be (...) notable, and these rivalries are indeed real on the other you try and make the assumption that if you cannot find an x amount of sources (given that the threshold for how many and what one deems to be sufficient is completely subjective as well) it suddenly stops being verifiable and notable. That is not how it works. I've done more than a 10 second Google search, thank you - prove it. If the sources existed which showed them to be notable - there's no proof to say that these sources do not exist, merely that no-one has found them and added them to the article yet. The general consensus that these are indeed real rivalries - well then surely that is just a matter of time before someone adds them. If we started deleting every article on the basis that articles cannot be improved why not just delete every stub article on here, we'd be left with about 10% of Wikipedia.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Football rivalries ARE notable so that does not apply"; No: football rivalries can be notable, if their notability is supported by reliable, verifiable sources. We do not keep articles on the chance that sources might exist; we keep them on the basis of sources which have been shown to exist. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:13, 1 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 17:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on Bradford derby, as it seems to be a notable football derby between 2 decent teams. Delete the rest as they all fail WP:GNG. Derbies between third/fourth/fifth tier teams are simply not needed. Joseph2302 19:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What an utterly foolish and contemptible statement to make. So if two clubs are promoted to the 2nd tier then their rivalry becomes important? So Blackpool v Preston was a forgettable fixture whilst in the lower divisions? The Bradford derby 'seems to be a football derby between 2 decent teams'. Can you clarify what on Earth that is supposed to mean? DShamen (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, utter nonsense. So if your team Norwich get relegated, you will suddenly have fondness for Ipswich then I assume? As if they stay up they'll be a "decent team" yeah? Abcmaxx (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly someone who knows very little about the history and tradition that creates football rivalries. He's completely contradicted himself in his statement anyway, and his opinion really ought to be ignored. DShamen (talk) 20:43, 11 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Hut 8.5 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tham (Youtuber)[edit]

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

Evident self-promotion (page created by a user called "EricTham3"). Subject completely unremarkable; runs a very small and obscure YouTube channel, with no mentions in secondary sources outside YouTube. Specto73 (talk) 17:44, 8 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. MBisanz talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leukophobia[edit]

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

I find no reliable sources for this. All of the what-passes-for substantial content comes from a set of blogs and self-published sites, and everything else is from grab-bag "every word out there"-phobia collections. GScholar draws a complete blank except for metaphoric uses in social science contexts. One would think that for a real phobia there would be case studies at least. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I can't find any academic or medical works using the term online, except as a euphemism for racism against white people. It's worth noting that [insert term here]phobia is a common and accepted use, even in academia from what I've seen for unique phobias, so even if a case study or two were found, I don't think that would be enough to establish the notability of the term. I'll happily change my vote to keep if someone can find more than the handful of cases I've found of it being used as a euphemism for anti-caucasian racism, and at least one RS discussing it's use in that sense. But even then, the article would need to be entirely re-written. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I'm sure this may indeed be a phobia, the fact that there isn't any reliable sources, especially those in the academic or psychological field, leads me to say this just cannot be verified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge any suitably referenced content (if there actually is any) into Chromophobia. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change that to Delete - one of the sources within the article specifically disagrees with the definition of the term "Leukophobia" that the author of this article has used. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Exemplo347: what was the source and the disagreement? If you don't mind me asking. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.
@MjolnirPants: The source given [[9]] states that Leukophobia is a fear of having a pale or white complexion. No fear of "white" (as a form of Chromophobia) is listed in this source and in my opinion, the case for merging the article with Chromophobia is non-existent. The other sources used in this article are unreliable which is why I changed from "Merge" to "Delete" - Exemplo347 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources, nothing to substantiate this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is the article on Phobia Wikia that I copied off Wikipedia, so I don't care if this Wikipedia article will be kept or deleted, I'll leave it up to other voters. PlanetStar 02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is appropriate. That article is very problematic and conflates a lot of different subjects. From what I can tell in a quick literature search, there's nothing reliable out there on "chromophobia" as an actual psychiatric condition; it seems on the one hand to refer to issues of cell development on the one hand and aversion to use of color in deisgn on the other. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 11 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 G7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nielsen adventures[edit]

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

Third party coverage for this corporate subdivision is sparse to non-existent and accordingly the subject fails WP:N. JohnInDC (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:I cannot find any coverage on this company. This is rather blatant WP:PROMO when the article includes a copy of the owner's business card:

The company logo

I have turned the image into a link. Non-free images should not be displayed outside of articlespace. Huon (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be Speedy deleted? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was attempted but an IP objected so here we are! JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be G7 speedied as I've userfied the content here. USA 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to set the record straight, this is only the second time I've attempted to create an article, and both times my article has been Afd'd. How am I supossed to create articles when everybody wants to delete them? I'm actually an expert on this subject because I just went on a Nielsen adventures/Road Scholar trip last week. Yes, I know that's also a conflict of interest, but still, I've made my point (I think). USA 01:54, 11 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. MBisanz talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acsiopolis[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NGEO. Also violates WP:CRYSTAL. ubiquity (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:41, 15 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. MBisanz talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Boronski[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTube personality. No reliable sources, only sources are to own YT channel or one website which solely has a video by the subject - and the focus of that website is the interview subject, not the interviewer. Fails WP:GNG. PGWG (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Was about to nominate this myself. Not only is there no third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG, but the main article creator/maintainer is the subject himself, who has not been following the WP:COI guidelines - his version, which I keep removing, is clearly written in a promotional manner, including inclusions of many links that seem to be there only to encourage readers to jump over to his videos/social media. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. None are supplied in the article, and I can't find any myself for either "Tyler Boronski" or "Tbautos512". Kolbasz (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in an reliable sources. The page's only references are to his Youtube channel. Meatsgains (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 8 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. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Ambrosio[edit]

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

Previous AfD closed due to a lack of comments. The one keep comment pointed out that there were a lot of sources through Google news, but the issue with those sources are that none of them, from what I can see, are independent of the subject. 99% of them seem to be either about a book (which fails WP:AUTHOR), or is an article written by D'Ambrosio himself. None of which show notability for the subject.

The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPN Montana article isn't a review, it's a blog per their website and there's no author given and reads like a poorly written advertisement ("exclucively"?). Given that D'Ambrosio writes blogs for ESPN Montana it's not an independent source either even assuming that D'Ambrosio himself did not write that advertisement. Having written articles does not contribute towards notability at all. - Aoidh (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I actually nominated the other listed at the side, I confirm everything I see there (3rd nomination). SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still nothing at all actually convincing and he's not majorly listed at WorldCat, only 21 listings. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)3rd AfD — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Not quite seeing enough to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pinging participants in the previous discussion: E.M.Gregory & Carrite — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D'Ambrosio (3rd nomination) directing participation here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is about a journalist who has a book out. WP:AUTHOR generally is satisfied by reviews and news coverage of a writer's work. Here we have (1 March 2015) New biography by Helena author Brian D'Ambrosio helps Marvin Camel fight time, obscurity[12] in the Missoulian; (2 January 2015) an interview in a small town newspaper form which bio can be sourced [13]; (2 February 2015) discussion of his work in an article about Camel [14]; (10 February 2016) Biography Chronicles First Native American World Champion Boxer, A Montanan on Montana Public Radio with a half-hour audio interview [15]; and more on the Camel book in this search [16]. I always assume that using different keywords or different search engines would product additional sources. Before the Marvin Camel book there was this: (21 NOvember 2013) After wrongfully convicted inmate freed, Missoula writer has cause to celebrate, Missoulian, [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you're citing WP:AUTHOR, I presume you mean the "has won significant critical attention" part? Otherwise, reviews are key for an article about the book, but insofar as they help the author I figure it's just a matter of WP:GNG. In either case, literally all of those are local Montana sources. They help, of course (they "count"), but we also need some wider recognition than "local author writes about x" pieces. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am arguing that, as the articles I brought demonstrate, this journalist has had an impact. First, by bringing a "forgotten" boxer, now celebrated as the "First Native American World Champion Boxer" (source above). And for looking into what looked to him like a wrongful conviction and he got it overturned by writing about it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he had the kind of impact you're suggesting, there would be the kind of sources that meet a notability criteria. However, there aren't. As an author the subject fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. - Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local reviews in local newspapers do not show notability for a book or an author, because they are basically indiscriminate -- every local author will get a review, and they are also unreliable, because the reviews are very unlikely to be objective. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 18 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. MBisanz talk 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carr (historian)[edit]

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

Doubt about notability. Declined as AfC and later without further discussion published. The Banner talk 13:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS citations to his works tiny. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I added six published reviews (of two of his books) to the article. I think that may be enough for WP:AUTHOR, a lower bar than WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that he does not pass WP:PROF; however, his books have attracted reviews and his research has lead to frequent news reports, and I believe that he meets the general notability guidelines. I added some references. By the way, any editor may move a draft to mainspace if he or she feels that it is ready, and the draft in question was improved by other editors between the decline and the move, so lack of discussion should not be a consideration here, only the notability issue.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added evidence of recent notability to article. Enough public activity to keep.Climate2000 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources are just of the type "Mr. Carr is saying something" with a reference to the job he is in. The work about the Veteran Tories is in fact his (published) PhD. It is nice that he is called a lecturer, but that is in fact just a little bit more than teacher, not even close to being a professor, as this article seems to suggest. The Banner talk 17:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the English system, "lecturer" is roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in the US system: a junior-level position that combines both research and teaching. It is not the same as the teaching-only US meaning of "lecturer". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, in doubt now. But can somebody fix this unsourced coat rack? In 2012 he authored the report Credit Where Credit's Due for the think tank Localis, with a foreword by Jesse Norman. As part of his ongoing work on One Nation politics, he has given two public lectures - the first alongside John Denham (politician), and the second an academic discussion of the historic origins of the concept. In 2014 he published a series of essays on localism for the Fabian Society with the public affairs specialist Dominic Rustecki, with a foreword by Hilary Benn.[citation needed] The Banner talk 21:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The Banner, I did what I could with that, removing name dropping, etc. But, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • How to destroy a positive attitude to improving the article... The Banner talk 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, article reflects, thanks to references to reviews added by David Eppstein. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR with book reviews brought by David Eppstein.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although Anne Delong seems to be more preoccupied with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, sometimes it is necessary to improve an article to prove the notability. Plain advertising or coat rack just prove the contrary of notability. But thanks to the work of others, I give the article the benefit of the doubt and withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 07:02, 13 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. MBisanz talk 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley's Chicken[edit]

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT; no significant coverage in RS apart from that event. —swpbT 12:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH on currently visible RS sources. They're a significant enough local franchise in Canberra that's been round since 1984, but they never went properly national. There's this amusing sequence from 2010 -- though the Canberra Times stories are no longer online. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say, none of those sources offer sufficient depth of coverage. The CityNews source is an especially trivial mention. —swpbT 12:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The other coverage I found is plainly routine like an armed robbery. Fails WP:CORP. If it was a national chain it might have some claim to notability but this isn't. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a fairly well known fast food chain in Canberra, but is a local firm which hasn't attracted much media attention - searching the Canberra Times archives on Trove (complete text up to 1995) only produces a handful of references. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 13 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 UK Independence Party leadership election, 2016. Redirected and article history preserved in the event she is elected. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 02:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Duffy (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Has only been elected at local level. Is currently standing to be the leader of a national party, but being a candidate is not sufficient. (I have no objection to the page being re-created should she become leader of UKIP, although current press coverage does not suggest that is particularly likely.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment As I said before, just think this is weird timing. She probably won't win (although she's second favourite by some measures, and woolfe may have missed the deadline) and if not will probably go back behind the scenes (as far as the press are concerned that is, she's not exactly a secret), but to make this decision now rather than in a month seems a (potential) waste of time. 79.74.22.25 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the enthusiasm behind the creation of this article, but good Wikpedia practice is to wait for someone to become notable before creating an article. Any useful material can be used on the leadership article for now. Standard practice, as per WP:NPOL, is to cover otherwise non-notable candidates in election articles. If Ms Duffy later becomes notable, for whatever reason, it will be simple to re-create the article. We can sandbox the content for now to make that even easier. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable mayor for a small town. If she becomes the "leader of UKIP" as Bondegezou noted, we can restore the page but that is unlikely to happen. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she is a noted politician. she is running to become the leader of the party. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL is clear: when the RS coverage of an individual is only in terms of an election, then we cover their candidacy in the election article, not as a separate article. Her candidacy is notable and should, of course, be covered on the leadership article. She is not (for now) notable other than in terms of that candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RS coverage of her isn't only in terms of this election. While the previous coverage seemingly isn't enough for wikis notability on it's own, her & her family (one story for son, one for mother-in-law, a few for hubby, she has other councillor relatives too IIRC) have recieved media coverage on their own merits for the last ~5 years. She was far more notable than the average local councillor before standing (though the average local councillor barely gets their name in the paper at all ofc). Don't know how cumulative NPOL & GNG works, individually she doesn't pass either, but together? There are more media mentions in the last few hours, so...I dunno the process there. If we sandbox, are people likely to find that sandbox to edit? I didn't create this article, but think now we have it it only makes sense (if nothing else in IAR way) to let it be until after election. I see this happens a lot on wiki, article deletion debates on notability happening early on in notability whilst the subject is having RSs created about it. V is varying during the consensus process, I mean...it seems unhelpful to be debating notability during a media spike. Though if that NPOL is certain that no amount of this-election-related-coverage can count unless she wins, perhaps that doesn't apply in this case.79.74.22.25 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duffy is currently only known as a town councillor. Not even a county councillor but a town councillor! Standing in a leadership election does not equate to automatic notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to UK Independence Party leadership election, 2016, per nominator's comment above that "we cover their candidacy in the election article". This can be undone if she's elected. Qwfp (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: Per Qwfp. But keep the bluelink. If she wins, then the article history is preserved. If she loses, pretty much same rationale if she later becomes notable. Montanabw(talk) 18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Already a notable politician in the UK. Over 10,000 hits on Google.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for the leadership of a political party — if you cannot credibly demonstrate and reliably source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the leadership. But nothing here makes or sources any credible evidence of preexisting notability, so for the moment she's just a WP:BLP1E who should be covered in the article that relates to the event. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the leadership, but nothing here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that blp1e is for people who are nobodies until one media story about them (eg, clockboy), not for people who're of mild (but not quite article worthy) notability for years. She's got a few things about her, each of which, individually, are apparently not enough for an article, but she isn't a single event thing. There is a considerable gap between having no notability at all, and having enough for an article. I think people are blurring the understanding of a rule intended for individuals without RSs outside of being a candidate for something highly notable, and an individual of borderline notability & many pre-existing RSs standing as candidate for something highly notable. 92.26.143.240 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 12:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above (there's not really anything to merge) for the moment. It's reasonable to incorporate candidates at the campaign unless they can show individual notability outside the campaign, and a redirect is more useful than a deletion at the moment. She doesn't appear to quite meet WP:NPOL#2 or #3, although she's received more passing mention (of her roles as a party director and campaign manager) in nonlocal sources than might be common for a local mayor. The argument for keeping that a couple of editors were wondering about is WP:NPOINTS, but having looked at a sampling of sources up to the beginning of this year, I don't think that it's quite met in this case (If NPOINTS were met, NPOL would almost certainly be met). Suggest for those arguing keep to provide a reasonable sample of reliable pre-2016 sources such as ongoing national news coverage of her mayoracy, or more than passing coverage of her roles in the party hierarchy, that can demonstrate her notability. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NPOL. Local councillor status is not notable enough. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 8 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) -- Dane2007 talk 02:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebel Legion[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability since2015 but no evidence for notability has appeared. The only ref that is not an own-web-site link is a blog entry at starwars.com. This isn't notability as defined by WP:GNG. This looks very much like over-zealous fandom.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, As i am not native speaker (only filling in datas) i will aks the Public Relation Officer of our club to answer. But please notice that this club is a worldwide - charity - club, not an "over-zealous fandom".

please also take a look at the "talk" of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Rebel_Legion

Thank you! yours Leroni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroni Verderoc (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability is that almost every picture you see of people wearing Star Wars "Good Guy" costumes is one of us. We are nearly at 5000 members now and are in 42 countries around the world. We raised $650,000 for charity last year (mostly make a wish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTexas (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing Major League Baseball Games: https://www.facebook.com/Cardinals/videos/10154849454736840/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4snpmH3HLY http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/8067842/v101389783/star-wars-characters-celebrate-may-4-at-fenway-park https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60FL8-7uwkc "over-zealous" fan groups dont get invited to be main attractions at Major League baseball games.

Our Wookiepedia link: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rebel_Legion

Mentioned in published books: https://books.google.com/books?id=uG0uCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT39&dq=rebel+legion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-0IbK8ajOAhWM6YMKHUYdA3cQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=rebel%20legion&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=GfyICgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=rebel+legion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrLjg8ajOAhUI0YMKHU6GBeAQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=rebel%20legion&f=false

An article from The Nerdist about us doing charity work: http://nerdist.com/get-to-know-the-charitable-side-of-the-501st-and-rebel-legions/

Our Facebook page with 120,000 likes: https://www.facebook.com/therebellegion/?fref=ts

If this isnt enough, let me know, I can find a lot more — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTexas (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, facebook and wikia aren't going to count as reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:RS. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, Im not exactly sure what you want. If you have ever been to a comic con, or a parade, or literally ANYTHING that is a Star Wars event, we are there. I talk to LucasFilm on a weekly basis. I mean if you google X Wing Pilot or Jedi, every picture of someone not from the movies is a member of our group. Our costumes range from $500 to $3,000 and can take over a year to complete. We arent a Halloween costume group. If the 501st Legion is worthy of a wiki page, we are too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTexas (talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's ok to not understand. Wikipedia's rules are a bit...maybe considerably...arcane. Bear with me a moment (I'm voting to keep; I just want to explain). That a group is "there" at an event does not make them notable. That you talk to LucasFilm frequently does not make your group notable. That there are plenty of pictures of people in your organization does not make your organization notable. The cost in time and money to create a costume does not make you notable. Not being a Halloween costume group does not make you notable. As to the existence of the 501st Legion article, that is an argument to keep something because something similar exists on the project, which is an argument we do not use here. More information on that is available at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. With all respect, nothing you've said is a convincing argument that we should keep this article. The gold standard here is coverage in reliable media outlets that are independent of your group. WP:GNG covers this. I hope this helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (example, more at [18]). It's a clear pass of WP:GNG. A huge amount of trimming of fluff, indiscriminate collection of information reversal, and pushing towards encyclopedic tone needs to be done, but this is not a reason to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - though I'd be happier if there were more sources that didn't have "Star Wars" in the domain name. This Wired article may help: [19] Artw (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 12:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a noteworthy organization, and actively linked to the 501st Costuming Club (a fact noted on the latters page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkris (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove all uncited cruft. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I do not usually edit Wikia articles, apologies if this is formatted incorrectly) You may be having trouble finding references to the Rebel Legion's work because much of it is done with sick children and we sign confidentiality agreements. That tends to cut down on media coverage, but that does not make what we do less notable. However, I did find a couple more articles: Another from The Nerdist: http://nerdist.com/wondercon-the-rebel-legion-and-501st-legion-talk-costuming/ io9 rehashed the starwars.com article: http://io9.gizmodo.com/read-up-on-the-history-of-the-rebel-legion-costuming-gr-1714367742 If it helps, here's a picture from a check presentation to Seattle Children's Hospital: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qTwGk8v/0/M/i-qTwGk8v-M.jpg The Washington State branch of the Rebel Legion raised $20,000 for Seattle Children's over a single weekend at Emerald City Comic Con in collaboration with the 501st Legion, our sister organization. This is pretty typical for what each branch of the Legion will raise at their large local convention, varying of course with the size of the convention itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.13.245 (talk) 05:09, 14 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, block evasion. Another Easter sock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucination (2016 film)[edit]

Hallucination (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. Can't find any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Tried all kinds of research and searches, couldn't find anything substantial. Hitro talk 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently only source is IMDb, which is unreliable and could have been an entry by authors. Would also need to delete all the non-notable redirects to this article that were recently added.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this. It's another SEFPRODUCTIONS sock. If you guys see anything with Paul Easter, Paul Terrance, or any of the other names in the SPI files on the article, just tag it as a block evasion. It's just some schmuck in England with too much time on his hands trolling Wikipedia. 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tallest buildings in Bucharest. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOS Tower[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, per source searches. North America1000 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Bucharest or List of tallest buildings in Romania as good wp:ATD. Create the list(s) as necessary. Like AFD outcome for various tall buildings in Barcelona not too long ago. Address similar Bucharest stubs the same way, by editing not AFDs. Eyes needed on nav template which called for creation of separate articles and needs to be edited down. Actual height of this building and others past number 26 in Bucharest seem unavailable, so perhaps don't make a table row for this one, just list in a section "Other tall buildings ", which redirect can go to. height is infobox in article but not in source for article, and there is a table row already.--doncram 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Bucharest where it is already mentioned. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Premium Plaza: I tried to look up some information about this building (and it wasn't easy). Anyway, here is what I found out:
    • from this site (the reference used for BOS Tower in List of tallest buildings in Bucharest) I got the address (Dr. Iacob Felix Street 66-69, but in fact it is Dr. Iacob Felix Street 63-69)
    • from these news stories I got the name of the developer (Immoconsult) and the name of building administrator (Premiumred)
    • from skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10807487 and skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=11860629, I found out that the project was renamed to Premium Plaza, which is consistent with the information found above
    • the official site is PremiumPlaza.ro
    • here is the building on Google Streetview, in 2014 Razvan Socol (talk) 15:39, 15 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPPSERV[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, per several source searches. North America1000 10:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:52, 9 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best In The House Tickets[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, per source searches. The article also has a significant amount of promotional content. North America1000 09:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Whpq (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- most of the coverage is from ticketnews.com, which appears to be a trade publication. Does not meet CORPDEPTH or GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 14 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Jive[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND, as per several source searches. North America1000 09:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article is likely all true, as this Billboard article confirms that the band were part of the Anger Management tour. However, it seems to have been written by someone close to the band in a WP:IKNOWIT style, and I'm struggling to find any other sources that might confer notability or back up the details in the text. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to pass WP:BAND at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people to hold U.S. Cabinet Secretaryships for ten years or more[edit]

List of people to hold U.S. Cabinet Secretaryships for ten years or more (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that also does not meet WP:LISTN because the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. North America1000 09:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:16, 8 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.

Iman Hajihashemi[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of euphonium instructors[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN because the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. North America1000 09:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The instrument, both historically and within the scope of service and brass bands globally, remains significant, though within a rapidly growing global population, increasingly difficult to identify experts in as the genre has not expanded proportionately. This is valuable information, and the page has a history in that it was created to separate this clearly desired information by some segment of the user community, from the page on the instrument itself, which was subject to continual modification to add, delete, or vandalize entries regarding both players (also extracted with a notability rule added that is being enforced) and this page for instructors. Deletion will simply bring back the issues with inclusion of this information in a page where it does not belong, as history has shown a significant number of people are intent on publishing it.--Rwberndt (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For Wikipedia lists of people, on topics such as this one where the whole list is not itself both of limited size and sourceable as a unit, we should only list notable people (those with their own Wikipedia articles), but that would cut this list down to zero length. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP is not a directory. There's also some issues of a coat rack going on, with the institution linked but not the instructors (because they are all non notable). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Veneziano[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. No significant acclaim or awards as an artist. Also an orphan article LibStar (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: First a note that his article has been deleted 3 times on it-wiki, however the most recent was because of a copyvio, and the previous ones were deleted in 2007 and 2008 before he had attracted as much notice. Although he appears to only have marginal claims against (say) NARTIST #3 and #4c, and coverage of "Italian Newbrow"/"Nuova Arte Italiana" might not (yet?) be enough for #2, I believe that his article is a GNG keep.
  • His portfolio is here, and while it's primary, as a pointer to exhibitions (eg curated by Vittorio Sgarbi) it may be indicative.
  • His equally primary biography provides other potentially verifiable claims: 2 covers of Flash Art magazine, representation at international exhibitions, etc.
  • He achieved some notoriety with his exhibition Zeitgeist - which attracted particular criticism for (mainly) la Madonna del terzo Reich including international coverage here, here and here. There's no obvious merge target apart from the worse option of a new article on la Madonna..., but BLP1E is avoided anyway, since...
  • According to his biography, an earlier work, Occidente Occidente, also attracted some notice (hard to find much online, though here is something from Robert Spencer (author), and that that exists suggests there was indeed further coverage at the time).
  • He subsequently exhibited at the 54th Venice Biennale, which isn't necessarily quite notable given there were 250 artists from Italy alone that year, but he appears to have attracted a little notice.
  • Significant coverage by it:Andrea G. Pinketts in his book Ho una tresca con la tipa nella vasca (Pinketts has curated his work). Appears to be in Newbrow: 50 Contemporary Artists by Shane Pomajambo published by Schiffer Publishing.
  • There's this passing coverage of his Dolce&Gabbana piece in the Financial Times, and a bunch of other bits and pieces including this 2007 interview. He also provided the cover for McMAO by band Management del Dolore Post-Operatorio (released by Universal). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 8 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about bankers[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN because the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. North America1000 08:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list as it stands isn't really a list of films about bankers per se as much as it's a list of films where there are characters that happen to be bankers. It's not the focal point of the movie, in other words. Even if the banking job were the focus of the film, there's really not any coverage to show that this is something overly noteworthy. In other words its not like say, LGBT representation in film, where there's enough coverage to justify an article like List of LGBT-related films. If there were enough sources I'd be all for an article about banking in film, but I just don't see it out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I like WP:LISTCRUFT and possibly OR as Tokyogirl points out. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 13 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 10:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Jevremovic[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Basically a 16 year old yellow belt (low rank) with some success in local, age specific tournaments writing about himself. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely far from notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also concur, there's no substance for actual notability here. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable autobio. --Finngall talk 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably should have been speedied. Competing in beginner youth divisions doesn't show notability. Sources consist of two facebook posts and a local paper report on the tournament that doesn't even mention him. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and every other notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of the easiest AfD calls I've made. There's nothing even remotely close to showing he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 13 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zotonic[edit]

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

This was actually PRODed but later asked to be restored, presumably by the company itself as the history suggests, and whereas there were a few changes, there was still nothing actually substantial and convincing; my own searches have not found better than mentions. My PROD: "Searches have still not found anything better than trivial mentions, none of it actually amounts to the needed substance.". SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Following rewrite. May be renominated if still deemed problematic.  Sandstein  20:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zadara Storage[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTPROMO. Delete and salt as a COI/SPA/PR target that will likely be recreated otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A couple of sources for consideration are: a discussion of the firm in Gartner's Cool Vendors in Storage 2014 (pages 5-6), and an October 2015 article in The Register which has the opinion that the company is " virtually competing in a field of one with its overall technology and business model" [31]. I am undecided whether these go beyond WP:CRYSTAL to express attained notability so am just offering them as comment at the moment. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- yes, crystal ball for sure. The Register is not exactly a top drawer source either. Cool Vendor means that they are up and comer, so could possibly be notable down the road, maybe. Still delete for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a new company in California and then none of this is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. The sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:AUD. In fact the vast majority of coverage are press releases. This is a fairly recent company which was started about 5 years ago and I think it has some way to go before it can be notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just completely rewrote the article with good sources and hopefully limited promotionalism - everything comes from third party coverage, and was rewritten to prevent COPYVIO.Timtempleton (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. Brandon (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a somewhat weaker level, and keep per WP:HEY. Notions herein about the company's age relative to notability are not guideline- or policy-based, and WP:TOOSOON is an opinion essay. See also, the opinion essay: WP:NEWCOMPANY. Here are some sources: [32], [33], [34] (be sure to view page 2), [35], [36]. North America1000 04:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- even after a rewrite, the article and sources are not compelling; this is still about partnerships and planned deployments:
"In March 2013, the company partnered with storage vendor NetApp to deploy hybrid cloud solutions for customers.[8] In August 2013, Toshiba's America Electronic Components (TAEC) division invested $3M in the company, which by then also had storage arrangements with hosting company Dimension Data. Reports indicated that as part of the investment Toshiba's disk drives would be used in Zadara's storage products.[3] In May 2014, Zadara Storage announced a project to deploy a cloud-based educational initiative with distance learning company Echo360.[9]" Etc.
CRN is trade press and is often pay-per-play; I've already commented on The Register'; VentureBeat is interesting, but this is still all future looking: "Zadara Storage wants to bring the security, control, and performance of the private cloud to public cloud storage." (and not has brought)
I think this still fails CORPDEPTH and is insufficient for GNG since this is mostly trade press. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes, the history has been expanded, but there's still a sources problem. Per WP:NCORP, Startupbeat and sramanamitra aren't independent and USPTO can't be used for notability. Storagernewsletter is literally guessing (it uses "apparently" far too often). Socaltech is a press release, and that's on top of what K.e.coffman has indicated above. Aside from the fact that I now have objective proof that the founder wrote the article in the first place, I'm just not seeing anything here that leaves me with the sense that notability is met - it's still just another tech company amongst a slew of tech companies, and I still have no idea why what they actually do is notable either. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prodded this article myself some weeks back, and the prod was removed with a not satisfactory answer (multiple previous editors, incoming links; IMHO almost all from connected editors). While I must admit the improvements made by User:Timtempleton and User:Northamerica1000 make this work much better, I don't see this subject as a company which adequately meets WP:CORPDEPTH. As analyzed above by several editors, and with due respect to those improving this page, most of these sources just don't adequately meet WP:IRS. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. The subject must be proved notable by our guidelines and I still think this fails that test. BusterD (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Prod was for uncontroversial deletions where no resistance was expected. This is obviously not that. I'm going to look at and integrate into from the new sources when I have time over the next few days but even now I just don't see how this is a delete.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The king of the parakeets[edit]

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

This seems weakly sourced and of very local interest, I doubt that it meets the notability criteria Jimfbleak (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Generally, I would think any myth or legend, which has been around for hundreds of years, should be notable. I'm assuming the article is honest.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though it may be that Indonesian folklore gets little international media coverage, we should not stop it from being documented. Aust331 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, the indonesian wikiarticle[37] is well referenced (thankyou gtranslate:)) - 1. Sheina Ananda. 2013. Summary 100 Folklore Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke .Jakarta: Anakkita.Hlm 2., 2. Dea Rose. 2007. Folklore 33 provinces of Aceh to Papua. Yogyakarta: IndonesiaTera. P 1., 3. Tim Optima Pictures. 2009. 101 Stories archipelago. Malang: Kawan Pustaka. P 5., 4. Sumbi Sambangsari. 2008. The set of folklore nusantara. Jakarta: Revelation Media.Hlm 2., 5. Marina Asril Reza. 2010. 108 First Best Folklore Nusantara. Jakarta: Visimedia.Hlm 10. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Considering the colonial history of Indonesia, I figured there might be version in an old Dutch story book. Except for some minor differences, I could indeed find an identical story, titled "De list van de Parkietenkoning" (The ruse of the parakeet king). That edition is sourced to Volksverhalen uit kleurrijk Nederland. Dieren. Dierenverhalen uit de Chinese, Joodse, Nederlandse, Indiase, Turkse, Surinaamse, Marokkaanse en Indonesische verteltraditie; Rotterdam: Uitgeverij Lemniscaat (1990).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By unanimous consensus, minus the nominator.  Sandstein  20:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TYPO3[edit]

AfDs for this article:
TYPO3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically this should've been deleted perhaps even at the 2nd AfD, as none of this is actually substantial and convincing SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No valid deletion reason given. "Should have been deleted last time" is no grounds for deletion. Whether you like or dislike the result of the second AfD is not relevant. This AfD has been closed and causeless deletion does not follow the rules. --87.123.57.53 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rules were not so strict 7 years ago. What was acceptable then, may be not suitable for encyclopedia now. Pavlor (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfD#2 failed to show that the article would not be satisfying the notability guidelines and notability is not temporary per Wikipedia:Notability. Substantial coverage is present and has been provided. But even if it had not - it has, but let's just asume for one moment it would not have been - the state of sourcing in an article is not what notability is based on. This AfD is causeless. --87.123.57.53 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The IPs are not actually clarifying and stating how this is independently notable (including having coversge that is third-party, not simply its own websites or other trivial links) which is what my nomination is for. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read and understood the article? Coverage does not only exist, but it even has been provided. And providing is not even necessary to turn down this AfD btw. If you have a certain question feel free to ask it on the WP:TALK page. An AfD is the wrong format for this. To me it seems like this AfD is close to abuse to say the least. --87.123.37.221 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP WP:NOTTEMPORARY notability has already been proven in the first AfD. Jörgi123 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coverage is substantial and convincing. --Anna (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other sources (copy/paste) from article on DE Wiki (I think these aren´t in EN article):
    • Patrick Lobacher: TYPO3 Extbase, Open Source Press, 2014, ISBN 978-3-95539-070-9
    • Patrick Lobacher: Certified TYPO3 Integrator (Aktualisierte 2. Auflage), Open Source Press, 2012, ISBN 978-3-941841-62-8
    • Alexander Ebner, Patrick Lobacher, Bernhard Ulbrich: TYPO3 und TypoScript – Kochbuch (Aktualisierte 3. Auflage zu TYPO3 4.3) Hanser Fachbuch, 2010, ISBN 978-3-446-41557-7
    • Robert Meyer: Praxiswissen TYPO3. (Aktualisierte Auflage zu TYPO3 4.3) O’Reilly, 2010, ISBN 978-3-89721-961-8
    • Denny Carl: Webwelten. Fünf CMS auf PHP-Basis. In: iX – Magazin für professionelle Informationstechnik Nr. 12/2007, S. 54. – Gegenüberstellung von fünf Redaktionssystemen auf PHP-Basis: TYPO3, Joomla, Drupal, Papaya, Redaxo Pavlor (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A WP:BEFORE-style GBooks search quickly shows multiple entire books devoted to TYPO3, all by different authors. Along with Pavlor's list, it looks like the topic easily passes notability thresholds per WP:GNG. The article is a bit promotional in tone, but that is a matter of editing, not deletion. A solidly notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Many books cover the topic (over 40): [38]. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America1000 09:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does appear to be covered by a number of sources, per North America. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. And actually there are even more reputable WP:NONENG sources. The library of my former university alone maintains more than 40 different books on the topic some as old as dating back to 2004. And these only are the German speaking ones. --87.123.59.148 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW, I will note that none of these comments or the listed books above are specifying the actual depth of the listed books; there's also no comments addressing the fact there's still in fact primary sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough of reputable, in-depth third-party secondary sources. These are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are books published by respected publishing houses. If you want to, we can discuss each single one of them and you tell us, why you believe it would not be valid. --87.123.59.148 (talk) 09:00, 16 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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtFarmer[edit]

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

Such a clear open and shut case, I wish I could've PRODed instead (but we have the 1st 2006 AfD), both this and my searches showed no actual substance exists at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- RS are lacking to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to the company's own self-published content about itself, either on its own website or on press release distribution platforms, with the closest thing to reliable source media coverage being a single deadlinked Vancouver Sun article which was not about this company, but about one of this company's clients. That's not even remotely close to enough to meet WP:CORP. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus about a redirect; anyone may create one.  Sandstein  20:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitical Futures[edit]

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

All references are press releases DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or alternatively redirect back to George Friedman, where his founding of this service already mentioned with appropriate weight. However, I do not see anything in third-party sources to warrant a standalone article. --Kinu t/c 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- minor subscription service that is not yet notable. While the founder may be notable, this is otherwise promotional content and the sources are not sufficient to sustain a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Company is a new and independent service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjhart84 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you are the author of the article, please explain which policy or guideline-based rationale you are putting forward for the retention of this article. --Kinu t/c 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this article is clearly promotional; I removed a few self-cited areas while the material that remains is cited to republished press releases, such as:
"He is launching this month Geopolitical Futures, a new digital publishing company that is targeting individuals with $139-a-year subscriptions. An initial team of 12 is expected to grow moderately in the coming years to execute the business plan. A relationship with Phoenix publisher Mauldin Economics LLC is expected to be announced in the coming days." etc.
The company clearly has no notability outside of its connection to the founder --- link. Too soon for a stand-alone article.
I pruned the article of uncited and self-cited material (current version). I would consider this to be WP:A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I wouldn't object to turning this into a redirect as discussed above, the central thing is that the firm, on its own, just isn't that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or potentially redirect; the founder seems notable, but the firm has no evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 16 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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microtrac[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any sunstantial coverage of this company in RS as is required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amazingly, this 40+ year old company has virtually no press coverage that I could find. BoyRD (talk) 00:55, 11 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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Shekhar Jha[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Only substantial coverage I could find was this, but that's not enough for notability. Everything else was a primary source or just his authorship of articles in various news sources. ~ Rob13Talk 18:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I do agree with the nominator, there are no substantial coverage to warrant an encyclopedic entry. I wonder why this article is not a WP:G11 candidate in it's current form. Hitro talk 18:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User Talk:HitroMilanese, I was going to put more and more info about the person (Mayur Shekhar Jha) in parts, there is a lot to talk about him. His political journey to rising against all odds, coming from one of the poorest regions of the world. But before all this, the moment I start a page, I am busy fighting here.Sumitkashyapjha (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I don't think it rises to the level of needing to be "fundamentally rewritten" as required by WP:G11. There's certainly puffery here, but there's also actual non-promotional information. I wouldn't object if another admin deleted it as per G11, but I don't think it quite hits the mark for speedy deletion. ~ Rob13Talk 18:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not anything objectionable on this page. No information on the page is false. It's grossly unfair to put deletion notice on the page.Sumitkashyapjha (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have added couple of awards and felicitations to Mayur Shekhar Jha, links to verify both has been added. Removing deletion tag, please don't object to that. Thanks.Sumitkashyapjha (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a comprehensive failure of GNG. I was struggling to find information and even the ones I found were trivial [39]. The subject is a journalist but at this moment is not notable. The lack of secondary coverage is very obvious here. The awards mentioned do not have any secondary sources either, so it is unclear how important they are. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and in fact there is hardly any reliable sources to meet the criteria of verifiability. — Sanskari Hangout 16:20, 15 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. MBisanz talk 00:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Jakubenko[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and none of the references except his own blog discuss him at length. Slashme (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He had a recurrong role on a famous australian soap opera Neighbours from 2009 to 2013 appearing in 31 episodes. Judor92 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he is most known in australia than in america but he is still known in america. jakelol 19:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juju9292 (talk • contribs) Juju9292 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. — Sam Sailor Talk! 23:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)>[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as a case of WP:Too soon. I found some interviews and minor mentions of his performances, but no articles focusing predominantly on him. [40], [41], I assume that will change in the near future, if he really is popular in Australia. Perhaps someone would be interested in userfying it. Yvarta (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:20, 8 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 List of acquisitions by Oracle. And merge as needed.  Sandstein  20:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stellent[edit]

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

Unfortunate we have to come here (but I hope we have a consensus) since the past 2 were closed as "NC" and then "SK", my own searches have noticeably found nothing better at all, and it quite easily showed that; nothing at all for actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Oracle Corporation, which acquired the company in 2006, yet the article has no mention of Stellent. This will serve to improve the merge target article as a functional and appropriate WP:ATD. North America1000 06:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this is a tough one. As a publicly traded company, Stellent would have been presumed notable under WP:LISTED, but I'm not sure if this still applies to the company that's been acquired. For a sizable company (500+ ppl) and a acquisition target by Oracle, it's surprising that it's tough to find any coverage of substance. It gets a passing mention in ZDNet, but that's the extent of what I was able to find, apart from an article in Content Management World. Separately, I don't think that Oracle would be the right target, as that article is already well developed, and Oracle has acquired dozens of companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW, this one is best relisted to clarify and specify between Deleting and then Redirecting; I will note that although this could simply be redirected, I believe it's best deleted and then redirected, considering there's nothing to actually keep if it's not in fact independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Some of the content is worthy of merging into Oracle Corporation. Notice how the article covers several aspects of its relation to Oracle, yet the Oracle Corporation article has no mention of the company. This is a functional and appropriate outcome, per Wikipedia's editing policy: WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 07:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of acquisitions by Oracle -- better target vs the main Oracle Corporation article. In the List article the name of the company is not written correctly so it's red linked at the moment. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'd be fine with a selective merge to List of acquisitions by Oracle. North America1000 07:43, 16 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UiPath[edit]

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

Essentially every source here is a notice or press release, wherever published. There does not seem to be enough underlying importance to sugegst that the would be more. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 16:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm still not finding anything actually convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are just 2 press release sources, that can easily be replaced. This is one of the few startups in Robotic Process Automation - a nascent industry that many industry pundits say it will have a huge impact on the future of work. There are news and coverings of the space every other day. This is covered by top tier consultancy companies like PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, Everest etc.. Here are some more sources/references:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] RoboticRPA (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mwdadvisors.com/2016/07/20/on-the-radar-uipath/
  2. ^ http://www.everestgrp.com/2015-05-the-automation-technology-starter-question-sherpas-in-blue-shirts-17426.html
  3. ^ http://www.kpmg-institutes.com/content/dam/kpmg/sharedservicesoutsourcinginstitute/pdf/2015/strategic-visions-sourcing-market-2016.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.fr.capgemini-consulting.com/point-of-view/robotic-process-automation
  5. ^ http://www.symphonyhq.com/emerging-opportunities-automating-enterprise-businesses/
  6. ^ https://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/Integration-Pack-for-0d08c919
  7. ^ http://outsourcemag.com/live-wires-8-late-or-leapfrog/
  8. ^ http://www.capterra.com/data-extraction-software/spotlight/135186/UiPath/UiPath
  9. ^ http://www.romanianstartups.com/startup/uipath/
  10. ^ http://www.hubspot.com/customers/uipath
  11. ^ http://www.slideshare.net/UiPath/robotic-process-automation-who-is-buying-and-why
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ZEAL UiPath evolved from a Screen Scraping software to a full blown RPA (robotic process automation) platform. It is still one of the best Screen Scraping software out there. Just Google "screen scraping software" or "screen scraping". In this field it competes with the web based Import.io. Import.io has sources like its Crunchbase profile. UiPath also has it. In the RPA space it's main competitor is Automation Anywhere. This has even less sources. I'm not sure how compelling this arguments are, but it's more than "I'm still not finding anything actually convincing at all". Also this:

[1] [2] [3] Vladdione (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  1. ^ http://scraping.pro/uipath-robotic-process-automation-software/
  2. ^ http://www.slideshare.net/joetawfik1/the-business-case-for-robotic-process-automation-rpa
  3. ^ https://github.com/UiPath/SDK/wiki/What-is-screen-scraping-and-gui-automation
Inviting nominator DGG for analysis for the sources listed, as I myself am going through them, Vladdione and RoboticRPA and these are either still essentially PR (note you have even included "customer" websites). What we need is actual coverage from news, it seems particularly none of the listed sources here are actually convincing. I have to also note that unacceptable sources also include interviews, social media, news about funding partnerships and finances. For example, also #6 by RoboticRPA is simply a Microsoft product listing. SwisterTwister talk 16:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment 1' First I'll discuss the arguments: "- a nascent industry that many industry pundits say it will have a huge impact on the future of work. There are news and coverings of the space every other day." is not evidence of the significance of the discussion about hte particular company. This is basically an argument that "I know its important" DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- coverage does not meet CORPDEPTH. Otherwise, an advertorial on an non notable company; sources are insufficient to sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 03:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 03:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the sources presented at this AfD are either PR, corporate blogs, directory listings, and otherwise generally non-RS or non-independent sources. It's all rather trivial, for example: "The Emerging Opportunities for Automating Enterprise Businesses", from SymphonyHQ with a link to the company's blog. This is telling us that this is an emerging industry, with companies doing a lot of PR and vying for funding, but not yet worthy of note by an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will also note this should been kept to be closed as Delete because the Keep comments cannot honestly actually be taken seriously, they are not convincing for establishing the needed substance. With this said, I hope this can get closer to an emphasized Delete. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Many of the sources are either unreliable or redressed press releases or online magazines with limited readership. Slideshare is purely user submitted content ad is the wiki on Github. The few reliable sources I find simply talk about a partnership with another company and that too not in detail. I am unable to see any evidence that the company in notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 02:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sakimichan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, based entirely on primary sources and blogs with not one shred of reliable source coverage shown. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their work exists; RS coverage supporting a WP:CREATIVE pass must be present for an article to become earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep appears to meet GNG; has gotten substantial coverage for her work as a digital artist. See [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Granted, some of these are borderline sources; but given that anime itself is a little insular, and considering the volume of such mentions she has received, I think she is notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 16:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 03:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 03:46, 8 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 Miss Illinois USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Gulseth[edit]

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

The only thing close to being marginally notable for Gulseth is being Miss Illinois USA. However this is not enough to make her notable. The sources are from two extremely local papers, she did not even merit mention in any actual Chicago papers. There are also two sources that are from a publication of her university, but generally university papers are not considered enough to help a student at that university pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not independently notable, then redirect to Miss Illinois USA as a valid search term. North America1000 06:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that some of these articles have been redirected and not deleted outright for this year is now being used to keep other articles because the redirects make it look like more articles have been deemed notable than has been the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possible source here and a quickie mention here and a one paragraph quote here and no doubt she's a beautiful woman but I don't think the sources are sufficient to meet the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Illinois USA. Sources offered by Tomwsulcer are insufficient to meet GNG, and the subject is not notable outside of being a state level winner. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 14 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brightpod[edit]

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

Nominating for AfD due to lack of notability. PROD removed, citing "Significant coverage in cited reliable sources, specifically: [48], [49], [50]". TechCrunch, SmallBizTrends, and TheNextWeb do not appear to amount to "significant" coverage to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Someone got to it before I did. There's no assertion of notability, and WP:ENN. MSJapan (talk)
  • Keep - Significant coverage in cited reliable sources. The relevant definition for significant coverage is WP:SIGCOV and this is clearly met. "Insufficient coverage to sustain an encyclopedia entry" is a subjective assessment and not a valid WP:DEL-REASON. Other delete comments are also not compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SIGCOV is debateable but even then it is a presumption, not a rule for inclusion. Per WP:DEL-REASON Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth).--Savonneux (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.--Savonneux (talk) 07:08, 14 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. Of note is that a policy- or -guideline-based rationale for deletion was not provided by the nominator, and no other users have opined for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator also stated in a later comment, "This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect". North America1000 07:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialist competitive algorithm[edit]

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

More metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft. —Ruud 15:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Imperialist Competitve Algorithm article should be kept in Wikipedia?

I think the removal of this page from WikiPedia is not a good decision. First of all, Imperialist Competitive Algorithm is a widely used and cited algorithm. The first paper that introduced this algorithm has been cited more than 1,000 times. Also in Google Scholar there are more than 3,000 papers that have used or referred to this algorithm. So by just attaching a label "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" and deleting an article from WikiPedia, I think a decision is beeing made on behalf of a whole community of researchers.

Before making a decision, we should first bring a scientific definition and criteria for calling the work thousands of researchers, "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft". Let's first ask this question: What makes an algorithm to be called "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"? What is the criteria?

Some suggestions:

  1. Is that the age of and algorithm? So Genetic Algorithm can be called novel because it was proposed in 1950s and another algorithm proposed in 2,000 is not? If yes, then what is the specific year at which we should cut and label all the newer algorithms "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"? In this case, how should we label "Particle Swarm Optimization" and "Ant Colony"?
  3. Is that the performance of the algorithm on a set of benchmark problems?
  4. Or there is something else?

As we see, calling an algorithm "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" is not a personal decision we make for ourselves. It is a claim that requires expertise and level of research that leads to coming up with a list of "scientific criteria".

I have been the reviewer of tens of papers in the area of evolutionary computation. So let me share my experience with you. The result is not a set of comprehensive criteria, but using this you can easily identify more than 90% of "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic crufts". The criteria is simple: any algorithm that fits into one the following categories can be labeled as "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" (the definition does not claim that if an algorithm does not satisfy any of the following conditions, it is definitely novel).

  • Criterion 1) The source of inspiration is a subgroup of a previously proposed algorithm. For example, after ant colony, another algorithm that uses "American Ant", "Europian ant" and so on, will not be a new algorithm and will be "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft".
  • Criterion 2) The source of inspiration comes from a scientific fact that does not include "gradual improvement and solution finding (optimization) in nature". For example, Ant Colony has a source of inspiration that comes from the real process that ants apply to find the "optimal" path. However, on the other hand, there are algorithms that model some laws in Pysics. For example "A Gravitational Search Algorithm" which is said to be "based on the Newtonian gravity and the laws of motion" is not using a valid source of inspiration for the algorithm design, even if at the end there is an algorithm that works. The optimization algorithms should be based on a source of inspiration that actually does optimization in nature (E.g. the Evolution is actually optimizing the nature and it is a valid source of inspiration for an algorithm and ants really and really run an optimization process in their daily work and that is the reason they can be the valid source of inspiration for an algorithm - ACO).

Here it is not claimed that the above-mentioned criteria are comprehensive and enable us to easily find and label "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft". However, using just the mentioned two criteria you can find and filter many of the "cruft"s. Then use other methods to work on the few remaining ones. As you see, here instead of labeling this and that, we are talking about criteria and treat everything by defined rules, not words and phrases.

Now that we have at least a simple definition of the word "cruft", for a few reasons, Imperialist Competitive Algorithm is different from many of the proposed algorithms.

  • Criterion 1) The source of inspiration is not a new labeling of a previously proposed source of inspiration. It is based on the theory of social Darwinism which is the extension of the Darwins theory of evolution to sociology, politics, history and concepts. It is the first and the only major algorithm that is based on a source of inspiration that is not in the category of natural science and still has a strong connection with scientific theories. So the source of inspiration of the algorithm is totally new. The way GA, in the reverse application, is used to simulate artificial life, ICA can be used to model artificial history and social evolution. Giving life to virtual concepts like "country" and "nations" (based on the theories of socio-political evolution), the source of inspiration of ICA is unique and deserves attention and is one of the reasons behind its widespread adoption and success.
  • Criterion 2) Unlike many of the "crufts", ICA is not enforcing a fake connection between the algorithm (optimization) world and the source of inspiration to just make things look fancy, without a valid natural-conceptual optimization process behind it. It is actually based on a process that is basically doing optimization in nature and human history (not a personal belief, but a theory behind it). As mentioned, ICA is based on Social Darwinism. Social Darwinists "compare society to a living organism and argue that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.". Hence, the source of inspiration for ICA is based on an "actual optimization process", something that is hard to find in many of the so-called "nature-inspired cruft"s. What makes it hard for some to understand ICA and see its somewhat strange inspiration source as a forced fake metaphor is that the source is not categorized in natural science which is the case with many of the major works in evolutionary computation, and that are easier to understand and agree with for computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. But ICA is simply GA of history and concepts (even concepts like algorithms!) with a totally different point of view that is based on socio-political evolution. There are many people who do not agree with the theory of social Darwinism, much more than those who do not believe in Darwin's Theory of evolution itself. As the number of people disagreeing with the Darwins theory does not make it less valid, the same is with the Evolution of Concepts which is much harder to describe. Because one should first understand and believe in the natural evolution and then get to a belief that nature is a concept itself and even the "theory of evolution" as a "living concept" is under the law of evolution itself! (how ICA sees the world in a much general framework)! Such a unique source of inspiration with hundreds of books written about it, is not a 250-word page from Wikipedia or a chart in a book or the name of a flower or an animal in a powerpoint file, that is then colored as the "inspiration source" for an algorithm that actually does not need it. There is much more theory and published books and papers behind ICA's inspiration source than behind Ant Colony and Particle Swarm Optimization. It is the computer simulation of a process that actually is the optimization process of concepts (as living species) which is something much beyond the theory of natural evolution.

On the other hand, ICA has been trusted and used and tested by thousands of researchers in solving thousands of problems that are published in a few thousand papers. Actually, ICA is among the few algorithms that have a unique real source of inspiration and has been widely used and tested by the researchers.

Any decision to delete this article (or any article) is something that should be made based on a set of criteria. We might agree or disagree with the defined set of criteria. We might also add new conditions. As long as we use criteria, not the names and words, to make decisions, then the decision is fine. A good criterion should have the potential to be applied to any algorithm, regardless of the name, age and fame. The criteria should be logical and clear.

If we ignore using criteria and just use poetic words and phrases as labels then we are not having a scientific decision, it is indeed a personal belief and then a personal decision based on that belief, on behalf of the whole community. The criteria must be so clear and precise that even we apply it to the famous algorithms like Genetic Algorithms and Ant Colony Optimization and treat them using the same conditions we have for the others. This is the way science works. Because, science is the area of criteria-based reasoning, not making a decision based on examples and without reaching a criterion. If there is any simple, clear and precise definition that classifies the work of about 6,000 coauthors as "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft", we should first state it clearly, justify it and then use that simple definition to claim that an algorithm is cruft, referencing criterion number X or Y. To separate a good and bad scientific work, the method and reasoning should be scientific itself. We can not help science by approaching it with a non-scientific labeling and without having well-defined criteria.

So if there is any criterion that classifies ICA in "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"s we should have it first, before making any decision. If that definition is clearly given, and ICA is one of "crufts", then I agree with you that the article should be deleted as well as all the other algorithm pages that fit into one of the categories defined in our "definition of crufts". 66.75.251.213 (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.71.82 (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

I added these comments to User talk:Ruud Koot who suggested the AfD. Then I realized that there are some general points here that can help with the decision about AfD for this page. So I am sharing the comments here too.

"Hi Ruud! Thaks for your work on making Weikipedis better. I saw your AfD and added my comments. Actually, what you are doing is basically right for the majority of these algorithms. However, we should note that there are many algorithms that their problem is not being inspired from nature. There is a deeper problem. The source of inspiration actually is not an optimization process in nature. It is like getting inspiration from cats to design airplanes that fly. The problem is not the inspiration and metaphor itself. The problem is forcing a fake metaphor that actually does not do optimization itself. So if you are addressing the issue, it should not be just calling anything inspired as "nature-inspired cruft" and deleting it. Because with this labeling, it seems that the problem is inspiration from nature, not the ignorance of people who use birds as a model to design cars and cats to design the airplanes.
If you work in the area of evolutionary computation, you will easily notice that majority of the so-called "nature-inspired" algorithms are not really based on a correct and valid metaphor. The problem is NOT that they are using a metaphor. The bigger problem is that they are not based on a right (remarkable) metaphor, and this is the main problem. If we attack every work just because it is "nature-inspired" then we will create a dark situation where good and bad inspirations will be inseparable. So the attack code should be "fake-inspiration" and "wrong-inspiration" not the phrase "nature-inspired". Take the so-called "Cuckoo search" as an example. Is the process described a real optimization process indeed in nature that can be used to design an algorithm? Or the Water Drops. What kind of optimization is behind the Water drops in nature that can be used to create an optimization algorithm? Not at all, and the problem is exactly at this point. The same story with Harmony Search which is using something that has closed-form mathematical solution (Wave Equation) as the source of inspiration. In the majority of these papers, the metaphors are fake (forced) or are just renaming of previously proposed ones.
I added my ideas to the AfD page of Imperialist Competitive Algorithm, where by defining a set of criteria, I oppose the deletion of the article, exactly for the same reasons I explained here. Please take a look at the discussion and add your comments and reasons behind your suggestion.
Thank you for your work. I believe what you do is great and is something that needed to be done even a few years ago. But we just need to make sure that a good measure is defined to make sure that being "nature-inspired" is not the reason these papers are deleted. The reason is that they are NOT truly inspired from nature."

Hope this helps with the decision. 66.75.251.213 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't spot "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" among our reasons for deletion, so I'll assume it's the subject's notability that's in question. The above Google Scholar search, besides showing 995 citations of the original paper, reveals two book chapters with this title which constitute significant coverage in what appear to be independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG:[51] [52]. (If there's some close connection between the authors of these chapters and the authors of the original paper that means they're not independent sources, it's not obvious to me.) Qwfp (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A plethora of Google Scholar citations clearly establishes notability in this case. The class or style of the algorithm shouldn't be considered.Callsignpink (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 02:49, 8 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. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyBuilder[edit]

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

I frankly was going to PROD first too but here we are; my searches are simply not finding anything substantial and, instead, the sources are press releases, trivial local coverage and the like (including one where they were "celebrating their customers"). Even the sources listed here are all unconvincing, with them being for funding, trivial passing mentions, press releases and overall not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an advertorial of an article. Does not meet CORPDEPTH at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The company was previously named Buildersite Limited. Below are some custom source search parameters. North America1000 01:25, 8 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)
  • Comment - Listed sources are only interviews and local people using it, that's not actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 02:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Only The Guardian source listed above is an interview. Other sources have some quotations, but are not interviews. North America1000 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC coverage is PR driven:
"The website which was established in 2006 has just received a substantial cash injection from Paul Birch, co-founder of Bebo and the Accelerator Group which invested in the start-up of Agent Provocateur and Lovefilm.
"Positive response: The money will be spent on technology, marketing and customer support. Former stonemason and CEO of Buildersite Ryan Notz said: "This funding will enable us to expand the team to enhance our offering of reputation-driven matches. "The take-up and feedback from our users has been fantastic so far - it's a real buzz to build something that is really changing a market."
"Builders who use the site have responded positively to the news. Cymon Allen, a plumber from Tunbridge Wells, said: "Finding a good tradesman is fraught with problems and anything that helps weed out the cowboys is excellent news for everyone connected with the building trade."
They got an investment and they got some press.
In this example, they are getting coverage for their ad campaign:
"Oiled-up builders parade in ad to introduce MyBuilder.com: MyBuilder.com, the website that helps consumers find local builders and tradesmen, is to launch a TV ad directed by Mark Denton and starring builders in skimpy blue swimming trunks."
These mentions all appears trivial. Why MyBuilder is worthy or note is not clear -- okay, they have a clever marketing campaign and they got funding. But that's all. I'm not sure that this subject warrants an encyclopedia article just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are essentially PR, as would be expected for a firm that relies upon PR. When there are decent references, there can perhaps be an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 18 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Lies[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND. I can't find any google coverage beyond namechecks as part of tour listings. PROD contested by IP. shoy (reactions) 16:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article; promo piece, at best. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non-notable band & promo content. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no actual stance whatsoever and the sources themselves can also be labeled as this. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 9 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 Michael Franzese. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Ferrante[edit]

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

Non-notable American criminal. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Secondary figure of a non-notable event with no biographical depth or continuing interest. Associating with the mob is not an automatic pass of WP:PERP. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 01:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Michael Franzese per RegistryKey and WP:PERP, which argues against a separate page for people only known for being involved in a crime. Yvarta (talk) 14:22, 13 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 10:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Study.com[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. It gets a couple of passing mentions (with other providers) but nothing of any great merit. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't appear to be notable. Dane2007 (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 01:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet GNG & only trivial mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be more of an advertisement than an article. Fully non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I honestly would have PRODed instead, nothing substantial and it is only PR. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 9 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Recordings[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources in the article are either unreliable or only provide passing mentions, and source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. North America1000 10:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- typical advertorial for an unremarkable label. As noted by the nom, sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 01:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the nom and I often don't agree on what constitutes sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG and CORPDEPTH; so in this case, this is telling me that there's very little to go on. :-) . I cannot find any sources even if I search in combination with the artists that appeared on the label. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 14 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. MBisanz talk 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle strategy[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm etc. —Ruud 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the references on the article, all but one are coauthored by Xin-She Yang, who appears to have spawned a number of blocked sockpuppet accounts in order to promote his work here. This one doesn't appear to have garnered significant attention from non-affiliated sources. If deleted, a very selective merge to the bio article seems in order, alongside all of his other nature-inspired models listed there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --a concept of minor renown w/o independent sourcing. Not notable on its own. Delete & redirect to Xin-She Yang may also be an option. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 8 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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Jain[edit]

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

Non Notable businessman Uncletomwood (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable subject; sources not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 8 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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peshwa Acharya[edit]

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

Non-Notable Indian Businessman Uncletomwood (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- strictly promotional content and no notability. Should this perhaps have been PRODed? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 8 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 Deployment environment#Staging. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 02:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staging site[edit]

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

No independent coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not an instructional manual or guidebook. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Deployment environment#Staging (and remove hatnote). There are a lack of sources specifically discussing a staging site but there are some discussing a staging environment. However, there's not enough out there and the Deployment environment article isn't long enough to justify a spin-off article at this time. The content already exists in the target article so a redirect is preferable over a merge. Ca2james (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Deployment environment#Staging, per Ca2james. The topic is good, but it's a section within a broader article, not an article of its own. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 11 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) -- Dane2007 talk 02:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zulekha Daud[edit]

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

trivial awards, and a relentlessly promotional article. I strongly doubt notability , but I have no doubt about the self-advertising. Read the lede paragraph. Forbes List of 100 leaders worldwide would be significant, Forbes list of 100 Indian leaders would probably be significant; Forbes list of 100 leaders in the UAE would conceivably be significant; but Forbes list of 100 Indian leaders in the UAE?

The article continues in similar detail. She lists a single meeting with the Minister of Culture as significant.

The references are almost entirely mere notices of her awards combined with PR. Not a single internationally recognized reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak) promo article on a non notable subject of some local importance who appears to be recognised for lifetime contributions, per sources presented by North America. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as by far nothing at all actually convincing for substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for advertising. Even with the (potentially accidental) weasel wording, overall the article is well sourced with inline references and has some good claims for notability. Most of the awards do seem trivial, though I can't help but note that Economic Times named her one of their "20 most influential global Indian women" in 2015, which I find impressive. That combined with some of the other sources currently on the page, and I believe she passes WP:GNG. Yvarta (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. Minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 01:13, 8 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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ungudi Quiawacana[edit]

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

Unsure that this athlete passes WP:NTRACK (certainly doesn't pass GNG). Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 01:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She completely fails NTRACK, and there's no indication she meets GNG; the only hope for this article would be significant coverage in local Portuguese or Angolan sources, but I can't find anything better than trivial mentions. Sideways713 (talk) 22:23, 10 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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North American Bengali Conference[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC) - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article has not any reliable source to support its notability.Saff V. (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 01:12, 8 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 Firefly (TV series)#Fandom. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 02:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Browncoat[edit]

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

This article is a mixture of two things - in-universe trivia, which fails to show any sort of notability, and bits about Firefly-related charities, mostly through self-published sourced, which would be better off merged into the main article. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's notable and I can see secondary RSes that talk about the charitable effort of the fandom. The main article seems to large to encorporate a reasonable expansion of the fandom based on google news hits I'm seeing. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is seen through the secondary sources already in the article. I get that it may seem trivial to someone not in the know, but it's as notable a fandom (in terms of secondary sourcing) as Whoovians or Potterheads--what they lack in numbers they make up in sheer dedication. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Once the trivia about what is in-universe is removed, all that's left is a few sentences which would be better off in the fandom section of the Firefly article. Alternatively split the fandom section to its own article, but I don't see this term being worth its own article. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The term is often used as a term for the fandom, and in my experience, it's more widely used among the fandom than, say, Whovians or Potterheads. The article for the Firefly fandom could conceivably exist at this title. The article is just in really bad shape. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with this. It's entirely reasonable to make sure this is a summary style subordinate article describing the fandom. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The topic already seems fully covered in Firefly (TV series)#Fandom. I haven't checked, but I imagine they probably share most of the same sources. TTN (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 01:11, 8 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.  Sandstein  20:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Loo[edit]

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

This person as a whole is not notable nor influential, and does not meet wiki standards for biography of a living person.

His awards' notability is questioned. At least it is very debatable whether his awards are truly notable by wikipedia standards. They could be achievable easily by others. His only research is not worthy of wikipedia's coverage. In the field of mathematics (higher maths), this piece of research work is insignificant and simple to be produced by experts.

The major contributor & creator is suspected to be autobiographing together with a few of his family members or close friends. There is a huge conflict of interest in creating a wiki as a resume. Moreover, several accounts are suspected to be involved in sock puppetry (requires further investigation with admin power), thus protecting this article from deletion earlier on. The article relies majorly on 3 sources of references only, with multiple dead links. (namely HK Government, the competition website, and the journal)

minor: There is also a noticable amount of edits by blocked users or IP adresses.

(Disclaimer: Suspection is different from accusation. "Suspection" implies uncertainty. 1. Admin attention is therefore humbly sought. 2. A wrong suspection does not equal defamation.) Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the dead links should be tagged and then they will be fixed by internetarchivebot, passes WP:GNG with those links restored, olympiad gold medal is a notable prize and the conflict of interest and sockpuppetry is an allegation that has not been proven.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Reply Links, even if fixed, does not provide much evidence for his notability. The prizes achieved are from the same source. And that competition is a high school competition only. It is not notable in the field of academia or mathematics. Many teenagers get those awards each year. His achievements are not notable as a whole. The notability and originality of his research is doubted. It is uncertain how much help he obtained for his maths paper. His contribution to the mathematical field is very limited up to date. It is impossible to prove COI. Wikipedia accounts do not legally request people to register with true names. It can only be verified graudally with evidence. In this case, sock puppetery adds to the evidence. He is a living young adult. This article is a biography of a living person. Use BLP (mathematician) standards.Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 07:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a minor note to the nominator: your deletion statement at the top of the Afd would be considered your delete !vote. In which case you should not bold 'delete' again below. It's unlikely to confuse the closing admin but it's just the way we do things... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 06:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only claim to fame here is the Olympiad performances, of which his best is the 2011 Physics gold medal. But there were 50 gold medalists that year, so I don't think that's enough by itself to stand out. In previous AfDs, even participants with significantly better Olympiad records had doubt expressed that that was enough, and instead had to rely on other types of notability such as in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources — see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid W. Barton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teodor von Burg, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Sauermann. But in this case, all we have are contest scores, deadlinks, and press releases (or sometimes combinations of the above). The research contributions are certainly not enough for WP:PROF, despite the name-dropping, especially as they appear in a dubious journal (its publisher, Hikari, is on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers [58]). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I must say, as a maths teacher, that Andy 's achievements sometimes look impressive from the outside and less than 1℅ of high school students could get that. However, as David Epstein pointed out, it's not notable enough for wiki. And I suspect that he might have got extensive amount of help from real mathematical professionals on his publication on prime numbers. And it's actuallt not that original ( his approach). It appears to me that Andy is most probably combining solutions from various more significant research works. It's got a low significance in the field of mathematics. Hope my comments help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.108.9 (talk) 08:24, 14 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. MBisanz talk 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Sebagala[edit]

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

Zero RS; prod removed by IP without comment. —swpbT 13:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 8 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 as Withdrawn as there has been enough comments to suggest this can be closed, with there only now being 1 Delete vote (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grounding (punishment)[edit]

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

A mixture of a dictionary definition (WP:DICTDEF) and unsourced (WP:V) original research (WP:OR) content, which might be what the writer experienced as a child but can't be generalized to all families in all time periods and in all places.  Sandstein  14:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn following improvement and sourcing. Thanks!  Sandstein  10:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable and so should be improved rather than deleted, per our editing policy. See The Science of Grounding, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I'm probably going to end up on the keep side of this for lack of decent merge target so far, that book was self-published via iUniverse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That book was first published in 1984 and again in 1991. I suppose that iUniverse edition is an online reprint. In any case, the author, Kenneth Kaye, is an expert in the field. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Found it in the frontmatter. Walker & Co. (since acquired by Bloomsbury) published it first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not arguing the topic isn't notable. It may or may not be. But the article as it is requires deletion for the issues explained above, because it consists entirely of unusable content. This does not prevent others from recreating it in a sourced form.  Sandstein  18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that's not our policy. Our actual policy is that, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." Per WP:V, such content only requires a citations for "...quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". The material here seems quite anodyne – a general overview which has been around in much the same form for about 10 years without being seriously challenged. Per WP:BLUE, this seems to be a case of common knowledge. Furthermore, we know that deletion is not appropriate for such uncited material because we have a different policy for BLPs. In that case, the WP:BLPPROD process may be used to force a citation. Per the principle that the exception proves the rule, the existence of a higher bar for BLPs demonstrates that we have a lesser requirement for material of this kind. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, this material here is challenged, by me, and unless it is referenced it must be deleted, see WP:BURDEN. BLPs are not an issue here. We are extra careful with them, but verifiability applies to all content, not only to BLPs.  Sandstein  20:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sandstein has not challenged any of this material specifically. His complaint is just a series of WP:VAGUEWAVES which make not the slightest reference to the actual content and which could be addressing any topic at all. It just seems to be a mechanical form of drive-by disruption. Please state some specific objection which relates to the actual text which we are considering. Andrew D. (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • My objection is that I want to be able to verify in reliable source that what the article says is true. No other objection is needed. Dubious passages include such statements as "It has been suggested [by whom?] as an alternative to corporal punishment", as though corporal punishment would be something a decent person might even consider, or that it is a "common punishment for children" - common where, when, and in which social classes? Is this just another case of what I presume are Americans writing something up that happened to them as a child and assuming it is universally valid across the world and in all time? It should be obvious to any educated person that this content is worthless as an encyclopedia article, in addition to being unsourced.  Sandstein  22:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The first sentence of the source I cited above was "Grounding seems to be the punishment chosen most often by American parents". Looking for a source which compares it with corporal punishment we soon find a paper by the American College of Pediatricians which states, inter alia, "Straus, Sugarman and Giles-Sims concluded in a 1997 study that there was a causal relationship between spanking and antisocial behavior in children. In controlling for the child’s initial behavior, they argued that their results should indisputably compel professionals to oppose all spanking as a disciplinary option for parents. However, an independent reassessment of the same data found that all four alternative disciplinary tactics in the study (grounding, privilege removal, allowance removal, and sending children to their room) also predicted higher subsequent antisocial behavior." We see from these examples that there is plenty of scope to expand and qualify the existing text but that there's nothing so wrong about it that we need to delete it all and start from nothing. The essence of the wiki method is incremental improvement. Expecting a perfect first draft is not our way and so deletion is disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment Yes, expecting a perfect first draft would be unreasonable. However, we are now a decade and hundreds of drafts past that first draft. Sometimes deletion is "our way". So far, we have one bare mention (along with other stuff} in a paper about spanking. Rather than asserting that there must be reliable sources for substantial content, how about some of that content? - SummerPhDv2.0 02:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "actual policy" indeed says that even poor articles can be improved and are welcome. It doesn't say "anything someone contributes is immune from deletion" or even "anything someone writes about a notable subject is immune from deletion". You seem to think that BLP is an exception that creates some sort of inverse rule by virtue of it being singled out for specific guidance. Not sure I even need to say this, but that's an obvious fallacy. We have specific rules for BLPs, but that's not to say that none of those rules can apply to any other content. After all, the BLP rules are just more specific/explicit/strict versions of content policies already in place. Regardless, it is obviously not the only case in which unsourced material can and/or should be removed. WP:EP even defers to WP:V just a few paragraphs down from there, under "problems that may justify removal", for "handling unsourced and contentious material". In this case it is both unsourced and contended, so it seems an awful stretch to claim a monopoly on "actual policy". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete → Keep without prejudice to recreation with sources, and without an objection to a Redirect, although I'm not sure what the best target would be. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that an article has existed for x years is no reason to keep. That a book has been published which discusses "grounding" is no reason to keep. Books have been published about different types of bird shit but I'm not expecting Wikipedia to cover that soon. Wiktionary exists for a reason, and this kind of thing should redirect our dear readers over there. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, or a thesaurus. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major child-rearing practice. Besides the book, there's discussion in a great many places, and hundreds of uses in literature, film, etc. Alll of that is proper content to expand an article."Inadequate" is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is you who will need to supply this content and references, see WP:BURDEN. We're not discussing whether to delete a potential rewritten and sourced article, but the one with the current unsourced and dubious content.  Sandstein  17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done a quick Google Scholar search, and I agree with DGG that it's a major child-rearing practice. From my search, I found Maternal violence, victimization, and child physical punishment in Peru. I can't view it but here's an excerpt: Other disciplinary methods such as food deprivation, grounding, [...]. So it seems that it's not solely an American phenomenon. This excerpt at Google Books says Parents punish children by [...] "grounding," revoking privileges. This says adolescents from intact families and stepfamilies identified loss of privileges and grounding as the primary discipline methods used by their families. This one even goes into detail about exactly what grounding is.

    The German article (linked to in the interwiki section. interestingly, it links to house arrest as its English translation, not sure why) appears to be about house arrest ("a ban from leaving one's house", says the first sentence). Other than that, the Danish, Dutch, and Portuguese articles don't really have much content (I can't attest to the Arabic or Farsi ones) at a first glance. So the WP:DICDEF argument, as such, isn't entirely wrong.

    That said, I'm inclined to agree with Rhododendrites. I'd actually suggest {{Wiktionary redirect}} over deletion, if the decision comes to that. But if we ever write more than 1.5 paragraphs about it, I don't see any reason not to keep it. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant practice that is sufficiently covered and worthy of its own article. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Sigma. Sources are there and it's hard to believe this is controversial. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE and above comments, esp. DGG and Lepricavark. Assuming it's kept, the closing admin or some other editor should add in at least three sources. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just added some academic sources and expanded it a very little. It's a hard thing to search because "grounded" can have so many meanings, so FYI, I used a lot of search terms at once, like "parenting discipline grounding adolescents review" to try to filter out unrelated results. —PermStrump(talk) 01:56, 12 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 04:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Artigliere[edit]

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

Seams like he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played in any professional leagues, as I can see. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 8 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 KBJR-TV § News operation. MBisanz talk 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northland's NewsCenter[edit]

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

This type of arrangement is so commonplace now that I do not believe it requires a separate article (non-notable). Plus, they do not even use this brand much anymore. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 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 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless Granite gets another newscast in a "northland" region, the RD would be pointless and questionable. The only use for this was to describe a concept of one news operation running on two Big Three stations that was unique in 2006, but is pretty much a standard operating procedure in local TV news for middling markets in 2016. As-is the article is terrible anyways; it's just the first line of each station's individual article, and locally viewers probably just referred to 'the news on Channel 6' or 'that news show on 3' anyways rather than Granite's branding. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there's little-to-nothing significant enough about this now-defunct joint news operation to merit its own article. I don't really see any reason to redirect to Granite Broadcasting (and definitely no reason to merge it to any article); a redirect to KBJR-TV § News operation would make more sense, if a redirect ends up as the outcome. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 13 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. MBisanz talk 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana's NewsCenter[edit]

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

Arrangement effectively defunct, brand hasn't even been used on-air anymore (loose group of stations that have shared news programming at some point in time) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 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 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was against this article ever being created, but at the time the concept of one news operation running on two Big Three stations was unique in 2006 and needed some elaboration. Now, it's pretty much a standard operating procedure in local TV news for middling markets in 2016. The article is basically a textwall of information that has nothing to do with the INN arrangement at all (like ratings, cancelled TV shows and a bunch of industry corporate-speak the average reader doesn't care about), and could easily be conveyed in much shorter form on the individual WPTA-TV and WISE-TV articles. Nate • (chatter) 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there's little-to-nothing significant enough about this now-defunct joint news operation to merit its own article. I would not necessarily be opposed to a redirect to WPTA § News operation, though. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 13 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Bubble[edit]

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

Just a promotion nothing else. There are no proper references for the site and also all references can be easily available for any website. Highedit (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- promo content on a non-notable web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its only promotion and should be deleted by any admin. Highedit (talk) 17:24, 12 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 Miss Nevada USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shivonn Geeb[edit]

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

Other than the Miss USA related websites, we have 1 article from the Las Vegas Review journal. This is absolute minimum sourcing for someone who was declared the a state Miss USA. She did not even win the title, she was conferred it after the initial winner resigned, I think so she could get married, but she resigned and was not removed, not that it has much bearing on Geeb. Geeb didn't win anything is the main point. Beyond this, recent AFD discussions have come to the conclusion that merely winning a US state level beauty pageant alone is not enough to make someone notable. When our only non-pageant source is a report on the person because she won the pageant, I see no reason to keep the article at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- if we are starting to establish a precedent that winning a state pageant, without more, is insufficient indicia of notability, then this one is a clear-cut example. Montanabw(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Nevada USA where the subject is mentioned; she is otherwise not notable: my searches do not turn up anything. "State pageant winner" is clearly insufficient to presume notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then Redirect as there's no chances of actuslly convincing notability soon so deletion is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 14 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 DJ Paul discography. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 02:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Evil (album)[edit]

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

Recording with no references and no evidence of independent notability as a record. One third-party reference, which is a promotional interview. Couldn't find a chart entry for it. No evidence it meets any of the seven criteria WP:NALBUMS. I'm willing to be convinced, but what's here and what I could find isn't sufficient. Suggest redirect to DJ Paul discography. David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 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) -- Dane2007 talk 02:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiryukov Music College[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent sources proving the school exists as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Acalycine (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I used Google Translate to convert into Russian, searched with that, and basically found nothing, either. There's a chance this is actually the SARANSK MUSICAL COLLEGE, which this link says was named after a "L.P. Kiryukov" -- but this isn't a reliable source either. Very odd. To compound things, the Mordvin language isn't an option with Google Translate, which is spoken by almost half the population. Yes, for a music college so old and purportedly accomplished, it's hard to find a reliable source, using a Russian translation of either version of the name. Perhaps a Russian Wikipedian can help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I think this article should be kept, but it sounds like a book, so it should be rewritten completely.Audi1merc2 (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:VERIFY in its current state, and Shawn in Montreal's efforts to find sources suggest that we won't easily be able to fix this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this one is Saransk Musical College L. P. Kiryukova, and can be verified. I will be back in half an hour and will add a reference. — Sam Sailor Talk! 23:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 8 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 Dance India Dance. MBisanz talk 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeetumoni Kalita[edit]

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

A typical WP:BLP1E situation. The subject has received coverage for winning winning a dance reality television program in 2010 (e.g. [59]), but has received no coverage outside of this single event. The first AfD discussion was closed as no consensus. North America1000 10:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 8 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) -- Dane2007 talk 01:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scripted reality[edit]

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

This article confuses between two different concepts: scripted, fictional TV shows that take the appearance of a reality show, i.e. mockumentaries; and reality shows where contestants are told what to do behind the scenes by producers. You may think that that's essentially the same thing, since they're both fictional, but one obvious difference is whether the people appearing on the show have the same names and occupations as the people they're "portraying". A show with actors is not the same thing as a show with real-life friends pretending to get into an argument.

In the article's defense, it's a confused term in general - as evidenced by the article's two references, which give the opposite definitions of the term.

It seems that the term "scripted reality" has more popularity in countries like Germany and the Netherlands, where it's used as a synononym of "mockumentary". Those countries have more pseudo-reality-TV shows that are played as serious dramas; in the English-speaking world, the pseudo-reality shows are almost always comedies, so the existing "mockumentary" term is a more natural fit.

I see no reason to keep this article as it is; the majority of it just reads like a personal essay. I would be fine with deleting it, or turning it into a redirect to reality television, or to mockumentary, or making it a disambiguation page. As far as I can see, there's no real information here that isn't already contained, and explained better, in those two other articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -I think the topic of the page isn't confusing two topics, but instead referring to the controversial aspect of reality series like VH1's The Surreal Life (see here) or MTV's The Hills and Jersey Shore (see here), in which the authenticity of the "reality" part of those shows is questioned because writers provide story lines, pre-decide specific situations or arguments/discussions and even give lines for solo-interviews/asides. I think it's an important sub-genre of reality television that should most likely have it's own page, if not just because the Reality television article is pretty detailed and lengthy itself. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Dutch-language, French-language and German-language equivalents of this article all use the other definition of "scripted reality", i.e. a true mockumentary featuring professional actors. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "scripted reality" doesn't seem to appear in that book. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:23, 8 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 Data access object#Tools and frameworks. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 01:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ORMLite[edit]

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

I still confirm both of my PRODs, the 1st one was removed by a new user; there's nothing at all suggesting actual independent substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below is a book source found using the Google Books link atop this discussion. While the source does have technical "how-to" content, it also provides a great deal of significant coverage about the application itself. North America1000 00:31, 8 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Erickson (baseball)[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is having won Most Outstanding Player in the College World Series, and I don't think that is good enough. Besides, the subject fails WP:GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is non-notable, and all but the last two sentences article is plagiarized from Baseball-reference.com. Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. The whole article appears to be copied from baseball-reference's bullpen, which does not have a suitable license for copying to Wikipedia, but appears to have been written by the same author (Alexsauthographs) in both cases within a day of each other, so I'm willing to resist speedy. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 12 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hypernet[edit]

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

"Hypernet" is a highly-fashionable buzzword. A search finds numerous papers and books, and several companies called Hypernet Inc or variations. What there is not is any one agreed definition. The meaning proposed by this article is referenced only to a blog and a HuffPo article by one Roger McNamee, which it claims as "The first reference and use of the hypernet", but an article about another meaning was deleted at AfD in 2007, and searching shows all kinds of uses dating back at least to 1989.

The article says Blockstack is the "first implementation that provides DNS and Public key infrastructure for the hypernet", although the only reference in that article is a link back to this one, and I do not find the term "Hypernet" in any of the references to the Blockstack article. The article author Guylepage3 (talk) declares on his user page that he is an employee of Blockstack Labs.

We should not have an article about a particular definition of the term until (a) it appears that that definition has achieved general acceptance, and (b) there is enough independent comment about it to satisfy WP:No original research, WP:Notability and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons above and put in much better terms than I could. -- HighKing++ 12:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google News and Books searches seem to show that "Hypernet" is a neologism that has not caught on. A few uses as in this article for "next generation Internet", also used as a brand name for a couple things, also used in a science fiction series. Only a handful of instances altogether. Borock (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_August_8&oldid=1142623487"