Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 January	28 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votgil[edit]

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

Article about a two-year-old constructed language, which is sourced only to the creator's own self-published content about it and which offers no reliably sourced evidence that it actually has any widespread usage in any noteworthy real world context. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform for people to promote their own new creations — a new invented language can get into Wikipedia if it's getting media coverage already, but does not get a freebie just because it exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no indication of notability per WP:GNG and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't this should be deleted since everything is from a credible source and I have removed any misleading info. HorseSnack (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are not sources that can support a topic's notability, and neither is the creator's own self-published content about it. This isn't a question of whether the facts are suspect or not — obviously the creator wouldn't lie about the content of his own creation — but there's a big difference between being able to verify that a thing exists and being able to properly demonstrate that an encyclopedia should concern itself with that thing's existence. The latter requires reliable source coverage in media which are independent of the topic's own PR efforts. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to FrathWiki, it would be a much better fit. Besides, there has been no sign that Jack "Ostracod" Eisenmann has knowledge of or an opinion on this article one way or another, and he is no longer 'maintaining' that language, having moved on to other projects; therefore there is little incentive to keep it. Furthermore, the article title itself is in error, as V0tgil orthagraphy dictates that 'o' makes a sound like "vote", and 0 or ö makes a sound like "bought", which is the sound the negation part of speech 'v0t' is supposed to make. When moved to FrathWiki, the article title should be 'V0tgil'. Anyway, as far as Wikipedia goes, I agree with the nomination: not notable enough in a global encyclopedic context. Arlo James Barnes 07:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Sounds like a good idea. HorseSnack (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bazj (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G3/A11 - author's been blocked indef for socking and hoaxing Bazj (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are not even minimal signs of even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weirds[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. A band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist — reliable source coverage supporting a proper claim of notability must be present. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears promotional. -O.R.^Comms 05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and does appear to be promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as there are no signs of even minimally better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handjob[edit]

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

The section concerning sex work in massage parlors seems far more suitable to an article about sex workers and the sex industry. I would clean it up and merge it somewhere with related information.

If you removed that second section about sex work, it would simply be offering a definition of Handjob. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary that isn't really what constitutes an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasphetamine (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note This nomination/rationale was originally placed at Talk:Handjob#AfD Reasoning, I have moved it here to the proper location. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Non-penetrative sex#Exclusively non-penetrative after merging anything related to "happy endings" into appropriate articles (erotic massage, prostitution, etc). As the nominator said, once the (largely irrelevant) information about sex work and massages is removed, this is little more than the definition found at the non-penetrative sex page. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Simon and Shuster published a book devoted to the topic, the Handjob Handbook. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this isn't a matter of improving it if we keep it. It is an issue of writing an entire article. I'm not sure one book being published on handjobs means we should keep a page that is, at present, just a basic definition for the word.Jasphetamine (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book called Sex: An Uncensored Introduction that discusses handjobs seriously. The topic is notable, so keeping and improving is a better option than deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only thought with that reference is that it (again) doesn't give much more than a definition and a "how to", which Wikipedia is not. Primefac (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT, a Wikipedia article should not be written as a "how to guide", Primefac. That does not mean that a reliable source establishing the notability of a topic cannot be written as a how to guide. If Julia Child wrote about a certain classic dish of French cuisine, then that helps establish the notability of that dish, even if she is writing a detailed guide about how to prepare the dish. Similarly, significant descriptions in reliable sources about various ways to perform a handjob, including a complete book by a major publisher, help establish the notability of that sex act. It is just that the Wikipedia article itself should not be written in that style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, I take back my earlier comment. I still don't see how this page will become any more than a dictionary definition, though. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I first voted for redirect but then I noticed the other sex acts with their own articles in the linked target article of redirection. Sometimes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument and here it showcases policy. We've got a massive article for Tribadism and an article for Nipple stimulation as well... Footjob is also represented. The current Handjob article needs to be improved but as always that has nothing to do with its AfD worthiness — as in its worthiness as a subject matter of an article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I won't reiterate the arguments of the above editors who !voted keep, but I do agree with them. Passes WP:GNG. I also agree that the article needs work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a more appropriate article, preferably of a more scientific nature, about assisted masturbation. -O.R.^Comms 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Terrible article, notable topic, per Cullen above. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - The article does need a few more hands working on it but overall the article is certainly notable (Sorry I couldn't resist the shitty pun!). –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 television programs#Listings by name. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programs by name[edit]

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

I grant that this might have made some sense in 2005, when the number of articles we had about television series was a lot smaller than it is today. But now, the topic is simply too massive — to even approach completeness, it would have to contain tens of thousands more entries than it does. Lists of television series constrained for some characteristic, such as genre or network or nationality or decade, would be legitimate, and many such lists already exist — but a unified master list of all television series that have Wikipedia articles is just too massive to be maintainable at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT, which states, in relevant part: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." Here, I think we can safely say that the names of television programs are the functional equivalent of brand names for the purposes of determining whether a list of this nature should be deleted (see also WP:INDISCRIMINATE). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category system sorts this much better than this article could ever hope to with only 10% of the information. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created a television template after Template: List of films by letter. The template is Template: List of television programs by letter. I'm recruiting the frequent editor of List of television programs by name to help me in the move. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saved the page in my User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker/sandbox, so deletion is safe now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect I moved the entirety of that page to Template: List of television programs by letter and even fixed some order issues. The first two were tough due to being in a different list format but the rest were a breeze. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone knows how I could get a section next to another rather than below, the information would be much appreciated. I originally copied the film format completely, but the colon function made the alphabetical list really hard to follow. The colon function would work really well with say BA and BE next to each other. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been split to separate pages, but still exists, so the history should be retained; redirect to List of television programs#Listings by name. Peter James (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I suppose because of what is said above, or else I would've simply suggested deleting altogether as this is too wide of a subject for a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Whitney Thompson[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an anonymous editor, whose rationale (from the talk page) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation - except to note that there are severe problems with the few references that are present. One ref about an award goes to the subject's website, for example. That's a concern. Note also that the first AFD closed in January 2012 as no consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion, but I'm not a registered user, so can't move the process forward. This page is clearly self-promotional, and the man is not notable. 64.206.234.106 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Nemo[reply]

Delete. Not genuinely notable, and the coverage is largely of the related company not the subject himself. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#blake_whitney_thompson where somebody, apparently the subject, requests deletion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:BIO, insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a relatively minor real estate developer with little coverage of himself as a person at all, and no non-perfunctory coverage of his developments and proposals. More to the point - never got any mention in NYT or the other major sources one would expect. Collect (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BIOSPAM ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note The IP who asserts identity with the person who is the subject of the BLP appears to be acting as "owner" of this BLP, which does not make me comfortable with anything other than a "Snow Delete" result - Wikipedia should not be used as a personal advertising medium. Alas. Collect (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill coverage of a property developer deemed noteworthy because of his age. This touches upon the concept of ONEEVENT. Possibly a NOT YET situation. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps simply not enough solidly convincing coverage overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack sufficient notability to distinguish it from its related disorder, schizophrenia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integration disorder[edit]

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

The topic is completely redundant with "schizophrenia", where the name change is already discussed. These two subjects are the same thing, just renamed in Japanese for political correctness (and increased accuracy). The Japanese page for 精神分裂病 (=schizophrenia) is simply a redirect to 統合失調症 (="integration disorder"). The Japanese article says: "日本では2002年まで、精神分裂病（せいしんぶんれつびょう）と呼ばれていた。", meaning, "In Japan, it was known as 'schizophrenia' until 2002." Promiment Japanese-English dictionaries (WWWJDIC and EIJIRO) still provide "schizophrenia" as a translation for 統合失調症. Since the name change is already discussed on the English Wikipedia article for schizophrenia, this article serves no purpose; it is redundant. If Japanese Wikipedia doesn't need two articles for it, neither do we. The name change is also discussed on the social construction of schizophrenia page. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator says, the English article on schizophrenia already covers details of the name change. "Integration disorder" is a literal translation of the kanji characters which make up the current name, but that is not a reason for having a separate article on the same disorder. It has averaged about 13 page views a day over the last three months. Is that enough to warrant a redirect? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so long as the article for schizophrenia includes some of this article's content. 8bitW (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as I, at first, thought this was a keepable article but there are now questionable signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:EUPHEMISM of an article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Braun (company). The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for a stand-alone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braun KM 3[edit]

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

Product that is not notable on its own. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Braun (company). This article looks like a virtually verbatim translation of the last sentence in the kitchen products section of the German Wikipedia article about Braun GMBH ("Küchenmaschinen" subsection). Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at best as there simply are not signs of a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Braun (company) - Can't find anything online although I'd imagine there's a few sources offline, Personally like above it seems better to merge than delete. –Davey2010^Talk 18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potato filling[edit]

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

~~It's a recipe. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Although I found a bunch of recipes, I could not find any sources that talk about this Pennsylvania Dutch recipe (e.g. its origins, its popularity, etc). Therefore, this should be deleted pursuant to WP:GNG and WP:NOTRECIPE. Any discussion about the general use of potatoes as a filling should be included at Potato#Culinary uses. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: North America, your ability to find relevant sources is amazing. Well done! I am changing my vote to keep based on the sources provided below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A historical topic that comfortably passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. Since the dish is centuries-old, additional offline sources are very likely available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "How did potato filling become a local holiday tradition?". Reading Eagle. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Potato filling: Potato filling stars at Pennsylvania Dutch Thanksgivings". The Morning Call.
^ "Recipes: Amish Potato Filling". The Seattle Times.
^ "Hearty Potato Stuffing Tradition among Pennsylvania Dutch". The Lewiston Daily Sun.
^ "Top chef visits Lancaster County, adds gluten-free potato filling to latest cookbook". LNP.
^ Gluten-Free Girl American Classics Reinvented. p. 156.
^ Good Home Cooking Across the U. S. A. p. 84. (subscription required)

Keep The page doesn't have significant how-to problems and, even if it did, that wouldn't be a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and Keep BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Tetreault[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL or WP:MUSICBIO. Article is just barely referenced with WP:Primary sources, and I can find no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources, just lots of self-promotion on social media. Prod contested without explanation by article creator. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:A7. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Meyer (High Commissioner)[edit]

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

fails WP :BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. being ambassador to Cook Islands is a very minor role. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats can be notable if there's enough reliable source coverage of their careers as diplomats to get them over WP:GNG, but are not granted an automatic presumption of notability because diplomat — if you have to park the sourcing entirely on a simple namecheck of his existence in a news blurb which is actually about the appointment of his successor, then you haven't gotten him over the bar. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as pointed out above, diplomats are not automatically notable, and this one does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sounds [1], [2], like a competent diplomat, just not enough coverage at this point in hi s career for an article.12:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete - No signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience ^t 00:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rezan[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I removed some inappropriate external links and some blatant WP:OR, but issues still remain with the article. I tagged it with notability but an IP keeps removing tag. None of the cited references demonstrate notability and the article remains a mess of original research and self-promotion. Her roles in TV and film appear to be very minor and not in notable productions anyways. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is only covered in the sources provided in passing mention, lacking significant notability. Also, I restored the OR and Notability tags back to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an IP keeps removing the AfD notice from the page, which I've restored. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, easily meets GNG. The article need deep cleaning, but that is something that can be done.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether she is notable or not, but I do know that Cwobeel's comment should be given very little weight by the closing administrator, unless he or she substantiates the statement: just saying "easily meets GNG", without explaining why or providing verifiable sources, is of little if any value: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't read Greek, but Google Translate shows that she's profiled in Greek Marie Claire, and interviewed in Greek Cosmo. I'm not sure about the other magazines, as I'm not familiar with them. Someone should ping editors who are familiar with Greek to help out on this. She may be notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're talking about?. It's not exactly a profile, it's about 4 paragraphs long and has a single quote from her. The Greek Cosmo article is a little bit longer, but it's rather brief. There's still no reliable coverage of her outside of Greece (that I'm aware of), and anyways these are just two short articles. Personally I don't think these two alone are enough to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps for now at least as this seems enough for a current article. Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as the current coverage is something....but not entirely convincing. This may become a better article but I'm not seeing the obvious signs yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A feature in greek Cosmo alone should be enough to show notability. The only deletion argument I can see is wp:TNT and it's not bad enough for that. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a feature, it's a brief interview: [3]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject did make the cover of that Cosmopolitan issue so with the other magazine coverage seems to only just pass WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (The delete !vote was the first ever edit made by the user, Other than that clear keep.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Kipton Cronkite[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a socialite and entrepreneur, making no substantive claim of notability for either title — as written, this article just asserts that he exists, and then turns straight into a WP:COATRACK for his family genealogy instead of adding any substance to clarify why his existence would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia as of yet. And the volume of sourcing present isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG, either: once you exclude the user-generated referencing for the genealogy, two of the three remaining sources are local community publications of the type that would be acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts after an article had already passed GNG, but are not widely distributed enough to be the GNG, and the one remaining source that is fully satisfactory toward the passage of GNG isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG by itself as the only GNG-compliant source. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Yahoo! Finance
^ New York (magazine)
^ New York Daily News
^ The New York Observer
^ Vanity Fair

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the GNG. Article's main problem is that it's a stub. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited by Northamerica substantiate Mr. Cronkite's notability, pursuant to WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this lousy article even though page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, because WP:GNG sourcing:[4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing of news value or informational value here. Self promoting.

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummi Nazeera[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Had tagged for speedy deletion but an IP user removed the tag so am bringing here to AfD. The first reference given is a link to a listing in a directory. Second link goes to a page that does not mention the subject's name anywhere. A Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, IMDb, YouTube, and the like, most of these in Malaysian. If there are viable Malaysian sources, I could not evaluate these, but I could see nothing in English that supports a notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am finding a fairly large amount of secondary sources about the subject, though not in English. This may satisfy WP:GNG.

Okay, but who are you and can you add at least two of these to the article so that other editors can verify this? Thanks! Also: I've looked at the Malaysian Wikipedia for this article, and that article has the same two problematic references as this English one does (it looks like the English article was directly translated from Malaysian). We need reliable independent references to in order to retain this. KDS4444^Talk 10:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite questionably notable currently for WP:CREATIVE, no better context. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. minimal participation, but the decision is clear enough DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Chizurum Ajuka[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially a copyvio of http://www.rccssc.ca/index.php/history-of-rccss-c. Why did nobody check previously? DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences[edit]

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

Non-notable chiropractic organization. Sources are from the org itself, and a Google search turned up very little to pass GNG. Delta13C (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organization does have a royal charter with is notable recognition in itself. However I found a lot of close paraphrasing from the RCCSS web site here: Duplication Detector

Can you link to the information about royal charters conveying notability? I am having a difficult time finding reliable sources, independent of the chiro org itself, for this charter. Delta13C (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada, the requirements can be found on the Privy Office web site here under the heading "Criteria for the Title "Royal". Blue Riband► 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Riband►. This information is helpful for understanding how and why any organization is granted a "royal" charter. I am still looking for information to verify that this is indeed true for the RCCSS and any WP policy whether such a designation conveys notability, per WP:GNG or any other. Delta13C (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please clarify your comment for me SwisterTwister? Do you mean that being given a royal charter is not enough to constitute notability? or do you mean that the available sources are not sufficient to show notability? or am I missing your point altogether? Thanks. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:6811:11F8:700D:ECAC (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting to be shown how a royal charter conveys notability per WP policy. Delta13C (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Observational astronomy. The question is whether to delete first. We do that when there is something that actually should be removed from the history, such as copyvio or promotionalism or total confusion. But this is just a harmless poorly written essay. I do not think there's anything mergable, but if anyone does, it's there in the history. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial observation[edit]

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

Even if the vague statements and factual errors of the article were remedied, this article would be entirely redundant with Observational astronomy and Celestial navigation. These issues are discussed more fully on the article's talk page. Astro4686 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subsume into the 2 other articles mentioned. It is indeed redundant. Oppose redirection and deletion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then recreate as a redirect to Observational astronomy. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Observational astronomy. I agree with the nom that the article is poorly written, but I don't see any problem dire enough (e.g., copyvio, BLP issue, nonexistent concept) to force a deletion of the article's history. A simple search in GScholar and GBooks shows the term is verifiable as being used in the celestial navigation literature and I expect that it is used as a general synonym for a general astronomical observation, too. Observational astronomy is the more general article, so best redirected there. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this seems best, no solid thoughts for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subsume / merge with existing articles. If any relevant information is contained here, it shouldn't be lost due to deletion. 8bitW (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Thanks, everyone, for your participation in this discussion. Regarding the votes to subsume, I really don't think that there's anything worth preserving in the article; even if the factual errors are corrected, it would merely duplicate content (mostly in Observational astronomy). But if someone thinks that there is specific information worth merging, please let me know. As for the AfD outcome, I still feel that deletion would be preferable given the magnitude of the problems, but I'd be OK with a redirect without deletion. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Henry Samueli#Health. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samueli Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. Sources are poor with close ties to the organization. An additional search turned up no reliable, third-party sources to substantiate notability. Organization is best known for promoting homeopathy and other alt-med. Delta13C (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One high-quality source, anyway: A lengthy, detailed, balanced 2005 Washington Post article about the Institute: [5]. There are other sources that describe the Samuelis' philanthropy in more general terms, and an option might be to selectively merge and redirect this to the discussion of its well-known founder's philanthropic activities in the health sector at Henry Samueli#Health.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merging to Henry Samueli#Health. The article as currently written is promotional boosterism and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING.--Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 07:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this seems questionably solid for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think redirect is the appropriate outcome here. Delta13C (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rieul (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unused disambiguation, they have different words, though very close. 333 -blue 23:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. Actually, it's the same spelling, but a hatnote in Rieul is just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copyedit - neither is a clear primary topic: Google search results first page gives a mixture; page hits on our articles in December were 77 for the bishop and 55 for the Korean character ([6], [7]): Noyster (talk), 09:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have changed the hatnote on Rieul to offer a one-step link to the Korean character instead of two. I note that the dab page is also nominated for speedy deletion. PamD 12:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've declined the speedy. It's not clear cut enough for a speedy, as the !votes here indicate. Ged UK 13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ged UK: It seems pretty clear to me, if we accept that the bishop is the primary topic. If anyone disagrees with that, then this is the wrong place for the discussion: there should be a WP:RM proposal to move Rieul to Rieul (bishop) or some other title, leaving Rieul free to be the dab page (if no primary topic) or the hangul (if it is agreed to be primary topic). But a dab page with "(disambiguation)" in its title, and which includes only the page at base name and one other page, is a clear case of an unnecessary dab page. I have cleaned up this dab page per WP:MOSDAB, where previously it had an unexplained piped link from a variant spelling not present in the target article (ie Rieul (hangul) does not mention "Reul" - perhaps it was just a typo in the original dab page creation along with bolding and piping). PamD 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The typo did fuzzy it for me, however, this AfD has a keep and a delete, so it's clearly not clear enough for a CSD. Ged UK 08:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only "Keep" so far is on the basis that neither is the primary topic - but at present the bishop is the primary topic. Any debate as to whether he is or isn't primary topic should be taking place elsewhere, like WP:RM. PamD 12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TWODABS, per ClarityFiend. if neither is primary then that should be decided by a RM, but I too am unconvinced by that argument.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move Rieul (disambiguation) → Rieul and Rieul → Rieul (bishop). I don't believe that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. In addition, the disambiguation should include a see also for Saint-Rieul, which would bring it up to three links. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I avidly considered this but was not certain how and where this AfD was going to go. Delete at best I suppose as I had waited quite some time to comment and I suppose deleting is best. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to lack of primary topic, and then list it at WP:RM if needed, or just boldly do the moves that Tavix suggested. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Article's been significently improved/sourced since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Yugoslavia)[edit]

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

No indication of significance, no sources. NeedAGoodUsername (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be added as part of student assignment (indicated on the talk page of the article). Dwebsterbu (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added several sources that cover the Yugoslav commission for truth and reconciliation in depth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was WP:BEFORE followed in this nomination? Neonchameleon (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a review of sources, meets WP:GNG/WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is probably an article here if somebody gets down to writing it. Topic passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sword (Ace Comics)[edit]

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

non-notable comic book character, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG--Prisencolin (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed my WP:GNG check, although these aren't exactly the easiest terms to search for, given how generic they are. Even including the "-wikipedia" meant to keep out sites that just get their text from here still gives a bunch of sites that get their text from here. At any rate, this article is basically just a very short plot summary. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but the article doesn't assert that this character does, just that it exists. That's not enough. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Either into a List of Golden Age Characters or Ace Comics, if suitable. If not, then Delete. Killer Moff (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply and mention any basic information at the main Sword comics article, nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIRINC[edit]

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

This article is written like an advertisement for AIRINC, and has zero references to reliable sources. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found this and this, which is perhaps enough; but all other mentions seem to be of data generated by these folks. We could possibly make an argument for inclusion based on the widespread use of their data as a source in the media, too [8]. There isn't very much stuff out there, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. This should have been PRODded under G11: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I believe that this is the case here: this so-called article reads like advertising copy. But if I'm not mistaken, it's generally considered bad form to propose a speedy on a page that's already under discussion. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing convincing enough to suggest better satisfying the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Associates for International Research" has coverage at investing.businessweek.com, which tends to have inclusion criteria similar to Wikipedia's, has a corporate model that requires that their information be reliable, and has an army of reporters. Google scholar for "Associates for International Research" shows 48 results. "AIRINC" has 138 hits, and a snippet on the first page in a 1982 source reads, "Each year AIRINC staff conduct price surveys for over 300 goods and services weighted to represent typical purchases of executive families at two income levels, $35,000 and $70,000". Two articles, one a national source, and one an international source, with in-depth reliable information satisfies the WP:GNG guideline, lots more at Google Scholar to review, and no one has mentioned if they have looked at Google books. There are certainly negative things to be said about the article, like there is no infobox, we don't know the number of employees or annual income, and there is no history. But the reality is that this is what Wikipedia has accomplished with this article up to the year 2016. The complaint that it is written like an advertisement is a stretch for my imagination, and I suspect that this is the sense intended by the nomination. It is an international business in business since 1954. Yes, prod might have been a better choice. Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. Of the sources in the article, they are either mentions of the subject as a source for data, or a clear press release. Perhaps the others will show notability , but they have to be actually found and added. And the full context in the JSTOR article needs to be checked. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio WK-3000[edit]

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

Just a list of specifications, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is pretty useless. I don't mind it being deleted.

I made it a long time ago, not entirely sure what I was thinking at the time.

Tundra010 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is possible that it is notable, if there are major reviews,but it would be easy enough to reconstruct it if there are DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James & Alice[edit]

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

No sources that confirm that the film is in production, or any other news. Nairspecht (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: I can only guess that your search skills are limited, as filming is under way and there IS news. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Then my only request to you and other editors of the page is to add those sources of news which ARE apparently present and which talk about the film being under way. I now know that your editing and formatting skills are not limited; keep it up. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: Thank you, but I wish to elucidate with two advices: 1) per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:DINC, the threat of deletion is not supposed to be used to force improvements by others (that's what cleanup tags are for), and 2), per WP:NRVE, notability is determined by sources being available for use and not in their ever being used. WP:SEP? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Requesting a page for deletion is not a threat, per se; it just notifies the creator that he/she at least add one or two strong sources just so that the notability can be confirmed. Cleanup tags come to the picture only if there are some sources already cited. So I agree with all the points, and like you, even I want Wikipedia to be filled with authentic, useful articles. Lets end this debate and re-notify the creator to add a source or two, or heck, lets add them ourselves? Shall we? Cheers. Nairspecht (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: When your initial deletion argument has been refuted through proof being offered of 1) filming having begun and 2) the project getting news... and you agree, but this AFD remains open (despite it being shown that the production meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3)), there still remains the "threat of deletion". However, rather than wait for someone else to do it, I have expanded and sourced to support my own keep opinion, thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: That's great; keep contributing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And using some alts:

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

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

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

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

and per WP:INDAFD: "James & Alice" "Sujith Vasudev" "Krishnan Sethukumar" "Prithviraj Sukumaran" "Vedhika"

Keep as the film's production is getting coverage and as Sify tells us that filming is under way: "...currently shooting for Sujith Vaassudev’s James & Alice", WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Wow... who failed in their WP:BEFORE?? It serves the project for this film topic to remain and grow through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Others may compare the unsourced stub that was first brought to AFD against what it is now. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems better now thus acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Cerletty[edit]

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

It appears that Mr Cerletty is cetainly an accomplished artist, with any number of shows in any number of galleries.

The issue here is whether Mr Cerletty meets the "WP:ARTIST" criteria. It would appear from a simple google search that the article fails any or all of those criteria:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either
- (a) has become a significant monument,
- (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,
- (c) has won significant critical attention, or
- (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I note that this article has been "WP:G7" deleted a number of times. I think it needs a discussion like this. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Mathew Cerletty is a regarded as an important artist in his generation. His work is included in the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art and he has been featured and reviewed in major international papers and magazines as The New York Times, Frieze, Art In America, Interview Magazine, Artforum and Vanity Fair among others. He is widely cited by peers, proof of that being his current inclusion in a major figuration show at the Whitney Museum. Augustegevaert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustegevaert (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article fails any or all of those criteria The article doesn't have to meet all those criteria. Per WP:BIO People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. It appears that Cerletti meets at least some of the criteria; The Whitney Museum owns one of his works^[1], and his work has been reviewed by the New York Times^[2].

References

^ "Studio Visit: Mathew Cerletty | Whitney Museum of American Art". whitney.org. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
^ Johnson, Ken (29 November 2011). "Mathew Cerletty at Algus Greenspon". The New York Times.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Mduvekot. Pburka (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a notable museum owns one of his works and his work has been reviewed in RS(NYTimes), I think WP:GNG has been passedAtlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps for now as because we now have at least something confirming those exhibitions, some coverage is at least found. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okinawa Wrestling-Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling championship. There is no significant coverage of this championship. All of the references just point to a list of wrestlers who have won the title. I also don't believe the sponsoring organization is notable, but I didn't want to clutter this discussion.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason--a lack of significant coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and also for the same reason. The annual tournament occurred once and the article is unsourced.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the creator of this article is recreating articles previously created by sockpuppets of banned user Martimc123. He has just added hyphens to the article titles (for whatever reason). This article was previously created at Okinawa Wrestling Championship and was deleted per WP:G5. Investigation and confirmation of sockpuppetry here. I'm tempted to believe this is another sockpuppet. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and also for the same reason (these were all created by the same author/sockpuppet)Peter Rehse (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occured only in one month of one year

Occured over a short period of time 2011-2012 with very little coverage.

delete - Speedy?? Per nom and comments. MPJ -US 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting disturbed by the mass creation of a number of similar articles of questionable notability (some with clear copyright violations) by what appears to be the same author under different names. Can't really append them here since this AfD has been active too long for fresh additions. User:Yu--gi-oh-gxx, User:Lovelucha, User:DragonballLover and IP:193.236.57.121 all appear to be sockpuppts of User:Martimc123 who was banned for abusing multiple accounts.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice since all but Lovelucha and DragonballLover have been since blocked as sockpuppts of Martimc123 -those two were not checked.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose, draft and userfy I'd needed, and restart later if better. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the subjects on this nomination are notable even if the articles were re-written by a competent editor. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 01:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of these articles have significant and independent coverage of their subjects. Papaursa (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Don't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There have been no policy backed arguments made for the retention of this article. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Fell on Me[edit]

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

Album is not notable. Delete or redirect to artist. KDS4444^Talk 15:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as I would also consider simply moving but deleting may be best for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the artist is considered notable such as having an article yet has only recorded two albulms then those albulms must be notable.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not not much weight will be given to this because not all albums of artists can basically have a separate article. With this said, I hope this can be relisted a third and last time if needed for better consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Second City (film)[edit]

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

Film that has yet to start production, only references are to a blog. See also Turn Back Time (film) Wgolf (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for at kindest being TOO SOON. if production begins and if it gets coverage, this can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it hasn't started production yet, it's WP:TOOSOON. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not finding sources to qualify an article per WP:NF/WP:NFSOURCES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too soon, not enough coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As no reliable, independent sources covering Elizabeth specifically and significantly have been presented, the arguments for retention are not backed by policy. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Elizabeth[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, NAUTHOR or REALITYTV. Also quite PROMO, but not to the level of nuking it. Just not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with all the additions since the nomination, perhaps it has reached the level where TNT would be appropriate per PROMO. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although she did get cited a little after publicatino of Poverty Sucks, it was just a few mentions [9], not reviews of the book'; no alone profiles/interviews that enable sourcing of a bio with RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Delete - all the additions since the nomination were done in an effort to correct the issues described that led to nomination. More references from varied sources to show notability. Internal and external lists as requested. Photo as requested. Content neutral. Prefer further correction instead of deletion. Suggestions?112233445566 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Delete Subject is well-known nationally and accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.30.229 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — 68.227.30.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Non-Delete Aimee Elizabeth is an internationally known reality tv personality and best selling author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.133.14 (talk • contribs) — 146.199.133.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Subject is an expert in her field and has been quoted in highly regarded publications such as Fox Business, US News & World Report, Bankrate.com, Business Insider. Interviews on major television networks, radio and various other publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112233445566 (talk • contribs) You only get to vote once. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zef Kol Ndoka[edit]

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

The subject is far below notability threshold: According to a nationalist source ([[11]]) (the only source that confirms his existence) he was one of various irregular soldiers that raised his national flag in Skopje. Complete lack of wp:RS material & obviously not a leading guerilla figure.Alexikoua (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The personage is one of the leaders of the Albanian Revolt of 1912, a co-fighter of Bajram Curri and Mehmet Shpendi, and a respected figure in Mirdita. The "nationalistic" source is titled KUSH E NGRITI I PARI FLAMURIN SHQIPTAR NË SHKUP MË 1912 ? (Who raised the Albanin flag in Skopje in 1912) and as far as this article is concerned is pretty reliable. The other source that the nominator ignores is a didactic history book of 1968, with confirmed Albanian historians as authors (between others Alex Buda), and printed in Pristina, Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo by Yugoslav authorities. OCLC 1906502. --Mondiad (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Ndoka is attested in the scholarship though as Zefi i Vogël. I added two sources for the time being that are wp:reliable and wp:secondary. For example Skendi notes that Ndoka was one of the leaders who were part of the 1912 revolt that also captured Skopje. That event was significant for the Albanian movement at the time and their demands for autonomy and rights from the Ottomans. Ndoka's role in being part of that and leading it warrants this article remaining. I do admit this article needs work and any unreliable sources used in this article should be removed. However there are sources attesting to the existence of the person and pivitol role Ndoka played regarding the Albanian national movement at that point in time. There are similar articles such as this on Greek fighters (i.e Evangelos Natsis, Konstantinos Mazarakis-Ainian, Pavlos Melas, Alexandros Othonaios, Michael Sionidis, Georgios Tsontos etc) who also have problem issues with their sources (or barely if any), though they exist and there is no deletion discussion about those articles. The additions of sources i made to this article should remedy the matter somewhat. Article should stay and hopefully inn future expanded by editors.Resnjari (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I lack the language skills to make a call either way regarding significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:GNG, but it does appear that Zefi i Vogël (which I assume is an alternative name) has a couple of mentions in a Google Books search (here), so perhaps, given what other editors have said, it deserves the benefit of the doubt. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the current sourcing seems enough and familiar attention will benefit. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources to this. Conclusion??--Albanian Historian (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to have sufficient notability to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radoljub Kanjevac[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable mobster. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 17:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You did not do WP:Before. Russell, Jesse; Cohn, Ronald (2012). Radoljub Kanjevac (Book on Demand). p. 156. ISBN 5511787213. ISBN 978551178721. book. There are also news reports. I would acknowledge that the citatoins are very poor, and need to be improved. I would think that the absence of Serbian-fluent (combined with English-fluent) editors (and those who are in a position to read and understand the articles, and then cite them in wikipedia) is part of a systemic bias. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked for GNG (see [12], [13], [14], for example) and found nothing notable. A reference in a book on amazon.com does not automatically confer notability, btw. There are notable mobsters and non-notable ones. Quis separabit? 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if the "book" just added here (and as a reference to the article) is in fact a wikipedia "reprint", as seems to be the case for all the Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn efforts? We don't usually quote Wikipedia reprints as the source of verification of the Wikipedia content. By the way, the ISBN has been pulled off the Amazon list, even though it shows on Google. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is 156 pages long. So where is that lengthy content titled Radoljub Kanjevac in Wikipedia? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn efforts fool you by presenting huge page numbers. But they present collections of Wikipedia articles that are "related" and thus the page numbers are really quite arbitrary, making you think these are real books. Notice how the book doesn't exist on Amazon or as an e-book? At least this is the case as far as I know. Were you actually able to open the book and find 156 pages, or did you in good faith rely on the front page Google info, not noticing it says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" I am sorry but I think you may have fallen for a reprint scam that Amazon delisted a few years back but Google hasn't woken up to yet !! FeatherPluma (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only know what google tells me. I have no stock in the publishing, and no affection for Radoljub Kanjevac either. He is either notable (which should be ascertained WP:BEFORE trying to delete the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am being very nice, trying to help you. Maybe let's see if I can make things clearer. This "book" is a Wikipedia content reprint. Google says so. In CAPITALS (as quoted above). So this "book" is not anything close to a reliable source. Relying on that one Google page without noticing that it explicitly admits this is reprinted Wikipedia content and without checking what the 156 page claim represents is an understandable mistake. Lots of people fell for this a few years ago. However, the "source" explicitly says it's a Wikipedia reprint and the page count misleads you because this scam collates "related" articles to the title in the "book". I gave you a bit more explanation on your Talk page, with links to demonstrate the issue. Nobody is going to BUY this crap BEFORE junking this "book" as a non-reliable source, and I have explained why. In fact, Amazon doesn't even list this author or this "publisher" in its sales list any more. I was just explaining why I will remove your addition of this useless source from the article. Best wishes. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Please see below.)Delete In brief: I agree with the nominator: we do not seem to have sources to establish notability. In detail: The "best" thing I found was [15]. But I don't see it as meeting the notability threshold. The new "book" reference has been removed. It's a Wikipedia content reprint of this article from 2012. I also found an 86 page paperback by Lambert M Surhone, Mariam T Tennoe , Susan F Henssonow, published in 2010 by the scam artists at infobeam for $46, of this article "and other related Wikipedia content". You can find it on the infobeam site, but I can't link it here, as it is Wikipedia blacklisted as a known problem URL. I noticed that the preview of the first 120 words or so on the infobeam site has the EXACT language in the 2010 version of the article here. A pointer to the infobeam "book" is also at http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9786131364204. But that ISBN doesn't pull anything up on Amazon. Google indicates no e-book version, and all links to paper versions go nowhere. Various news articles I found (about 6 on repeated searching and searching) are small town, hoodlum, mobster blow-by-blow, very low brow unencyclopedic stuff, as far as I can discern from automated translations. There are some pictures that seem to be of a particular consistent person, and one wobbly source mentions his name in a one sentence passing allusion to his being one of 3 mobsters killed in a 5 year span in Niš. So we seem to have an article that at least two content reprint scam shops have tried to bilk for money, even though the 3 remaining "references" in the article are completely obscure. For example, ref 3 is to "Danas", not otherwise specified, which is completely useless, and the other 2 are basically just as useless as well. It would appear this bloke did exist, but wasn't someone who meets GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strike initial response. Although all correct when written, things have moved on: see below. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you click on "NEWS" above you do get two links.

Kosovo puno dragog kamenja

Вечерње Новости-Mar 18, 2012

d poznatijih žestokih niških momaka Radoljub Kanjevac (35) ubijen je 1. jul 2006KRAGUJEVAC – Na Kosovu i Metohiji postoje značajne količine dragog kamena ::hrizoprasa (chryzoprase), koji u poređenju sa tim kamenom iz ...

U cevima barut i heroin

Вечерње Новости-Jun 25, 2010

JEDAN od poznatijih žestokih niških momaka Radoljub Kanjevac (35) ubijen je 1. jul 2006. ispred zgrade u Ulici Božidara Adžije 66. * U Ulici ...

Whether they establish notability we don't know. You apparently don't read Serbian either. But they do exist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In brief: Whether they establish notability we do know - neither article does. In detail: Because it's a foreign language, we push it through Google Translate. We then look at the output, and use what we have learned of European language grammars to confirm the contents to a reasonable degree. We then discern the merits of much if not all of the content. By practice with languages we know well and those we know less well, we gradually improve across the board. I examined both articles. (Sometimes the machine translation fails to give adequate text. In one AfD case, I took the language in question to two competent linguists for help. We go the extra mile when necessary.) I summarized these two articles as not establishing notability. I kept searching. I pointed to a different source that I judged as more closely approximating notability, but nonetheless not getting there: [16]. I spent a few hours going through this (as I was multitasking an off-wiki activity) so I am confident that WP:Before has been properly performed. In general, I have added foreign sources to Wikipedia articles when it's appropriate - I have no xenophobic hangups and I will happily save as many articles as possible. I try to add references to articles, and research things - that's much of what I do here. You missed the fact that the book you added as a reference was a dud. You are now making much of your own individual inability to make a good faith assessment of these two articles. I am not fluent in Serbian but I can make a reasonable assessment nonetheless. So in the end we use Wikipedia policy. It's not that the bloke existed, or that low brow mentions were made in the news media, it's whether the sources establish the topic as GNG. That's what my last sentence said, and why I support the nomination of this article for deletion. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Yes, it is about notability per policy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your reply. I appreciate you. Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:AGF. If all the news coverage amounts to bare 'thug kills/killed' and the book doesn't exist (?) then there is nothing there. WP:SingleEvent vs. WP:SIGCOV. However, I feel strongly that WP:Before is the preexisting hurdle that must be spanned before these deletion discussions are initiated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. In brief: Closer, may I please recommend you repost this AfD for additional comments into one overtime period, so that we can offset the seeming absence of notification to Gaston28, the original editor, until now? I want to be as detailed and fair about this as possible. In detail: I just realised there is a procedural step that was missed. Accordingly, I have left notification of this AfD on the initial editor's Talk page. Not a lot of time has passed since this AfD opened, but I think we need to follow all possible avenues. Unfortunately, Gaston28 may not be active, I'm not sure, based on edit dates. However, that editor should be notified (per guideline). In this article, that's all the more important as Gaston28 might be able to provide better details for the 3 "useless" references I cannot trace, despite trying pretty darn hard. I do suspect strongly that the sources may well not be up to par. This supposition arises from their absence on diligent searching, and because Gaston28's edits suggest a local interest in Niš, and the editor seems to have used local reports that would not establish notability. I did track ref 1 to the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (responsible for local police basically), ref 2 to a local news source [17], and ref 3 to another local paper [18]. I checked all of these with their own search engines, but get "Strana nije pronađena" -- page not found / or the like, with nothing coming up on reconfiguring the search several ways. That said, I also went through the entire article contributor history in detail, to see if anyone else had ever added sources, or modified content in a way that suggested they had reviewed the topic in depth and had access to sources. Nothing else came up, so everything here is fundamentally one person's contribution based on untraceable sources that are given in a malformed way that doesn't really help. I think it is reasonable to conclude that these 3 refs were most likely a brief police report or comment, and filler content from 2 local Niš newspapers. A close read of the article also finds that the (questionable) sourcing is not attached in a way that would support much (maybe 60% or more?) of the text. But I think we need to go the extra mile to try to get the actual original materials for review, if they can be traced with Gaston28's help. If not, I will continue to recommend deletion as non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep, carried down here from above). In brief: "Significant" coverage is unequivocally met from the perspective of "extent of coverage within several sources", in that there are 9 newly added references, each principally about this topic. In regard to the other potential aspect of "significant" coverage, the "fundamental importance of the issue", this is reasonably met also, although less unambiguously. In detail: The initial input is struck. Although the search engines came up empty of meaningful sources at first, providing only Wikipedia reprints and what looked in context to be relatively isolated brief mentions, by reconfiguring the searches primary language to be Serbian Cyrillic and then doing multiple reruns of suggested approaches using specifically Serbian Latin scripts, I found a Глас Јавности reference, and from there managed to gradually backtrack and get replacement references for all of the material that the original editor had referenced with 3 "useless" references that pointed nowhere. At this point, over 95% of the article is rigorously cited, versus 0% when AfD nominated. The article has essentially been rewritten, point by confirmed point. Only 3 relatively insignificant points, not essential to the article's meaning or direction, remain to be cited. I am pretty sure I had a source for one of these, but I've mislaid it for now. While the "fundamental importance of the issue" is admittedly subjective to some academic extent, it seems fair to say that the topic of the article is significant enough to retained. Compared to many other articles that survive AfD (read either as participant or as benchmarking yardsticks), this article is quite reasonably above threshold. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete While sources in Cyrillic and other alphabets are, of course, acceptable, it is extremely unusual to have an article with no sources in any Latin alphabet, and no links from any other page. I have been unable to find a single reliable source in a language I can search in. (Question Do we have a policy permitting articles on topics that have notability in some other language, but no notability in the English-speaking world?) To me, it appears that while this gangster may well be notable for the Serbian-language Wikipedia, he is not notable for the English-language Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YGBSM We have tons of articles in other languages. E.g., cited to Chinese, Indian and Japanese, for example. And your solution is to delete, without regard to improvement? 7&6=thirteen (☎)

My point here is that I would like to see some evidence of notability beyond Serbia, and that a.) very, very few editors on this Anglophone encyclopedia are able to examine any sources that mention this man, and b.) significant and reliable coverage of his career in English would support notability. Failing that, I doubt that he passes GNG, just as I doubt that many Australian or Canadian gangsters have pages in non-English language editions of Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian may be in Cyrillic or in Latin script, with either of at least two scripting conventions. That you didn't notice that some of the references are in Latin script suggests you didn't look at the article very hard. That said, your bigger point does have some traction. He was "merely" one of 3 or 4 mob bosses in Serbia's second largest city, who sustained repeated assassination attempts and the legal system issues. I am presently aware of no good English language source. WP:NONENG is permissive of foreign language sourcing, but is not declarative of adequacy (or inadequacy) for notability if ONLY such sources exist. There is an English language source that I did not add, which denotes in its header that it is the work of Jadranka Tasić, who is an established newspaper journalist who is known (from statements in the other sources) to have worked with RK previously, and who was in contact with him again the week before his assassination. I did not add it to the reference list, because it had a bloggy feel to it, and I couldn't find the exact corresponding Serbian original, although that presumably exists (unless purged). I will see if I can track it down again and add it here. I would prefer not to add it to the article unless there was consensus to do so. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FeatherPluma, what I actually did was run it through a google search on books. Results not encouraging. [19] Then through a google news search. Nothing [20] to persuade me it is notable on an English encyclopedia. However, upon reading your response, I just ran a Proquest news archive search. Sole hit is to BBC Monitoring European labeled: "Text of report by Bosnian Serb news agency SRNA". It's brief, 126 words. headline: "Explosive device activated under car of controversial Serbian businessman", 28 October 2004, no byline, no context beyond the word "controversial": in teh headline: [ http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/459436002/fulltext/2692CF5593D34543PQ/1?accountid=10226]. As far as I can tell, this man has never been discussed outside of the Balkans. The article as it stands does not portray him as involved in political events, or in crimes involving countries outside Serbia/Yugoslavia. I honestly fail to see why this passes notability for an English encyclopedia. I may be wrong. It's not a question I usually encounter at AFD. I encourage editors fresh to this discussion to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I agree; that's completely valid. I am not sure I have seen this precise issue at AfD either, but I have seen foreign language sources, inter alia, turn a delete to a keep. It will be interesting to see how we collectively parse this out. You are also correct that the "fundamental importance of the topic" is subjective. I think it meets that threshold much more capably than some other things we do have, a benchmark we usually don't usually point to, but which is possibly relevant when we are in a finely balanced situation, with pros and cons. I am not a neutral observer though, and your fresh eyes may be a better guage. The English language book search is a complete dead end: it's all WP reprints. I do not have access through Proquest to the СРНА/SRNA (http://www.srna.rs/) translation. I think this is "Serbian National News Agency"; I would doubt it's "Bosnian Serb" per se, even if the BBC labels it that way; it would be nice to look at. I might well be able to trace the original byline if I had the text to use as a crib. Is there a back door to access the brief transcript, or would you be able to email me a screenshot copy? One contextual point I would mention, however, is the immense cultural impact of organized crime in Serbia in the Milošević and post-Milošević eras, including assassinations of the ex-president and the current prime minister (2003) by gangs (many ex-military or ex-police) that turned out to have connexions to the government and indeed the judiciary. This man was emphatically not a "top 10 player", and there is no suggestion that he was part of, or affiliated with, any of the subsequently disbanded Red Beret operative groups. I think I saw that he was pulled in as one of the "top 150 or so" of the over 11,000 people detained in the 2003 state of emergency. He was one of the people who contended torture during detainment; Amnesty International got fired up about this, and the collective concern (I don't think he was a named name) was carried in the English language media a few months later, including NYT. I did see some speculation or information about his traveling to Germany and about his gang maybe being active abroad, but it seemed wispy, and was at the limits of my translating confidence, so I didn't think to work it up too much, although I could look at it again (yuck, there's only so much I can take of RK !!). FeatherPluma (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cut-and-paste of the full text of the BBC article: " Nis, 28 October: An unknown person activated an explosive device under the Golf 4 car owned by the controversial Radoljub Kanjevac in Nis at around 0210 [0010 gmt] last night. Kanjevac sustained injuries and has been transferred to the clinical centre for treatment. The device was activated as Kanjevac was getting in the car with two other people," the police statement says. This is a third assassination attempt on Kanjevac. Last night's explosion damaged the car and shattered windows of the nearby buildings. The explosion took place in the centre of Nis at the Nikola Pesic Street car park, close to the Kalca shopping centre. Credit: SRNA news agency, Bijeljina, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 0448 28 Oct 04" Cheers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Thanks for that ! Hmmm. We agree: sort of not much at all, certainly nothing even vaguely analytic or conceptual. (What the credit implies is that СРНА/SRNA released the newsflash in 3 languages, so it's not "Bosnian Serb", but "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian", all 3 languages.) I looked up the Jadranka Tasić source again: "Showdown in Nis Underworld" NISS , 23.7.2006. (Beta) by Jadranka Tasic. This isn't a good source (several issues, including I have no idea who did the translation to English; I feel much more comfortable with an original language editorial source than a translation of unclear lineage), and I am not pushing it. (Also, its URL points to a WP blacklisted site.) I cannot find sources in Sp, Port, Fr, or Pol as far as I can tell on quick looks, so I accept that he very probably never made a ripple outside the Balkans. WP:NLI, a proposal that failed to garner consensus for its implementation within a reasonable period of time, might have been consistent with a Keep for this article, but was maybe not really about this situation. I don't know of any actual policy that would speak against Keep. The nomination indicates "fails WP:GNG" but the relevant section reads, "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." (emphasis added) Beyond GNG general presumption, there are "nonetheless, not" criteria. I did not find any of them as applying. Personally, I am more concerned that this is more "serial news" and not "analysis", than that all 9 references are from Serbia. (or from e.g. Florida). But reading WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "serial news" is not a problem criterion. Overall, I agree this is a difficult article to push into a firm category. Hence, my big messy redactions above. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've done an amazing job cleaning up, sourcing this article. Last year, I stumbled into a somewhat similar situation, 2012 Paros beating and rape. It was at AFD, short and lightly sourced, mostly to Greek Reporter which, while in English, isn't exactly the New York Times. Like you, I dug around in ελληνικά (a language I do not know) In my mind, a couple of things separate the 2 articles, the fact that I did find coverage in the non-Greek European press, and - this was the key - the fact that this rape became a major national political issue in Greece, with (Greek) national news coverage over the course of several years. It was, in short, not an "ordinary" crime. Hope this is a useful comparison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as the current sourcing seems convincing enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are good. leaning towards notability. BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Ramdhanie[edit]

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

Couldn't find a single source about her, either in print or online, that corroborates her apparent notability. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what are all of those references on the bottom of the article? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I'm personally against paranormal ghost woo stuff, there are sources and she's written up in a lot of books. Try doing a google book search. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because, though she is a fraud she manages to get coverage in RS. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could both of you provide reliable sources? I couldn't find any. How does she pass WP:AUTHOR? She clearly fails general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on why the numerous sources at the bottom of the article don't qualify in your eyes? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well the burden of proof falls to those arguing keep to produce enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search on this individual and Facebook, IMDB, Twitter, and blogspot were the first things to come up which was not a promising sign. I did a search through Google Books and aside from her own published material, she's mentioned in passing a few times but nothing to warrant WP:SIGCOV. In almost every case she was not the subject of the publication or even the chapter. The Irish News source was the most promising one but it's only one source. The rest may very well be good sources but I can't WP:V them. Mkdw ^talk 06:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote this article, I did so using my University-provided LexisNexis account. This doesn't allow me to provide a link to the articles as I was reading digitised versions of print media on a private database. It was my understanding that we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater because not every reference is accessible in an online format.

I am very confused about what's going on. The references at the bottom of the article are quite clearly enough to pass WP:GNG. These are secondary sources from reputable newspapers with in-depth coverage of the subject's work. Given the person's profession isn't primarily as an author ('psychic', 'con-artist', whichever), I don't understand why her BLP is suddenly being judged under these criteria. I had no answer when I initially queried this and without one I can't assist/improve/vote. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could do with a little more discussion —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@UY Scuti: we relist discussions to seek more consensus but at WP:RELIST it states that generally discussions should not be relisted for a third time. Mkdw ^talk 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Yes, generally. I relisted this for the third time 'cause there isn't a consensus here, number of commenters are not substantial and your comment was made yesterday. Having taken the discussion is live, I relisted this for the third time with a comment per, Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. Did I do something wrong? If yes, sorry. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is usually done to seek further consensus so when it's stated, " in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice" then the reason for doing so a third time should be due to something beyond simply seeking more consensus. We have no consensus closures to prevent AFD's from going on perpetually. Furthermore, I would argue that we have a policy based consensus here. Albeit one not with a lot of policies, but as someone who closes quite a few AFDs, the burden of proof has not been met almost entirely negating the keep arguments short of WP:ILIKEIT which are WP:ATA. Mkdw ^talk 01:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mkdw. This is pretty straightforward. I mean, when references such as "Sandra Ramdhanie describes herself as a psychic-psychologist and ghostbuster and is fascinated by the fast that ghosts seem to spend all their time dragging things around or eternally pacing up and down", "JFK to visit Ireland in the Springtime", or "Sandra Ramdhanie aims to stop randy ghost groping female guests" are used, there's really not much else to add - she is simply a non-notable quack. Wikipedia is not suited for such topics. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 04:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG as far as I can tell. The refs are RS; at least the first three of them seem to provide "significant coverage", don't know about the others. But the fact that user Mkdw can't verify what most of these sources say is not a reason to dismiss them as non-existent. User:Panyd added most of those sources/did the research, and I have no reason to believe that she hallucinated the whole thing and the sources aren't real. WP:V doesn't say that all sources need to be accessible to everyone on the internet. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Some extra bits from Google Books to help prove notability (in addition to refs in the article):
  - Paranormal Ireland by Dara de Faoite, Maverick House, 2015
  - Psychic Kids by Lynne Gallagher, Mercier Press, 2007
  - The Paranormal Review, Society for Psychical Research, 1997
  - When Beds Float : Exploring the Poltergeist Enigma by Michael Clarkson, Key Porter Books, 2005 (apparently just a mention but she's called a "well-known psychic")
- — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this seems to be clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasailam Temple[edit]

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

This article does not have sources to establish notability. @Rahuljeswin: You contested the proposed deletion with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I proposed deletion after looking for potential sources that demonstrate notability but failing to find any. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC) See below. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's this temple: [21]. Notable Shiva lingam. Hindu temple articles, in fact, India in general, needs editors, improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, the article you point to appears to be discussing Netroddharakaswami Temple in the village of Panaiyapuram in Villupuram district. The temple the subject of this AFD is in Sivasailam village in Tirunelveli district. So I disagree that it is the same one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is this keepable per WP:GEOFEAT clause #1. It seems old (1300 years), large and unique enough to be of significant national and/or cultural heritage. We would just need one source saying it has been designated as such. Unfortunately, most such sources would not be in English. E.M.Gregory's source was a good find in that the temple has at least come to the attention of the Indian national government and has significant importance to the locals. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a difficult item to locate on the web, as Tamil is quite poorly supported and many of the documents seem to be scanned as images. However, the temple's website is partly in English: we could do with a Tamil speaker to help here. The geographical website OneFiveNineExploreIndia confirms the existence of the temple at Sivisailam village, and that it is called Paramakalyani Sailapathi Temple, Kadayam Turunelveli (=Tirunelveli District), Tamil Nadu. Wikimapia agrees on the location. Our article on Alwarkurichi town nearby actually has a description of the temple, which it calls "Paramakalyani Samedha Sivasailapathi". So perhaps the article needs its title changed, but it seems undoubtedly notable as a genuine place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravanasamudram: Temples seems a reliable source.

Additional link with photographs: TripAdvisor Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: some of the links you've provided above gives us evidence that the temple exists. But how does that address the question of notability? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing whether it was a real place, as such are considered notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that if a temple merely exists it is automatically notable? I think it requires more than that, such as what is described in WP:GEOFEAT. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At 1300 years old it must be a notable feature, as the few sources in English (here's one more) at least indicate. Like other editors, I strongly suspect most of the sources are in Tamil, and we should enlist a Tamil speaker for assistance on this, as already stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if the temple is in fact 1300 years old. But our article doesn't make any claim about the temple being 1300 years old. The only time that the number 1300 has been mentioned so far is in the link provided by E.M.Gregory. But as I pointed out, that news article is talking about a different temple in a different district. I agree we need some assistance from a Tamil speaker, because there is very little to help us in English. The latest PDF you've linked to has a one sentence mention in a list of 42 "other important places". Again, there is no mention about how old it is or why it is "an important place". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Making way for a bit more discussion —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below 'this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously beneficial to have as article, although with tags. The present company doesn't have great sources but all believe it exists and is old and surely is covered in other language sources. We know it is notable with probability 99.9% (remote possibility this is a fraud?). Agree that ancient (500 years plus?) temples are effectively geographic features. Avoid western bias/arrogance.--do ncr am 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but we may have to stub it down some as little of what is there is based on reliable sources as far as I can tell (though the author may have translated form reliable Tamil sources). The temple is mentioned briefly in Lists of the Antiquarian Remains in the Presidency of Madras, Volume 1 (1882) ("an old Siva temple of large size, well sculptured and containing inscriptions") and google snippets shows brief mention as a "famous temple" in Madras District Gazetteers: Tirunelveli District ( 2 v.) and mention of the inscriptions in Early South Indian temple architecture: study of Tiruvāliśvaram inscriptions. These are enough to establish that the temple is not some new construction or hoax and in the best tradition of expanding our geographic coverage, we can hope that Tamil sources can be produced in time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to change my vote to keep thanks to the effort of 24.151.10.165 to actually find some reliable evidence. The first link provided shows us that this temple is at least 130 years old. That for me is enough to make it worthwhile writing about. Just to be clear, this had absolutely nothing to do with "western bias/arrogance". I merely wanted to see actual evidence instead of bare assertions of 99% confidence. IP 24.151 is also correct in saying that the next task is to stub this down and make it legible. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has been a bit of a mess with a move into Wikipedia space and a redirect from there to a freshly created page Gateway North. Gateway North has been speedy deleted by Mojo Hand, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Redirects are being mopped up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7282 East Point Douglas Road South[edit]

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

Article about a empty former K-mart store in a small town, which consists only of an infobox and an extra photo and contains no content or sourcing to suggest why the building would warrant a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of every single building that exists in every single city on earth — a building can qualify for an article on here if you can write something substantive and sourced about what makes it important or historic or some other claim that makes it special somehow, but "former K-mart location in a small town" is not, in and of itself, a claim of that type. I'd actually have speedied this if there were any speedy criterion at all that I could have squeezed it into — but it's still an unequivocal delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~as utterly lacking any notability. I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this address, or businesses located at this address.~~ I have always argued that speedy deletion per WP:A3 should apply to articles that only consist of an infobox, but the text of that criterion explicitly states that it does not apply to articles with infoboxes. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: Many thanks to North America for the heads up about the page move. After searching for articles about the Gateway North shopping center, I found a number of articles from a local paper that mention this shopping center (see this article, this article, this article, this article, and this article from the South Washington County Bulletin). On the one hand, WP:LOCALFAME states that if a subject is "completely unknown outside a given locality [that] does not mean the subject is not notable". On the other hand, the articles I found are about the individual businesses in the shopping center, rather than the shopping center itself, its history, its significance to the region, etc. (see WP:TRIVIALMENTION). Unless someone can show me articles that talk about the shopping center itself, I am going to keep my vote as delete. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The page was moved (by another user) to Gateway North. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is distructive to rule based of one your opinion of relivance. If someone from Europe decided the Willis Tower wasn't relivant and marked it for deletion it would be bad. Wikipedia is meant for people to create articles based off of locations. Gateway North is one of the biggest strip malls in the city. I urge you to vote Keep because we can't let opinion of outsiders change Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNewsChannelFan, do you have sources that talk about the mall, its history, or its significance to the region? If not, then unfortunately this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:GNG). In order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required (see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the link http://www.cottage-grove.org/images/eda/icsc/gateway-buildings.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNewsChannelFan, that's certainly a start, though the source appears to be published by a real estate broker selling retail space at the mall, so that might present issues with partiality (see the discussion about sources written by vendors at WP:RELIABLE). Do you have other sources that talk about the mall? Keep in mind that WP:GNG requires coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about identifying reliable sources. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notecardforfree, This article is done by the City of Cottage Grove so I argue that it's important to the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNewsChannelFan, I'm sure it is very important to the local community, but Wikipedia's notability guideline requires that articles receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, even if this mall does not merit its own article according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you can still add information about the mall to the article for Cottage Grove, Minnesota (provided that the information is verifiable) because notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Also, FYI, you should sign your comments by placing tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree, see WP:LOCALFAME it states that even if it's not notable to the state of the world it's still notable to the community.FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)FoxNewsChannelFan[reply]

FoxNewsChannelFan, the mall still needs to pass WP:GNG to merit its own article. WP:LOCALFAME clarifies that "[e]verything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research." I'm certainly willing to change my mind if you can show me that the mall has received significant coverage in sources that discuss the mall directly and in detail, but absent such coverage, it doesn't look like this subject passes WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Local fame does not confer an exemption from having to reliably source the article to media coverage that satisfies WP:GNG — you still have to properly source that the thing has as much local fame as you claim it has. It's always possible to claim local notability for every single building that exists at all (and every single person that exists at all, and every single group or organization that exists at all, and on and so forth) — so we rely on reliable source coverage, not mere assertions of local notability that could just be overinflated public relations hype. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Editors and Proofreaders[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Although it appears in various writer's manuals, I cannot find anything better than passing mentions with GNews, GBooks and GScholar. There is just not enough significant coverage to address the article's current issues (copyvio, advert, 1 primary source). HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have speedy tagged it as such. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic rock songs[edit]

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

Nominating for User:Piriczki. Prod with "Propose deletion based on WP:DEL-REASON #6, #8 and #14. List is dubious and unverifiable, and appears to be the opinion of one anonymous IP editor." Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this deeper, this was a redirect for many years before being restored recently by an editor with no reason given. It should just be redirected with no reason to delete the title. I've done that and will Withdraw this nom. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since AfD nomination, the original unsourced list of songs was replaced by a sourced list on 24 Jan 2016. --Tsavage (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Classic" to whom? Also, a redirect to Classic rock doesn't make any sense, as there's no list there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The nominator has removed the AfD template twice from the article, and has blanked and redirected it to Classic rock. The nominator also closed this discussion. Despite the fact that the nomination has been withdrawn, an outstanding delete !vote from another user is present in the discussion, so this cannot be closed as speedy keep. See WP:SKCRIT #1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NorthAmerica's comment was made AFTER the close. The withdraw was BEFORE any other comments and well within policy., I just could not do the archive on my phone. NorthAmerica is welcome to nominate the redirect for deletion if they like. Legacypac (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WITHDRAWN. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a redirect to a well-developed article. It is a sign post to readers, and assists them in finding content. I agree that the nomination should be withdrawn. WP:SNOW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you support leaving it as a redirect (as it was for 10 years, until about 2 weeks ago). Cause now the list of random songs a been restored. Legacypac (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Was a redirect" - There's no snow here either ... There's disruption I'll give you that, Let the AFD run it's course and lets all move on... –Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep This seems to be a viable topic comparable with list of jazz standards or list of blues standards. Issues of status or subjectivity should, as usual, be resolved by reference to sources. These exist – for example, The Most Requested Classic Rock Songs; Classic Rock Stories: The Stories Behind the Greatest Songs of All Time; The Girl in the Song: The Real Stories Behind 50 Rock Classics – and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Since there is some question: there are delete votes, and now that they exist, this will stay open, no matter whether the delete votes were registered before or after the attempted withdrawal. If the nominator doesn't want to delete it any more, they can strike (not remove, strike) their delete rationale and expand on it below. And since I'm sure an edit war is only moments away: might as well leave the list up until the conclusion of the AFD too, rather than redirect while discussion is going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with a delete or a redirect. The list is ponitlessLegacypac (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 7&6=thirteen and Andrew D. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and recreate it to a redirect, list is opinionated and worthless. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic. an useful list of songs. No need to be merged or deleted.BabbaQ (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this list because it has no references and, as defined, is unverifiable and in its present form represents the questionable opinion of one anonymous editor. That is not to say that the article couldn't be improved, but I see few possibilities for that. Just to give everyone an idea of what they may be getting into with a list like this, Joel Whitburn's book Rock Tracks, which could be cited as a reliable source, has a section titled "Classic Rock Tracks" containing songs "played regularly on today's classic rock stations." It lists about 1,400 songs and only goes up to the year 1980 and there are thousands more charted songs from 1981 onward listed in the Mainstream Rock (chart) portion of the book. In this article, "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used to Be", the author monitored 25 classic rock radio stations for one week and identified 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists. That is potentially where this list is heading and I suspect the result will be an article that is unwieldy and unencyclopedic. Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTESAL Notability guidelines apply to stand alone lists: [a list is] considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This list has no references or anything to back it up really--Savonneux (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Savonneux: Note that the article has been updated with sources, and sources are also provided below in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to classic rock (restore the redirect that existed for 10+ years). Classic rock is a radio format rather than a well-defined musical genre. It would make sense to have a list of classic rock radio stations, but a list of classic rock songs would suffer from indiscriminate selection criteria, since the definition is a moving target depending on each particular station. Songs themselves are not defined as "classic rock" (and Category:Classic rock songs doesn't exist); songs are pop rock or heavy metal or rock and roll or punk rock or alternative rock or blues rock or glam metal or arena rock (a few examples of some of the disparate genres that different classic rock radio stations are likely to play). Redirecting users looking for such a list to an article about the concept is most appropriate here, it's better than giving readers nothing at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meaningless list as it stands and 'Redirect to Classic rock as it was before. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ivanvector, who explains the topic and the problem with this list quite well, and why it differs from other classifications of songs. postdlf (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as list of songs - May seem to some, at first glance, to be an indiscriminate, unverfiable collection, but in fact it appears to be quite the opposite, and solidly supported by policies and guidelines.

meets notability per WP:LISTN (Standalone lists) with a clearly defined group topic, "Classic rock" (e.g. "Classic rock is a radio format which developed from the album-oriented rock (AOR) format in the early 1980s. In the United States, the classic rock format features music ranging generally from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, primarily focusing on commercially successful hard rock popularized in the 1970s.[1]" from Classic rock)

Numerous sources discuss the classic rock music genre/category - sources with significant coverage of classic rock radio specifically include: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]

comprising extremely popular, well-documented songs, can be reasonably expected to meet WP:CSC (Stand-alone lists > Common selection criteria) #1: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia"
verifiable from radio playlists, media tracking services, books, and other sources (web searches indicate numerous RS candidates)
passes the WP:LSC selection criteria test, When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if the following are true:

If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?

while we already accept the concept of incomplete and dynamic lists, this is theoretically a finite set as there is a fixed number of rock songs from a specific time period that have been played on classic rock radio
Piriczki comments that sources exist with over 2,000 songs classified as classic rock, suggesting this list would be excessively long, however, number of items in a set has no bearing on whether the set is clearly defined and each member clearly belongs, which is the notability test of WP:LISTN, which this list passes. We have a List of minor planets with 455,144 numbered minor planets as of last Dec - list size alone is not an issue. The sources mentioned by Piriczki speak to general notability and verifiability via reliable sources.
Ivanvector argues for deletion with the assertion that "classic rock" is not a well-defined music genre, like pop rock or alternative rock, and is subject to indiscriminate selection criteria. In fact, as a music category, classic rock is measurable by radio play, and clearly defined in sources, and any variation among sources can be reconciled, to come to precise source-based selection criteria. There are no precise inclusion standards for music genres - e.g. is this alternative rock or pop rock, or both? - therefore, it would seem that the classic rock category is actually more easily defined from sources, based on time period and appearance on RS playlists.
Richhoncho argues for deletion with "Unreferenced and synthesised," citing (1) WP:RS and (2) WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. On the first point, I added a References section to the article (as a starter), using the two reliable sources mentioned by Piriczki, above - our sourcing policy, WP:V, suggests a presumption of unverifiability before deleting content, where clearly, every track can be reliably sourced, with normal discussion of which sources to use. On the second point, there is no original synthesis, no drawing of novel interpretations or conclusions: "classic rock" is well-recognized in at least hundreds of reliable sources, and it obviously represents a group of songs, so the only remaining issue appears to be selection criteria, which is addressed above at WP:CSC and WP:LSC.

Also note that one of the cited sources states:

"Classic rock stations do a massive amount of market research to understand who their listeners are and to figure out what songs to play" - according to Eric Wellman, classic rock brand manager for Clear Channel[32]

This speaks to the specificity of the group. _{added to original comment --Tsavage (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

I don't think we can override the wider consensus of core policy and guidelines, which this list apparently meets.

This list also seems quite useful, as an adjunct to the Classic rock article, for research into music history and radio formats, and for personal interest (nostalgic) browsing, the kind of thing that Wikipedia can, quite uniquely, do well. --Tsavage (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage. I am not, and never have been denying the existence of "classic rock" and one of your references just proves that somebody is trying to sell a book which contains a reference to "Classick rock" and the other actually lists a top 25 of classic rock songs. Now, where, how and why do the 374 songs in this list come from other than from editor's opinions? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho I'm going by letter and spirit of policy, and not for argument's sake - opinions often appear to be expressed without fully considering the situation as we should, as I believe is the case here. Our core policy holds that editing is incremental, articles do not have to be immediately perfect, there is no rush, material should be presumed unverifiable before deleting, or else given a reasonable chance to be referenced, and we should look at things case by case.

In this case, who knows where the editor got the 374 songs, since no references were provided, but common sense examination (by those familiar with classic rock) tells us that they probably are all classic rock tracks per the definition in the lead, and they can probably be verified as such, from the sources provided, or from other sources which appear to be available. So you could go ahead and immediately delete every song that is not in one of the sources already there (in which case, WP:V suggests that you note in your edit summary that you believe verification is unlikely) OR, the article could be tagged to pinpoint any problems, discussion started in Talk regarding sourcing and citation style, and so forth, the normal improvement steps.

The bottom line is, the article does seem to squarely meet notability standards for a standalone list, and beyond even a minimum level, so we should not be deleting it. --Tsavage (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage. See WP:FIVE which says WP is NOT a indiscriminate collection of information, a core guideline. This is a list of songs that might, from time to time, be played on radio stations that define themselves as "classic rock." What is there to love about this list even if we like most of the music listed? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in one of the sources for this article, what defines classic rock "changes depending on where you live." Different radio stations in different markets each have their own flavor, and when they are all combined together it produces a giant stew with no discernible taste. Looking at the list of 2,230 songs linked to in the article, it does have the appearance of an indiscriminate list. Based on my experiences with other lists in music related articles, I strongly suspect this article will become a battleground for editors debating what classic rock means in the first place as well as endless fan-based arguments over which songs to include or exclude. The article classic rock has already had a rash of vandalism in recent days, something I hoped to avoid by deleting what will likely become a highly contentious list. Piriczki (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho: WP:INDISCRIMINATE has already been explicitly addressed, and I don't believe you're applying it properly. It states: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." It provides examples of indiscriminate data, including entire software changelogs, reams of raw statistics, and so forth. Here, the context of the list members is a clearly defined group, "classic rock," a well-recognized radio format, with dedicated research and analysis, job titles, marketing campaigns, media coverage, and, of course, playlists. We cannot indiscriminately add songs to this list, songs must meet well-defined criteria that gives them a clear context. And if we found a list of all classic rock songs every playlisted, that also would not be indiscriminate, it would be all members of a clearly defined group that discriminates between those songs and all other songs with similar release dates, sales, popularity, and so forth.

Piriczki: "'changes depending on where you live'"' is not equivalent to "indiscriminate." Regional preferences form subsets of a larger whole. We wouldn't find a List of jazz standards indiscriminate because preferences for individual members of those lists vary by region, or by individual person. And the classic rock regional variations do not represent largely different song selections, they're more about frequency of play - there is a core set of classic rock songs, preferences among those may vary by region. We're concerned with the complete list.

As for the battleground concern, as previously addressed, future editing environment does not seem like a solid, policy-based reason for deleting an article. The practical concern can and should be dealt with by discussion, not deletion. In practical terms, based on sources, the inclusion period can be limited - 1960s-1980s or whatever - and clearly stated in the lead (as is the case now), that addresses what seems to be the main potentially contentious issue. This article provides a quite in-depth, up-to-date and authoritative examination of the classic rock format that can be used for focusing the list: "Classic Rock Radio at 30: The Songs Change, So Does the Vibe Remain the Same?" - Billboard, 14 Dec 2015. --Tsavage (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good analysis, but I disagree with a few of your points. In particular I think the Clear Channel quote you added is the best indicator for this group's lack of specificity - the definition changes based on the station's listening market, geographic area, marketing intent, and simply day-to-day as different people listen. The problem is not that the list is too large (it would be quite large) but that the bounds of the list are undefinable. There's no common musical element in these songs (I guess they all feature guitars, oh wait, Eleanor Rigby) other than that they have at some time been played on a classic rock radio station. For other musical genres, our standard generally is reference in reliable sources, for example we list Smoke on the Water as hard rock and heavy metal because of reliable sources which have said that. But "classic rock" is a marketing label, and we should consider the stations non-independent for this purpose, so this leaves us without a consistent way to identify and group classic rock songs.

In preparing this comment, I found only one song (Tom Sawyer) which has any reference to classic rock in its article at all, not as a style or genre but as a mention that it is commonly played on classic rock stations. That's as close as we would be able to come up with for an inclusion standard for this list, and it would be open to a lot of creative interpretation, which is the sort of thing Wikipedia shouldn't do at all.

That might not be much of an issue for many topic areas here, but warring over music genres is probably one of this project's most persistent issues, to the point that genre warriors have their own WikiFauna essay. The list was originally redirected because someone objected to James Taylor being included on it, although by our definition here many of his songs would clearly qualify. But what independent reliable source do we have to back that up? That's what I mean by undefinable and indiscriminate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector: I fully understand your argument, and I might guess that, beyond the explicit point, there is also an underlying, for-the-greater-good reasoning (the latter perhaps hinted at by your reference to POV pushing), but I will only reply to the explicit one, that an inclusion standard for classic rock is practically undefinable.

The well-supported facts are simple and straightforward (assuming a radio format/radio play-related standard):

1. Classic rock exists as a well-discussed definition and concept, and it follows that some subset of all songs are considered classic rock.

2. There are multiple reliable sources that list classic rock songs.

So we have a clearly defined group, and we have reliable sources, and that is all that Wikipedia requires for a standalone list; in fact, to remain neutral, we can't normally override that.

Comparison with musical genres is not necessary, but it's natural. In fact, there are endless genres and subgenres, and no objective way of determining what fits where (except if we get into some sort of song-recognition, spectrum analysis type of thing); at least in contemporary popular music, placing genre tags is largely subjective, based on opinion (which is at times conflicting, especially at the edges), which makes adequate sourcing a potential issue.

With classic rock, given even the most inclusive parameters, like, the playlist of every radio station identified as classic rock, all decades, all other sources, combined, it is still a strictly defined group: a song either appears on a qualifying list, or it doesn't. It is up to us to settle on working limits for inclusion. If a dispute breaks out over whether to include the 1980s, ultimately we can have a "List of classic rock songs (1960 to 1980)" or whatever. This is our process, often unruly, but it is what our widest consensus via policy tells us to do, and, well-done, it seems to work out. --Tsavage (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I posted here about this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and synthesised. How anybody could suggest it is useful, I have no idea. Which classic stations? According to who? Why aren't all the songs "rock songs?" With no references there is nothing to save. It fails on WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. If somebody wants to take this to draft and work on it, by all means do, but as it stands, I repeat, delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not trying to muddy the waters but if the article is kept and not as a redirect, I have drafted a possible alternative to the current article which I think most agree needs improvement. It still requires massive expansion and I'm not sure about the sources but it's the best I could come up with. I'm still in favor of delete though. User:Piriczki/sandbox/List of classic rock songs Piriczki (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft and highly subjective. The listings also aren't based on any credible sources as Richhoncho notes, and even if they were, "notable classic rock songs" is puffery that is not based on any definitive or objective criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete – WP:Source list includes:

When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, people reading or editing the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source... Even if you're sure that an item is relevant to the list's topic, you must find a good source that verifies this knowledge before you add it to the list (although you can suggest it on the talk page), and add that source in a reference next to the item.(emphasis added)

Each item on List of blues standards and the lists of jazz standards by decade (WP: Featured lists – List of 1920s jazz standards, etc.) has a citation to a reliable source. The same should apply here. BTW, I have never heard the listed Elvis songs (from the 1950s) on classic rock radio ("oldies" stations, yes, but are there any left?). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Due to the excessive number of disambiguation links, which are likely to disrupt the regular work of disambiguators, this article has been moved to the draft namespace until such time as all disambiguation links are fixed. This should not prevent a determination, however, of whether this article should be deleted for other reasons. bd2412 T 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- The disambiguation links having been resolved, the article has been restored to article space. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ARTICLE UPDATED: The list of songs has been completely revised, and each song cited to the Hickey source. A note about what's there now is posted on Talk:List of classic rock songs. --Tsavage (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:LISTN. Sources include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10]. The overall topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hickey, Walt (7 Jul 2014). "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used To Be". FiveThirtyEight (ESPN Internet Ventures). "To see what the current state of classic rock in the United States looks like, I monitored 25 classic rock radio stations1 operating in 30 of the country’s largest metropolitan areas for a week in June.2 The result, after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists, with a total record of 37,665 coded song plays across the stations." 2,230 song list (WebCite archive)
^ Whitburn, Joel (2002). Joel Whitburn's Rock Tracks: Mainstream Rock 1981-2002 : Modern Rock, 1988-2002 : Bonus Section! Classic Rock Tracks, 1964-1980. Record Research. ISBN 0898201535.
^ Heatley, M.; Hopkinson, F. (2014). The Girl in the Song: The Real Stories Behind 50 Rock Classics. EBL-Schweitzer. Pavilion Books. ISBN 978-1-909396-88-3. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
^ Leonard, H. (2013). 25 Top Classic Rock Songs. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4803-4059-6.
^ Morse, T. (1998). Classic Rock Stories: The Stories Behind the Greatest Songs of All Time. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4299-3750-4.
^ Staff, Hal Leonard Corporation; Corporation, Hal Leonard Publishing (2002). The Best Classic Rock Songs Ever: 63 Legendary Hits. Best Ever Series. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-634-03648-4.
^ Caldwell, Christina (September 14, 2015). "10 Classic Rock Songs that Would Still Be Hits Today". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
^ McPadden, Mike (July 27, 2015). "Rock's Dirty Mouth Dozen: 13 Classic Songs Allowed To Swear On The Radio". VH1. Retrieved January 25, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
^ McPadden, Mike (August 11, 2015). "Decoding 8 Classic Songs With Lyrics That Have Baffled Fans For Decades". VH1 News. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
^ "7 Miley Cyrus Covers Of Classic Rock Songs That The Pop Star Tackled With Aplomb". Bustle. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

Comment – There are serious referencing problems here. This list is cherry picked from Hickey and may be a copyright violation, since it is merely a partial regurgitation of one man's work. The rest of the references mention 50, 25, 63, 10, 13, 8, and 7 songs and do not support the hundreds listed. WP articles based on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll and various "Greatest" lists by Rolling Stone have all been deleted as copyright violations. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: Thanks for being thorough!

1. ...cherry picked ... partial regurgitation - This is a subset of songs, taken from a source list, for use in an article list: that's no more cherry picking or regurgitation than selecting any subset of material from any source, i.e. as a non-specific statement, it is clearly neither of those things.

According to WP:LEADFORALIST,

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.

The lead does not specify that the list is only a subset of classic rock songs nor what criteria is used for inclusion. Without this, it appears to be a random selection or original research. ("A Saturday Club Xmas/Crimble Medley" - The Beatles (1963) is classic rock radio song?)

The lead clearly describes exactly what the list presents: songs played on classic rock radio, released in a specific time period. No tracks were removed that are in the source in that time period. The Beatles track is an interesting inclusion example, but that's not relevant here, as it is sourced and within the time period (and it would be OR to exclude that track only because we feel it doesn't fit, without source-based reason - if you want to discuss that Beatles example: Talk:List of classic rock songs). --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. The rest of the references mention 50, 25, 63, 10, 13, 8, and 7 songs and do not support the hundreds listed Sources discuss various specific aspects of a subject, in varying depth. We know that classic rock radio plays more than 50 or so different songs; the Hickey source gives us a more comprehensive set.

So, the remainder of the references are not really used and Hickey is the only source for the vast majority of the items (he is the only one cited for the items).

Yes, Hickey appears to be a definitively reliable source for these songs, what more do we need? There are additional sources listed, and over time, they can be cross-checked, tracks can be added, existing tracks can be additionally cited - by policy, articles are not expected to be immediately perfect, improvement is incremental, there is no rush. --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll and various "Greatest" lists by Rolling Stone have all been deleted as copyright violations Hickey is raw data aggregating radio play, there is no interpretation, no IP value added by the author. Furthermore, what it is and open access to it is made explicit in the article, and the data, along with the monitoring software, is under an all-use (MIT) open source license, published and freely available at GitHub. There is no apparent copyvio here. --Tsavage (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey states "The result [after his monitoring], after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of ..." (emphasis added). At the bottom of the linked GitHub page, it clearly shows "© 2016 GitHub, Inc."[33] If an editor created a "List of the songs the shaped rock and roll" and used half of the songs from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll" with the R&R HOF as the sole source, it would be deleted in a heartbeat. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data cleaning refers to removing cruft, like gibberish characters, not to editing. GitHub hosts millions of individual software developer repositories, the GitHub copyright applies to the site, not them; the Hickey open source license is in a so-named file in that repository. So, no, it is not copvio, and no, it is not a creative work, it is an unedited multiple station radio playlist for a set period, and using only parts of it is fine. --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment All of them referenced to a list that includes but is not limited to every single charting single by Metallica, Rush, The Beatles all the way up to Radioactive by Imagine Dragons which came out... 3 years ago? So essentially... every single charting song in the last 40 years.--Savonneux (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been a problem throughout this discussion of keep !voters equivocating classic rock songs with classic rock songs... postdlf (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf:: I believe I understand the distinction you're making, between the specific classic rock radio/media format, and the general idea of "classic" anything, classic cars, classic horror movies, and so forth - could you explain how that applies here? --Tsavage (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Many of the sources being cited above as evidence of coverage of these songs as a group are actually about the second kind that are using the term "classic" as an evaluative adjective, and the keep !voters are failing to distinguish between those and sources that are about songs played on classic rock format radio stations. That's also true of at least one delete !voter above (the rhetorical question "'Classic' to whom?" clearly indicates they're addressing the evaluative sense of the term classic). This confusion has rendered much of this discussion meaningless as applied to this list. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf:: Thanks. Opinion vs format is literally valid, however, the list's radio format definition simply serves to source a reasonably representative number of songs on a List of classic rock songs, it doesn't establish a different type of classic rock. The sources presented here are consistent with our WP:LISTN notability requirement, ...discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, because all of the sources are referring to the same group of songs with the common label, "classic rock". What can differ is a source's basis for inclusion, commonly, author's authoritative opinion, author's synthesis of the opinion of certain others (e.g. music critics and scholars), or chart/playlist/market research data (surveys of public opinion), and from which time period, 1960s-70s, -80s, -90s, -00s?

Sorting through reliable sources and adjusting definitions and inclusion criteria are separate concerns, what is relevant here is that in all cases, it is the same group of "classic rock" songs, based on a categorization of music by specific musical sensibilities, refined by timeframe, enduring popularity, and broad rock genre classification, which is well-discussed as such in many independent, reliable sources, and reflected by classic rock radio.

This is all a great basis for ongoing discussion to develop the article and list. As for AfD, all of the comments and sources are referring to the same classic rock category, and the LISTN argument appears to be squarely on-point. --Tsavage (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a song release d 3 years ago be 'classic'? Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (2): Added citations to songs from an additional source. --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (3): Expanded lead to provide context for the song period (1960s-1980s) and address newer "classic" tracks. --Tsavage (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (4): Post-1989 songs have been removed (there may be a couple of strays), the list now conforms to the lead with songs released in the 1960s-1980s (release year 1960-1989). --Tsavage (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - okay, a list of songs with reliable sources is acceptable to a point but a 154K page is just taking things too far. May I suggest creating Category:Classic rock songs instead? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Long pages can always be divided, as per WP:SPLIT. In this instance, page splits could be performed alphabetically for some entries. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a category is the way to go, though - that can accommodate hundreds of entries. My concern is that I'm sure if we gathered up every song that a reliable source classed as "classic rock", the server would choke on the page size. Best to nip the problem in the bud, I think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the reply. The problem with a category-only situation is that it could be deleted, because people may assume that the category is arbitrary or subjective despite the content in the article being backed with reliable sources. Category pages cannot be sourced. Also, since the page can be split, it's size is not particularly a "problem" in my view. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333: The list is not likely to get significantly larger. It is based on a recent, one week radio play log of 25 CR stations representatively spread across the US (some 37,000 unique song plays), which should include the vast majority of CR songs. For example, a second source for around 60 songs, included no new additions to the list. --Tsavage (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on context: Relevant to sources and inclusion standards, at the related Talk: Classic rock, there has been a recurring push since 2007 to cover the subject as both a radio format and a broad style of music, which so far has not been done.

It is hard to argue that "classic rock" is no more than a "radio format," when, for example, we define the diverse, period-based Alternative rock as a genre of rock music and a broad umbrella term consisting of music that differs greatly in terms of its sound, its social context, and its regional roots.

The term "classic rock" is unarguably a distinct category/genre of music,[34] reflected by classic rock radio, but not exclusively defined by it - ALL references to classic rock are considering the same set of music for the same, ultimately esthetic reasons. (The main article should reflect this.) --Tsavage (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Classic Rock" is NOT a genre of music. It is/was a marketing term used by radio stations to sell themselves. Until, probably, the 70s "genre" meant the arrangement of the song, ie Jazz, blues, Rock n Roll, easy listening, reggae and all but the tone-deaf could hear a piece of music and know what style or genre it was in. Now "genre" is used as a marketing term. Therefore there may be no musical connection between the songs (Do American Pie and Brown Sugar have any musical connection?) on the list other than they will possibly appear on a classic rock radio station. There is a reasonable article at Classic rock and probably could by expanded by a few of the names of the bands regularly played on such formats, but a blow by blow list of songs which have no musical connection? I have already voted delete, but would be happy if it returned to a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not suggesting the notion of a music genre called "classic rock" should be incorporated into an article about a radio format. Although related, those are two different subjects requiring two different articles, see progressive rock (radio format) and progressive rock (music genre) or modern rock (radio format) and alternative rock (music genre). Piriczki (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion for Talk: Classic rock, and I will participate there. Here, I mention this aspect to make clear (as sourced) that there are not two in-any-way-different types of classic rock, and all sources discussing the mainstream notion of classic rock are talking about exactly the same thing (specifically re the LISTN notability requirement). --Tsavage (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention this here, though, it should be noted for the discussion, that the Progressive rock (radio format) article refers to a defunct 1960s-1970s format, and modern rock as a descriptor appears to be in good measure supported by Billboard having created a proprietary Modern Rock chart (now called Alternative Songs) that included mainly alternative rock (as a cited New York Times article noted, the "so-called modern format"). With classic rock, the situation is different: radio format, genre, body of music, and enduring popularity all co-evolved and co-exist under one popular term, classic rock. --Tsavage (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Classic rock" is not a genre of music per se — it's a radio positioning format which just means "any rock song at all that's more than ten years old", and beyond that fact it's commercial popularity, not any discernible unity of genre aesthetics, that determine what gets played more and what gets played less or not at all. (For example, you'll hear The Beatles and The Rolling Stones on a classic rock station a lot more often than you'll hear The Velvet Underground — but trust me on this because I've seen it happen for myself, you will occasionally hear VU too.) So to really approach completeness, this list would already have to include every single rock song ever recorded between 1950 and 2006. Next year we'd have to start adding rock songs recorded in 2007, songs recorded in 2008 the year after that, and on and so forth. And I see a lot of things here that spark debate: we're counting Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams" but not the way more rock-oriented "Would I Lie to You" or "Missionary Man"? Soft Cell's "Tainted Love", but nothing by the much more clearly rock-influenced Depeche Mode? Bob Marley, but not B. B. King or any ska band that I can identify? Underground-era R.E.M. but none of their 1990s chart hits? Only "Fire Woman" by The Cult, when I could name you at least three of their other songs that get as much or more classic rock radio airplay than that? Nothing by The Cure? Nirvana (and only "About a Girl" at that, which, er, no), but no Pearl Jam or Soundgarden? Then there's all the Canadian bands I'd have to add based on Canadian classic rock airplay even though they're unknown and unplayed in the US — and 180 other countries in the world that could do the exact same thing. Ergo, too much subjectivity and too massive a topic to be maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I heard one of the classic rock stations near me playing Age of Electric over the weekend. I mean, I guess they fit this definition. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:: I hear what you're saying about how the inclusion standard might seem to be ridiculously broad, such that it encompasses EVERYTHING, however, that would only be a problem if editors could add their own personal picks. In fact, each song has to be sourced. The current inclusion standard uses radio play and a 1960-1989 release date. Since classic rock radio is highly motivated (by economics) to play every last track that fits the general style/sensibility, we can assume that a comprehensive classic rock radio playlist is also comprehensive for the genre. That's what we're dealing with here at AfD: well-discussed subject (LISTN), and a well-sourced, comprehensive list, with well-defined inclusion criteria. --Tsavage (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does "classic rock" end in 1989? Somebody should maybe tell that to the classic rock station in my city, which has verifiably played Finger Eleven, Nirvana (more than once, and neither one "About a Girl"), Green Day, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, post-1989 Guns 'n Roses, Blind Melon, Stone Temple Pilots, Metallica, Our Lady Peace and The Headstones just within the past eight hours. And if I go back to yesterday's playlist, I can push you right to the edge of the 2000s: Tal Bachman's "She's So High", The Tragically Hip's "Poets", The Wallflowers' cover of "Heroes", Foo Fighters' "Learn to Fly". I wish classic rock ended in 1989, so I wouldn't have to feel bloody old every time I hear a classic rock station play a song that came out when I was already in university, but unfortunately for my middle-aged bones it doesn't end in 1989. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice manifesto! :) Still, neither the genre nor the list are actually chaotic and indiscriminate in the way you make out. The original classic rock set is popular songs from the 1960s and 70s, that fit a certain hard rock sensibility. Radio didn't make up the genre, radio just played it for folks who didn't like the 80s. Time went by and new songs were added. The new additions are only there because enough classic rock listeners accept them into the fold. The core songs remain the same, the endless staple rotation of Led Zeppelin and Eagles is still what defines it - after around 1980, the cutoff dates are arbitrary. For context, one academic describes Pearl Jam as combining "elements of punk, classic rock, and blues." It all does make perfect sense! --Tsavage (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic rock is a radio format and a category/genre - This is supported in sources. Wikipedia music categorization of genres is by cultural definition, not a particular, strict academic definition, and in the same way we classify Alternative rock as a genre, classic rock is a genre.

Classic rock refers to a canon of albums and singles, usually produced through the mid-1960s through to the late 1970s. These provided the playlist for a radio format, became a loosely defined genre, and, more recently, a general marketing category. Popular Music Culture: The Key Concepts (Routlege; 2012)

...'rock' is deployed as an umbrella term covering a range of popular music genres and styles, including 'classic rock', 'progressive rock', 'alternative rock', 'rock 'n' roll' and 'psychedelic rock.' - Ageing and Youth Cultures: Music, Style and Identity (A&C Black, 2013)

We can argue over what is or isn't a genre, but for content, we should rely on sources, not personal opinion. Besides, common sense tells us that (if you're familiar with the term and the music), you don't think only or mainly of radio when you hear someone say "classic rock," you think of a general style of music - if we hear a song, we can tell whether it might be considered "classic rock," in the same way we would categorize music as alternative, or prog rock, or grindcore, or acid house...it is a category of music, and a genre is a category is a genre. --Tsavage (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a marketing category, applied only after a song is at least ten years old, to music that doesn't necessarily have any overriding cultural or stylistic similarity besides the word "old". A genre is the category that a song is created in and belongs to when it's new and current, not a label that gets retroactively applied ten years after the fact as an age marker — "classic rock" is no more a genre, per se, than "retro" is. Unless maybe you've got some amazing new insight, which has never occurred to anybody else in human history, about what common musical aesthetic besides "songs that were popular 20 or 30 or 40 years ago", could possibly be deemed to unify James Taylor with Nirvana, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young with Eurythmics or ZZ Top with R.E.M.. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrary date cutoff makes this a radio format more than a genre. For example: Classical music as a genre isn't delimited by dates as much as by its compositional nature. Most of the song's listed here already belong to genres, picking a random one here: Animal - Def Leppard is already rightly defined as Glam metal. This is just an arbitrary list of songs-played-on-the-radio-in-the-united-states-in-the-2010s-as-classic-rock. Which is a far more fitting name for this list. There are bands now which fit the description of "mid 1970s hard rock" which will never be on the list as currently defined simply because of it's arbitrary nature (Witchcraft and The Sword come to mind).--Savonneux (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic still passses WP:LISTN and the page can still be WP:SPLIT per size concerns. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toxjq[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd entertain a redirect to SK Gaming, where he is more prominently mentioned. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 13:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 13:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 13:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very poorly sourced BLP. I don't think any of the "sources" in the article would qualify as what Wikipedia calls a reliable source. Will to re-evaluate if more sources and content is found (right now, it's almost entirely a list of events/tournaments he's played, with no context or content) but right now, it doesn't meet the standards, and don't have very much content to lose anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collectiv3[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any evidence of WP:notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. I'd also like to mention that the group was formed 3 months ago. The sources provided and some of the ones I found through WP:BEFORE lack editorial oversight. Although I found this but not enough for the group to merit a stand-alone article here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps not fully notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep as Does have Enough References. I Would Recommend another External link.CalabJessika (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unreliable. Please see WP:RS for what is considered reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based argument? What makes you think that this utterly non-notable group is notable? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology and SwisterTwister: I will explain. The sources used in this article, Jaguda, Pulse.ng, OkayAfrica, are reliable sources used to confer notability upon this BAND, per notability guidelines. Pulse.ng is a website maintained by a bunch of editors, per topic area. I researched the sources to showcase this bands notability.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguda.com is not in anyway a reliable source. It has no editorial control. See about us. The Chief Editor, Arinze Obikili is a non-notable blogger. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place where every group described in common website get freebie articles.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on the subject at hand.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope this can be relisted a 3rd time for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will get some more attention on this by pinging some uninvolved editors to this discussion. @3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, Metalworker14, White Arabian Filly, and Walter Görlitz:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Liu[edit]

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

Doreen Liu is a non-notable businesswoman. She has won non-notable awards such as the Entrepreneurship Excellence Award and the Entrepreneur of the Year Award for Women in Asia. She isn't notable as per the notability guideline of this website. UI1990 (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solidly notable and improvable as mentioned, perhaps nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading the sources, this one and this one say that she is the director and co-founder of World Scientific Publishing, which is "Asia's biggest, international, scientific, technical and medical publisher." That sounds fairly notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Phua Kok Khoo was the main guy behind World Scientific Publishing. UI1990 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If nobody comments after two relistings, I don't expect that to change with a third. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parker (dancer)[edit]

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

This page is about a non-notable dancer; Robert Parker was a nominee at dance awards, but that doesn't make him notable. UI1990 (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I noticed a deletion tag for this nomination was also on the disambiguation page for Robert Parker for some reason. This tag should only be on Robert Parker (dancer)和DITOR E tails 03:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD page was linking to the dab page Robert Parker: I have changed the links in two places above and hope that this will fix matters. An AfD expert might like to check that all is well! PamD 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Deenanath Chauhan[edit]

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

No significance of the character's in-universe profile plus no reliable sources to claim the notability of the page. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 08:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

Weak keep per being discussed in multiple Indian media. Per WP:INDAFD: "Vijay Deenanath Chauhan" The first result is a 20 minute 2011 NDTV video article about how "Vijay Deenanath Chauhan still rules the hearts" and relating the character's background and evolution summarizing that "1990's Agneepath was memorable for its central character, a man who embraced a world of anger. 17 years after Zanjeer, Amitabh Bachchan proved the Angry Young Man could still leave moviegoers spellbound". Needs translation, but perhaps through available multiple sources, commentary, and analysis this character article this is savable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MichaelQSchmidt It has only has one source claiming its legacy, although the last time this character made its appearance was in 2012's version and "nothing more of it". Get more source to give the article some weight. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to D'SuperHero... well, searches show that the NDTV coverage above is supported by further character discussions and comparisons in (for instance) Daily News & Analysis India Today Indian Express Bollywood Life Times of IndiaLoksatta (Marathi) Navbharat Times (Marathi) Navshatki (Marathi) and others. Article needs work but I'm still supporting Weak keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim The Jet Provost[edit]

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

Self-published children's book. Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources, and meets none of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. McGeddon (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looks like a cute book but doesn't appear to have hit the mainstream. Found this review from Jets magazine on the book's twitter page - [35], unfortunately it is an extremely blurry picture so can't discern what review actually says, possible redirect to aircraft page BAC Jet Provost with some words added? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see it being notable enough for a stand-alone article, might be worth a mention in Aircraft in fiction if a secondaryu source could be found. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lie-to-children[edit]

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

The title and concept are not notable. As presented, it's about analogies and simplifications in science but such conceptions are better dealt with under a different title as it's not just children that use these and they are not really lies. The real lies told to children are the common myths such as Santa Claus and the stork or the commonplace white lies which occur at all levels of society ("this won't hurt a bit"). This page shouldn't be getting in the way of those more substantial topics. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Science of Discworld. The only sources I found discussing the term in detail are these: [36][37]. It's not quite enough for a stand-alone article, and both reference teh book, with one actualy being a review of it. Much of the content of the present article seems to be original research. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seem to be no specific books, articles about the subject, and this amounts to original research. L.tak (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wittgenstein's ladder metaphor is pretty well known (as is Schopenhauer's, which I think Wittgenstein was inspired by, though they use it a bit differently). This "lie-to-children" business looks pretty weak, but my initial reaction is to suggest renaming/reworking as something like Ladder (philosophy), stripping away the lie-to-children content and refashioning to be about the metaphor (insofar as the uses are conceptually linked). What keeps me from !voting keep is that just using the existing content to create that article would make something pretty poor. It may thus be best to blow this up and start from scratch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support deletion. Wittgenstein's ladder is definitely a notable concept. There are a large number of books in GBooks discussing it at great length. That has to stay. I think that the concept of a simplified explanation that is less than completely accurate must be notable, but finding sources quickly is difficult due to the background noise produced by searches for "simplified explanation(s)" even when one adds terms like "inaccurate" or "children" to the search. It is going to take a lot of searching to determine the issue. I should point out that it is not necessary for sources to use the expression "lie to children" as long as they are talking about the same idea. Certainly it would be better to merge lie to children to the Discworld article than to delete it altogether. A search for "oversimplification" produces better results, including whole chapters of books. We should also check the page history as there are complaints on the talk page that the article has been messed up by incompetent editing, including removal of sources. There might be a better version of the page we can revert to. TNT is a terrible idea because, unlike stubification, it never results in improvements. James500 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article states lie-to-children is a Wittgenstein's ladder. Maybe indeed Wittgenstein's ladder needs an encyclopaedic entry, but then we have to ask ourselves: is this the best starting point for that or is it better to start from scratch? I wouldn't object to moving and repurposing this to Wittgenstein's ladder though, but this "example-ladder" seems not sufficiently notable itself.... L.tak (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an article I keep coming back to and has slide down in quality over the years. Like others I can't support deletion, but Wittgenstein's Ladder is a valuable concept that if the article was re-written I'd like to see that take the focus. The article used to quote the passage from Tractatus about the ladder analogy. My advice would be to put it as a Start-Class Article for the Portal:Philosophy instead of just under Portal:Education. I think its good its already in the Philosophy of Science Category, it is an article that would need attention from an Expert and a clearer outline of how it pertains to epistemelogy and logic. I think the current nomination for deletion is a result of edits that were made in good faith to avoid the page being an orphan but ended up detracting from its overall value. If I remember right, it also made reference to Plato's Noble Lie (A lie told to unify society as opposed to a lie to help someone understand) in a far earlier version. Its usually been a hodge-podge article of people editing in and editing out material, I think a fix for this would be to add in a list of things the article has made reference to in past versions on the talk page. By using this list we can move forward by discussing each concept and if its fit for inclusion, and if it saying why it should be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.165.41 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the general concept - I came to this page from a link to Wittgenstein's ladder and it explained the concept well. I agree that it would be better to re-list under the title Wittgenstein's ladder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganly (talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Research & Social Science[edit]

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

Relatively new journal (est. 2014). Not indexed in any database (according to its own website), not even in Elsevier's own Scopus. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It doesn't seem to have a strong case towards journal notability now, though a quick Google Scholar search does show at least one article with over 200 cites and others with 50+ for being a pretty new journal.[38] Once it is indexed by non-Google Scholar engines though (Scopus should have it soon from the looks of it), it shouldn't have issues being considered notable. It's not there yet though. I'd delete for now and wait for independent sources and indexing in what looks like the near future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May pass WP:NJOURNALS one day, but that day is not today. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Reed[edit]

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

non notable publicist. We do have articles for her notable client, Digital Pipeline / Computers 4 Africa, The references n the article are almost entirely to her clients. DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, still questionably notable for an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notablity is not inherited, nothing else found. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alexander (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. IMDB lists most of his appearances as uncredited appearances. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as there's nothing to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NACTOR for prominent roles in classic serials Buster Crabbe's Flash Gordon in 9episodes, Buster Crabbe's Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars in10 episodes, Zorro Rides Again in all episodes and S.O.S. Coast Guard all episodes. Most of his film roles have been bit parts except for some early westerns where he's had middle billing.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to close this as "no consensus" but I decided to conduct a WP:BEFORE search and it's very clear that among the many other Richard Alexander's out their such as the CEO or medical research doctor, Richard Alexander the actor has received very little significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The thing about WP:NACTOR is that it's a guideline that essentially states, if an actor has had several prominent roles, it's likely there will be significant coverage about them to establish notability. Likely being the key word. There are going to be some actors that meet all the criteria and simply do not have significant coverage for GNG and this actor is one of them. Notability is not inherent and everything falls back to GNG. Mkdw ^talk 06:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would immensely appreciate if this could be relisted a third time for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't hurt to attempt to get more consensus Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of those articles which is currently poorly sourced due to the lack of modern, on-line coverage available. He clearly passes WP:NACTOR, prominent roles include in films such as Young Donovan's Kid, Law and Order, Daring Danger, The Sign of the Cross (although a somewhat smaller role, definitely significant), Cleopatra, the Flash Gordon serial (as has already been mentioned), and SOS Coast Guard. While I don't have time at the moment, if you go into the magazines and trades of the time, such as The Film Daily, Motion Picture Daily, Motion Picture Herald, Variety, etc., he gets plenty of mentions, certainly enough to qualify for WP:BASIC, if not WP:GNG in its own right. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: When you relisted the discussion for a rarely used third time, something expressly outlined to avoid at WP:RELIST, you affected the process of the discussion. Now that you've also !voted in the discussion, I think you should undo the relisting and let another editor review whether a third relisting is warranted. We relist discussions primarily to seek more consensus, so doing so a third time needs to be above and beyond that criteria. Mkdw ^talk 21:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Mkdw - I will (I have no problem with it), but if I do it, will I mess something up with where it gets listed? If you know how to do it without messing up the listing, please feel free to do it, I certainly won't be offended. I've seen a few others with 3 relistings, which I thought was the limit. But I will remember that in the future. Please ping me back if you would prefer I revert the relisting, and it won't screw with what day it's listed on. Thanks for the heads up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaal Sarp[edit]

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

The article is unreferenced wordsoup and the topic is not notable. Even if notable, it would be easier to start over, since this is completely unsalvageable. Nuke it from space. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find a reliable source about this. Though, a lot of sources seem to be not English, where I can't comment. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, thus keep. But start over from nothing. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no reliable evidence for what it actually is. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply no better context and of course no obvious signs of better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The WP:COATRACK argument for deletion in the discussion does not carry much weight, because WP:COATRACK is an opinion essay. As such, ultimately, consensus relative to Wikipedia guidelines and the strengths of the arguments herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aime Simard[edit]

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

Biography of a person with no really strong claim of notability under Wikipedia's inclusion standards — the only substantive or properly sourced indication of notability here at all is dying in prison, which just makes him a WP:BIO1E. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so having been the "secret gay lover" of another person with a Wikipedia article doesn't boost his notability at all. And of the three distinct sources here (one of which is reduplicated for no apparent reason) one of them is a Blogspot blog and one of them fails to actually name the media outlet from whence the citation came, just going "article title, retrieval date, the end" — so the whole thing is resting on one valid source, which isn't enough to claim WP:GNG (and even if that incomplete citation were repaired, two valid sources still wouldn't constitute a GNG pass.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article started as a (group?) assignment in a criminology class. Thing is, these students appear to have done a valid job of finding a notable murder. Here is the CBC on the impact of this murder, 2004 Headline: "Inmate's death raises alarm over prison violence" [39]. The murder received substantial coverage nationwide: [40].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be linked from Hells Angels MC criminal allegations and incidents, which I have urged the student-authors to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep very notable murder, and attempt to cover up a notable murder by deletion Redhanker (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is being used as a coatrack for broader issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep E.M Gregory is right, valid job done. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the overwhelming policy-backed consensus for deletion here, and per the consensus found by two separate administrators on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest United States Senators and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the 100 oldest members of the United States House of Representatives, the list's subject is found to not meet the requirements of WP:LISTN, WP:SYNTH, nor WP:OR... and is therefore unsuitable for inclusion on this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the longest-lived United States Governors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Firstly, I apologise for renominating this so quickly after a "Keep" decision. While I acknowledge it is somewhat irregular, I believe that events subsequent to the previous closure justify getting the community to take a second look at this one. I have proposed this course of action on the article talk page and after ten days there were no objections. There have been two deletions of very similar articles as "Delete" in the past few days:

Both of these articles had the same sort of problem that this one does; namely that WP:LISTN requires that "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are no sources that discuss long-lived Governors (as distinct from long-serving or aged Governors like Strom Thurmond), and this list seems to have been compiled mainly as an exercise in original research.

I will after nominating this ping all editors who participated in the previous AFD, as well as in the two similar recent discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying @Legacypac, Pburka, Dangermouse600, RoadView, Czolgolz, Alansohn, and Allthefoxes: @David in DC, NinjaRobotPirate, Ricky81682, Dirtlawyer1, JTtheOG, and Star Garnet:. If I have missed anyone, please do notify them of this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can source the first and second longest-lived governors, but beyond that, I don't think reliable sources really care. It's easy enough to source individual birth and death dates, but to say that we should sort these people in descending order in a list would require coverage of the topic itself. I don't really see that. If someone can point out of news story about the top ten longest-lived governors, I would consider that a good start on evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I stated on the previous AfDs, this is not the strongest of list topics for cross categorizing, but not enough for deleting. Every entry can be referenced to a bio page and the ages are compiled from such. OR doesn't apply to this list in my opinion. While there might not be other known lists out there that mirror this one to back it up, there is clearly defined criteria for inclusion with no ambiguity. It's a list of people that are obviously notable and factoring in longevity which is at least arguably notable as well. I see no strongly compelling reason to delete this. RoadView (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How many times are you going to nominate this? Czolgolz (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I continue to believe that this is not an encyclopedic topic. There's no evidence that the longevity of governors is a notable topic (per reliable sources), and the rankings can only be verified by exhaustively examining biographies of every historical governor, which is essentially original research. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pburka (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think I was directly involved with the last AfD --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, I invited everyone who participated at that and the two other similar AfDs, in your case this one. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that in my initial statement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a bit of WP:SYNTH, and some amount of WP:OR..not to mention WP:LISTN --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an indiscriminate collection of information. No reliable and independent sources have been presented which have seen fit to discuss how long governors live, or who are the 100 longest living. A bit of WP:SYNTH and not at all a suitable topic for a list. Edison (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be original research and is just stats Seasider91 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and a topic not discussed in RS. Only way to build this ranked list is to exhaustively search all the potential candidates. How long someone lives after they hold office is trivia. Why not Longest lived every profession Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I noted before, this isn't so much a list of the oldest governor but a list of the oldest people who happened to have been a US state governor. It has no relationship to their length of term of anything else. First, it is OR and WP:SYNTH because no one has a source that says that Rosellini is the longest living US governor; while it can be considered basic math but stating that he's number one (even if the facts for his birth and death dates and for everyone else can be sourced) is still merging a bunch of other material together to make a claim that no reliable secondary source ever states explicitly. To me, this is just a minute subset of a potential list of the oldest people who were US politicians from which we can further separate or expand forever but it's still ultimately not a discriminate list. It's basically trivia with things like Charles Poletti who served as Governor of New York for 29 days in December 1942 is the seventh oldest person ever who was a United State Governor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a list of the oldest people to serve as governors; it's a list of the people who served as governors at perfectly normal and reasonable and unremarkable ages earlier in their lifetime, and then merely happened to also go on to achieve some arbitrary marker of life longevity years after their terms as governors had ended. That's WP:TRIVIA, not an actual notable thing. Plus if you have to compile the list by personally going through all the state governors to figure out what age they lived to be, because other sources haven't already ranked them on that basis for you, then it's original research. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Bearcat and User:Ricky81682.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. basically as Bearcat explains it, though I don't think comparing the lifespan of different people is OR. One of the reasons it isn't ORE is because it's utterly trivial. We could just as reasonably have a list of the ones who died at the earliest ages, or died outside their home states, or any other trivia of the sort. I consider the previous keep an anomaly by our current standards DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think this is mere indiscriminate information. However, it will need regular maintenance. I suspect this will be facilitated by separating the living from the dead in separate sections. The number of days of life a living governor has attained will change every day. Is that being automatically updated? If not, the living governors list should merely list their dates of birth. They can then be slotted into the other list on death. Whether people like Charles Poletti, who held office very briefly should appear is a matter for Americans to decide; not me. I have no issue over sources, as all have a bio-article with a date. It may be useful to have a date stamp in the text, so that we can know how obsolete the listing of living governors has become. The present cut off seems to be age 91. We might allow expansion down to 90. I do not regard limiting the list to 100 with an addendum to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)~[reply]

~Thanks for your comments. Just to clarify, living to 90, 92 or even 100 is not particularly notable, nursing homes are filled with such people. No one is questioning that names and dates can be sourced, the question is can the topic be sourced, and the answer is no RS discuss the topic of somewhat long lived people who happened to be state governors at some point. Legacypac (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., Ricky81682, Bearcat, and others. Fails WP:LISTN.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 asteroid mining. And redirect as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mining of Ceres[edit]

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

Article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of referenced facts about Ceres arranged in a way that serves as a discussion of the pros and cons of mining Ceres for minerals. It does not seem that this discussion has occurred in reliable secondary sources. Of all of the references, only one (the new book Asteroid Mining 101) is about asteroid mining at all, much less the mining of Ceres in particular. Unfortu3nately, I can't find the book in the libraries I have access to since it's so new, but of all the statements cited to it, none discuss Ceres as an asteroid to be mined, only an element of a proposed asteroid mining infrastructure. Cursory internet searches have also failed to turn up WP:RS discussions of Ceres mining distinct from asteroid mining in general. This recent article gives Ceres as an example, but the presentation it reports on was clearly about asteroid mining in general, not Ceres mining in particular. A2soup (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks like a fairly careful though not scholarly consideration of the aspects of mining. This would be an interesting article to read for kids and adults who are interested in astronomy. If it comprehensively fails WP:NOR it would be worth deleting but otherwise it seems to fit the purpose of WP quite well, providing information that is not easily accessible elsewhere.45sixtyone (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge. Provided that "Asteroid Mining 101" is a reliable source, I believe that the 'Strategic location' section should be renamed and merged into the main article, Ceres. The 'Physical conditions' section merely duplicates facts from Ceres, and the 'Potential difficulties' section contains unsourced analysis which might constitute original research. Moreover, 'Potential difficulties' might run afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, as it is somewhat speculative. Astro4686 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis, but I think Asteroid mining would perhaps be a better place to merge to. A2soup (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed. Asteroid mining is a better destination for the merged material. Astro4686 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. Although I think that a selective merge of a few phrases from sentences 2 and 3 in "Strategic location" to Asteroid mining would be appropriate, I would not oppose the deletion of this article. I don't think that a few phrases should spare this article from deletion, given the WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL concerns of Tigraan. Astro4686 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak delete. I see (1) information that is specific to Ceres (astronomy/geology trivia) and (2) generalities about asteroid mining, both of which are already covered in the specific articles to a reasonable degree of detail. The "strategic location" part is full of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (note the "could", "would") - it is not unreasonable speculation, but it is still speculation. Tigraan (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source from F&W below is a bit more than a passing mention and specifically discusses mining of Ceres. I still feel that is not enough (could be a press release in disguise from the scientists + a BB journalist pressed by a deadline) but one more of this with a different research group quoted would make it enough. Tigraan (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple more references: http://m.space.com/28640-living-on-ceres-asteroid-belt.html; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/at-27-billion-mining-in-space-could-cost-less-than-a-gas-plant. This is slim pickings and I'm not sure we have enough sourcing to support an independent article. A selective merge to Ceres or Asteroid mining would seem ok. Note the prior debate ending keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Ceres. Fences&Windows 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into asteroid mining and Ceres. --Fixuture (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Fixuture, merge into asteroid mining and Ceres as appropriate; subsequently redirect this article to Ceres. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talat Hussain (news executive)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Musa^Talk ☻ 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 05:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 05:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 05:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably notable and improvable with the current sources not convincingly better enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While a somewhat controversial figure he appears to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NJOURNALIST #1 and #3 -- Identified as one of a number of "notable absentees" on a petition about press freedom; subject of a (highly) critical article; discussed here (more than just mundane move details); described with nice adjectives on NewsTribe (RS?); described as "a leading television talk-show host and political analyst" by DAWN; described as a renowned journalist by Pakistan Today; described as a prominant television journalist by Foreign Policy; etc etc. And that's without any Urdu language sources. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the RS presented by HH convince me the topic is notable. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lundquist[edit]

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

Not a single reference I could find besides Source Wikipedia (September 2013). American Bowling Players: Chris Paul, Jerome Bettis, Walter Ray Williams, Jr. , Chris Barnes, Jean Havlish, Guppy Troup, Pete Weber, Earl Anthony, Kell. University-Press Org. ISBN 978-1-230-54188-4., which itself is sourced from Wikipedia. Blatantly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm seeing some coverage on bowling-related sites, but nothing from outside, and most looks to be fairly routine. Fails WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No SNG guidelines for bowling, but did spend a season on tour similar to golf and auto racing requirements and made enough that we can consider him a professional. He never made a TV appearance (usually top-4 in a tournament compete semi finals and finals on TV) and bowling, especially currently, does not receive a great amount of press coverage. Found some stuff on him, but more from his regional days and is borderline routine (some might say is routine, some may not). I don't know how to come out on this one, but wanted to throw out the different sides of this I am seeing. RonSigPi (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the information above, too borderline. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio PB-1000[edit]

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

No sources or indication of notability, just a list of specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with deletion. The article text describes it as a notable early portable computer through e.g. its use of an LCD screen. Articles on specific early computers are valuable and this one has useful information and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.68.187 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 13:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article for sure needs improvement and references. This computer was quite the thing back in the day (e.g. it was one of the first widely available computer with touchscreen functionality), the problem here is mainly that this is a topic from the 80ies, so references online likely are sparse. The article could use the attention of an expert to be improved. I doubt deletion is the best way to go here. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 November 2015 Paris attacks. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Roubaix shootings[edit]

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

Nobody was shot, nobody was injured. Aside from briefly being thought to be connected to the Paris terrorist attacks, this was a complete non-event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into November 2015 Paris attacks or keep. This event attracted a tremendous amount of international coverage. Certainly sufficient coverage to merit a permanent spot on WP, perhaps as a paragraph in November 2015 Paris attacks page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTNEWS. The article itself reads like a one paragraph news story, and the references are all in the twenty-four hour news cycle. Googled "roubaix hostage" and "roubaix shooting" and filtered out anything earlier than December 2015 to look for ongoing coverage and found nothing. Therefore fails WP:GNG. Disagree in the strongest terms with merging with the Paris attacks page, since references clearly say the two weren't related. Aspirex (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into November 2015 Paris attacks. Coverage frames it as part of that story. (Also, perhaps not relevantly, the nominator's assertion that "nobody was shot" is noticeably wrong.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the hostages were shot. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now atleast. It received plenty of media attention. And we do not delete article based on article quality.BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. routine crime. Certainly not merge, because, as was said above, it wasn't connected. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article explicitly mentions it was not connected and there are no solid convincing signs of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting the impact of an interest in the November 2015 Paris attacks is so enormous, that I continue to think it useful to Redirect this incident to that article, because the fears and hair-trigger security response that followed those attacks and was reflected in the response to Roubaix are a part of the story of the Paris attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutionary[edit]

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

Most of the link are PR. Some notability asserted, but on the edge Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Managed Security Service page references the "13 most significant vendors" in a Forrester Research report, and one of those is Solutionary. Of those 13, all but Solutionary have their own Wikipedia entry, and five are already linked-to by the Managed Security Service article. I have identified at least two other Wikipedia articles which also reference Solutionary. Rdb112 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This would need further available in-depth third-party sources overall to be a better notable and acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and promotional.No actually substantial sources. We should probably look at the other articles also. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The subject is apparently notable. Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poshter Girl (2016)[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines. This movie has not yet been released, and unreleased movies are only notable if there has been significant third-party coverage of the production (which is not mentioned here). Also, this article contains unencyclopedic language such as "takes you on a mad roller coaster ride". Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally nominated this at miscellany for deletion when it was in draft space. The MFD may result in its deletion, which will render this AFD moot. However, I was advised that I can nominate this for AFD.

Actually, a search for "Poshter Girl" in GNews brings up several full articles in English, so it might satisfy GNG. As this is a foreign language film, it would be helpful to have a search link for its title in its original language. Whilst the cross namespace redirect should be deleted, MfD has no jurisdiction to delete a mainspace article, and should not attempt to do so. James500 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google news search does bring up some hits but not enough significnat coverage to overcome notability concerns about unreleased movies. The movie is mentioend in passing in these sources but nearly all the articles are run-of-the-mill "so-and-so has signed on to the film" and do not cover the film in depth. This film will likely meet notability guidelines once released but its too soon now. RadioFan (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan: Sadly, Google News does not crawl nor index Indian newspaper articles properly. So for Indian topics, we do not rely only on Google News hits count. Alternatively we can use, Indian English Newspaper Custom Search Engine or Indian Newspapers Search Engine (for all Indian languages).) I will be doing just that myself, and we shall see.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's examine some alts, shall we?

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

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

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

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD "Poshter Girl" "Samir Patil" "Sonalee Kulkarni" "Jitendra Joshi" "Hrishikesh Joshi" "Hemant Dhome" "AmitRaj"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep after doing some easy editing there, it was easy to determine that the completed project is due for release in two weeks and its production has received enough coverage to meet WP:NF. As inclusion criteria is easily met, I suggest the nominator consider withdrawing his nomination and that RadioFan consider striking his delete and change it to a "keep". No... they need not, but we do not delete proven-as-notable topics. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also, per WP:NCF there is no need here for the "(2016)" to be part of its title. That needs to be corrected after a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands Tour[edit]

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

Use a primary source (the artist's website); not covered by the media - so it will stay unreferenced, lack of relevancy. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the page does not currently have adequate relaible sources for verification, it is still covered in the news. The page needs some work but I don't see any reason to delete it. Seems pretty notable. Meatsgains (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains I'm struggling to find a reliable/known source through those news. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the tour isn't covered in sources such as CNN, BBC, or The Times, but there are certainly known sources out there: [41], [42], [43], and [44]. Meatsgains (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the second is the main subject. The other ones is a "and by the way, she is.." Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through and hand picked a few of the sources that were reliable. I'm sure there are others covering the tour in greater detail. Meatsgains (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fannie Greenberg[edit]

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

I'm not sure about her notability here. Being the oldest person of a state isn't inherently notable and oldest Jew in the world at that time could be (I don't think it is) there's no source for that. Of the sources, this doesn't seem like it was a reliable source (or maybe not an independent source). The book citation is a reliable source, and other than ancestry and other pages the only thing I could find is a WP:ROUNTINE NY Times obit. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for apparent dearth of coverage (and note the NYT obit was paid). E Eng 14:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No significant coverage here. The WP:WOP guidelines for biographies says an article with one or two sources establishing notability belongs on a list, not a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the info on her is vague but she clearly lived a long and non-notable life. Oldest in state is not a claim to notability, so per WP:NOPAGE her info is best shown on a list. Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Star Kachina[edit]

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

All of the sources I can find just repeat Frank Waters claims uncritically. I can find no evidence this is authentic, so I'm concerned this is just promoting a hoax story. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in academic sources indicates it's not a hoax:[45][46]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G-Shock. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio DW-5600E[edit]

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

Essentially a list of specifications, only references the user guide and no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge with G-Shock. Biscuittin (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested. Same for all the G-shock watches. An article on the range makes sense, but models can just be sections within this. It would show the range history much better too. 108.171.128.174 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the G-Shock article should not have a section for each model, because they are only notable as collectors items. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a merge to G-Shock or a new list article of notable models (if at all possible to write) would be best. Widefox; talk 02:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that is necessary, as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio DW-5000C[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability other than as a collector's item, lead section reads like an advertisement. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge with G-Shock. Biscuittin (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio AZ-1[edit]

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

Unsourced, just specifications, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't think we have so many Casio keytars that we can start merging them, but we should cover them somehow. 108.171.128.174 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK 230[edit]

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

No indication of notability, just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK-691[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Just a list of specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with various other Casio keyboard models into List of Casio models or something along those lines.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio RZ-1[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not of great quality but the drum machine is notable for its use in early house and techno music. Please mark article as low quality, do not delete.

Delete - Questionable, as mentioned, unlikely solidly independent. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main article is sufficient . DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CZ-1000[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Just a list of specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, unlikely independent for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Casio CZ synthesizers has all the information that's actually necessary, and we do not need a redirect from what is essentially a variation of a better-known model. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Privia[edit]

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

No indication of notability, just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Wikipedia is comprehensive. "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." The article on this widely used instrument needs further sourcing and references from reliable sources for its notability, but so does almost every other article on electric and electronic keyboard instruments – as do many hundreds of other articles which are not challenged; random example: Category:Railway stations. (Yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but it should be noted that even that essay allows for consistency within a subject, for comprehensiveness, and for inherent notability.) Lastly, it may be instructive to consider that this AfD was one of about 16 for Casio products the nominator submitted today. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praful M. Kulkarni[edit]

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

A search for references brought up user-generated content websites as well as business directories. One link brings up articles about Sudheendra Kulkarni instead of Praful M. Kulkarni. The article creator, User:CindyBlankenship created a number of biographies for Indian executives during August 9-20, 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this has the better signs of the better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable President of a small construction firm (270 employees) . Routine executive bio. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Average revenue per user. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 12:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Average margin per user[edit]

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

May violate WP:NOTDICT--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a concept more than a term used in finance these should be notable. [47]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Average revenue per user Jim.henderson (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if needed if this is questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Average revenue per user, and rename that page something like "Financial metrics used in telecommunications". The target page is probably borderline as well (sort of reads to me like a cross between a WP:DICDEF and a WP:HOWTO, and it's based primarily on one non-independent source), but since it's not up for AfD and it has a natural location in it to move the 'average margin' content, I say we do that. Aspirex (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Bond[edit]

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

There's precious little in the way of independent sources here. We have a press release by Janson Media promoting a DVD published by.... Janson Media; a Google Books link to one of the subject's books; a scan of a diploma (!); a link to the website of Satchidananda Saraswati; an obituary that makes no mention of the subject; an empty search result; something like a résumé; and a bunch of library/user-contributed database cruft ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53]). "Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. sst[[User:SSTflyer|<span {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)style="color:black">✈]] 01:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the current article is certainly not seeming improvable albeit the sources listed, simply best to delete and restart only if it can be made better. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In general, we have here a verifiable, neutral point of view and all copyright material is secured under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The article strives for verifiable accuracy and citing reliable sources, as should be when talking about living persons. There are no personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions which do not belong.

Specifically, the article is about Joey Bond, a notable figure in the world of Martial Arts, who hosted an nationally syndicated PBS series. His Tai Chi Innerwave program was, verifiably, carried by 124 PBS stations across the US and Canada. ...so, notable indeed.

The article has 13 references, and is rated 'Start-class', which is appropriate; I would hope other contributions will expand this article which adds to knowledge about Tai Chi and martial arts. A 'Start-class' article, by definition, cannot have many references in its inception and awaits expansion. It beleive it is permitted to cite the publisher of a DVD series (@Checkingfax: would that be correct?). Google Books links are valid references (again, @Checkingfax: would that be correct?) as is a scan of a diploma from one of the most famous magic schools in the world, awarded to the subject of the article.

I extend appreciation to user:Biruitorul for his good suggestions, ...no so much for his nomination that the article be considered for deletion

. These corrections have now been completed; a link to the website of Satchidananda Saraswati has been more appropriately placed in the External links section and has been deleted from the body of the article; the obituary notice reference has been removed - - - ...absurd really, and thanks again to user:Biruitorul for pointing it out. As well, the empty research result has been deleted. The library/database-driven references each complete pieces of information about the PBS video series, but perhaps there are too many; ...awaiting your kind response on specifics in this instance.

Finally, although Wikipedia states that Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time , I believe the rules have actually been followed in what is a noteworthy, verfiable, neutral, copyright-secured article, with lots of room for expansion. Kindly let me know what else might be done to improve this article and it will be done, to be sure. If more 'Coverage in multiple published secondary sources' are needed, I'm sure I can dig these up, if need be immediately; the article is 'Start-class', after all. I am a proud Polyglot and I am using my multilingual skills to make small contributions to this amazing encyclopedia.

PS. ..hope it is not objectionable that I ping a few Wikipedian associates to hopefully attract them to contribute to the discussion. @Corinne, Jerome Kohl, Robvanvee, Vipinhari, Bgwhite, StarryGrandma, and GrammarFascist: Merci infiniment! very best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as this article is very new and has potential. It is off to a good start. PS: I was aware of this AfD (Article for Discussion) thread before being pinged by Natalie. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It seems to me that Joey Bond is sufficiently notable. Besides that, the article is interesting, adequately written, and contains several reliable sources. I also think it could be improved. Corinne (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is not the place for discussing Romanian names (best done on the article's talk page where it already is) and it seems the WP:CANVASS line is being crossed. The reference issues mentioned by the nominator are valid and I don't think the subject is notable as a martial artist (WP:MANOTE). Less sure about WP:ENTERTAINER hence I hold my vote. The article itself smells of over promotion but that is a reflection of the images and references.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PRehse and Checkingfax:. Thanks very much @PRehse:. I deleted the 'Romanian Roma name of Jeo Ruv' sub-section as per your kind advice. Of course you are totally correct about the right place for such a discussion; it resides on the article's talk page, as you mentioned. ...also reduced the number of images to one per skill (Magician, musician, writer, Tai Chi PBS series) lest they be construed as promotional, as you kindly pointed out. Many thanks! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PRehse and Checkingfax:. @PRehse: PS. ...not my intent to WP:CANVASS—my aim is Appropriate notification to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus, ...certainly not to influence the outcome of this discussion in any particular way, which would be inappropriate. meilleurs voeux, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not notable as a martial artist. Don't think the references are good enough to meet WP:GNG, but like PRehse I'm willing to see if the article is improved.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Mdtemp and PRehse:, How can Joey Bond be a martial artist on PSB for 8 years and not be a notable martial artist? Every segment made him notable as a martial artist. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This Article for deletion is a mistake! Many good articles started their Wikilife in rudimentary form, and I hope this article is kept and can grow. As is, I found this article interesting and I enjoyed it. I also picked up information I didn't know from the stated sources. The article went live 3 days ago and already has 320 visits, - obviously of interest.

In making considerations whether to embed an Article for deletion banner, Wikipedia policy states, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. ...consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."

"Civility is to human nature what warmth is to wax." I felt hurt by the uncivility of certain parts of the discussion on this AfD page — about peaceful Tai Chi practice of all things! Wikipedia policy says it needs contributions of good faith by editors willing to give of their time and talent. User:Biruitorul opines dramatically that there is 'precious little' in an article of substance and good references. Not too bad, but then he says summarily (and patently incorrectly) that 'Romanian Roma don't have such names' (as Jeo Ruv) referring to the sujects birth name. But Wikiedia Civility tells us that"Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Wikiedia Civility also tells us to 'Avoid condescension' and then we read comments by User:PRehse saying 'The article itself 'smells of...' . How does this mode of expression encourage people, like the main author of this article, to feel good about their precious time spent giving to Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention. Jbeaton5 07:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just wanted to point out the obvious, which is that the votes of canvassed users/single purpose accounts Checkingfax, Corinne and Jbeaton5 don't do much to advance the "keep" side's arguments. No, averring that "this article has potential", without specifically underlining sources to bolster such a claim, isn't convincing. Neither is advancing preposterous claims of "incivility". At some point, if you want this article kept, you're going to have to show how this individual conforms to WP:BASIC ("has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") or WP:ENT. The rest is simply noise.
While we're at it, let me just say this about his name: Romanian Roma have official names in Romanian; I invite you to peruse Category:Romanian Romani people for a flavor. So it's likely he was born George Lupu (ruv=wolf=lup). While I'm not putting that in (WP:NOR), see WP:EXTRAORDINARY: exceptional claims require evidence. It's not really credible that all Romanian Roma but one would have names in Romanian. Either find a credible source or remove. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Biruitorul. Did you just pack two completely unfounded scurrilous allegations in to your most recent opine here? a) My input is tarnished by being pinged by Natalie when I already stated in good faith that my awareness preceded her ping to me? b) That I am a S.P.A.? That is outrageous, sloppy and I take ultimate umbrage to it. Also, to accuse Corinne and Jbeaton5 of also being S.P.A. accounts? That is illfounded and poor Wikmanship. Ugh. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be that as it may, would you like to demonstrate that this individual has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", that he "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", that he "has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", or that he "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"? Because that lies at the crux of this debate, and no one has even attempted to do so thus far. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The four sentences quoted above by Biruitorul, taken from Any biography and Wikipedia:Notability (people) are interesting. User then states, "The rest is simply noise."! The "noise" is easy enough to find; it's on the same page. The "noise" says notability is also that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", which Mr. Bond has done, demonstrably and verifiably. Also,"The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable.' which it does for a start-class article which will inevitably improve.

Further requirements to establish notability for Creative professionals, artists such as musicians and martial artists, mean "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This criteria has certainly been met for a start-class article, and the references already given are valid and can only grow. I suggest a <>{{cleanup-biography}}<> and/or <>{{BLP sources|date=January 2016}}<> be added to the page and we should move on to more positive, constructive endeavors with a higher perspective in mind; the article can only improve with time.

Mr. Bond was host of the nationally syndicated PBS television series, carried by 124 PBS stations across the US and Canada for 8 years. Press releases, video, posters, photos and newspapers all testify to the veracity of his notability and are linked to the article even in its present start-class stage. This article needs time to develop, just as hundreds of others I've read on Wikipedia; why the rush to 'consider for deletion' in this particular case?

While we're at it, regarding Mr. Bond's birth name, it probably doesn't count for much but I have heard Mr. Bond talk about his birth name Jeo Ruv in interview. More importantly, there are hundreds of references to the bona fide Romanian Roma name Jeo (Joe) all over the web. The claim (above by Biruitorul ) states that "it's likely he was born George Lupu (ruv=wolf=lup)."!!!. There are several mentions of his birth name as Jeo Ruv on Wikipedia Commons and elsewhere which show images with attached description clearly stating Joey Bond's birth name is Jeo Ruv. (you have to go the file page-Summary description, not the image page). So his name is George instead of Jeo (Joe)? How would Biruitorul know this? What is his basis for this hypothesis? Now that's preposterous... User:Jbeaton5 --Jbeaton5 09:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May I suggest that we try to improve the article by:

a) Adding the {{cleanup-biography}} or {{notability|biographies}} templates, b) Rewriting, or c) Asking other editors for advice and/or d) asking other editors to help find other sources. Many thanks; just trying to help. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I always liked this amazing artist and was very happy to read the short Wikipedia article on Joey Bond. ---trusting Wikipedia will strive for its further expansion, something I look forward to. I am a Wikipedia user and appreciator, and we are legion. Hope this is of some use and help. 96.20.154.75 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought it useful to repeat comments by Checkingfax and Corinne which are very pertinent and important to this discussion but which were left here So, lest no one sees their thoughts on that page, I have taken the liberty (hopefully causing no system abuse) to copy the highlights here, as these opinions clarify a great deal about this particular AfD issue. The purport of these comments can be verfied here, f need be.

Checkingfax stated:

- "Biruitorul has a chronic edit record of nominating an average of 5 Romanian articles for discussion (AfD) every month endlessly and getting shot down on most of them. This is toxic to the project and a waste of our limited editorial resources."
- "Article Joey Bond has issues, but they are fixable. It is not your average crap article that deserves deletion discussion."
- "I do not see much WP:Alternatives to deletion (ATD) going on here, and that is a WP:Policy"
- "There is also WP:Before which is also a POLICY (not a mere guideline or essay)."
- "There are a lot of junk articles on the Wikipedia and Joey Bond is not one of them. Deletion discussion is premature."

Corinne stated:

- "I am more concerned with the issue Checkingfax raised, that Biruitorul is engaging in a pattern of nominating a certain type of article for discussion leading to possible deletion, unnecessarily wasting other editors' time,"
- "I support keeping the article, and I agree completely with Checkingfax"

Hope this is helpful and provides clarity. User:Jbeaton5--Jbeaton5 08:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kindly see Juan d'Anyelica - one sentence, no references, and yet there are perhaps 50 like this on the List of flamenco guitarists page. ---no deletion nomination. It does carry a {{Spain-guitarist-stub}} notification. --- wondering if that is what we should be doing to resolve this, i.e. putting a stub banner if it qualifies. Many thanks. User:Jbeaton5 --Jbeaton5 08:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if I am looking at the same article. However, the comments about keeping stubs seem wide of the mark. This article is not a stub and has multiple sources, and multiple sources usually qualify for keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But surely, Robert McClenon, you will agree that the quality of the sources used in the articles matters too. So which sources do you find persuasive here? The commercial press release? The book authored by the subject himself? The scanned diploma? Or the search result cruft? Because by any normal reckoning, none of those meets the "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard set forth by WP:RS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - BiruitorulIf I may: I found that the press release, by an established company, contained valuable information; there is precedent—for example, there are a few press releases used in The Beatles; the book, registered with valid ISBN, is also a good source of information; the diploma, whether from Yale or any reputable place of learning, proves the person is an alumni of this school—a scan of the diploma makes for noteworthy information; the search result can be deleted if it is objectionable—it was used because it yielded many pertinent results. You are right here if you are suggesting we should probably choose just a few select ones. Indeed, it would be less cluttered. Finally, I'm sorry that tone here is not as peaceful as I would have wished; if I could change that, I would—as Epectitus said, you can only control yourself, not others. EQ is more important than IQ, but rarer I'm afraid. But the lake remains the same... Perhaps we should just let those in admin decide this issue, and not disrupt their progress.–just a thought ...don't mean to offend, to be sure. best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Press releases are, while not strictly forbidden, frowned upon: see WP:SPS, footnote 9. Your only use for the book is to show the subject wrote it, and the mere fact of writing a book in no way contributes to someone's notability. Not only is the scanned diploma unacceptable, hosted as it is on the user-generated Wikimedia Commons, it too adds nothing to a claim of notability. (Merely graduating from any educational institution, never mind the "Magic Castle", is also not evidence of notability.)
      - User:Biruitorul is out of line on the notability of the Magic Castle! I am in a coveted profession as it concerns my being a Magician Member of this prestigious, world-renowned, Private Club and international entertainment center located in Hollywood, California.
      - I take umbrage with the editor, Biruitorul, as I present, for the edification of all concerned, proof of Biruitorul’s utter ignorance displayed in his response to the thread started by editor Robert McClenon. I will add that Biruitorul is opinionated and condescending in his announcement: “ . . . never mind the “Magic Castle" . . .”. What Biruitorul is disparaging is precisely the renowned Magic Castle, whose Board of Directors' president is Academy Award host, Neil Patrick Harris.
      - This is a prime example of ego-driven eddy-currents that slow the overall advancements of Wikipedia; his demeanor is detrimental. I may not be versed on the entire workings of Wikipedia, however I believe it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedia administration to address Biruitorul's behavior and attitude directly. --JOEYJEOBOND (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Mr Bond (I will address you assuming this is your own account), are you aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy? Dahn (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Dahn I am aware of Wikipedia's COI. I have visited your talk page and recognize your intimate connection to User:Biruitorul. N.B. This is not about myself, nor about family, or friends. It is about a historical institution called The Magic Castle, which in essence is a sanctity for professional magicians, and User:Biruitorul's disparaging remarks, including and especially, (“ . . . never mind the “Magic Castle" . . .”.) which also insinuates that a diploma from this institution is of little value; an ignorant remark certainly when talking about the Carnegie Hall of magicians, or, what the Screen Actor’s Guild is to professional actors. Biruitorul is the one sitting center stage, and his demeaning remarks require investigation into his behavior as an 'editor' for the prominent and world-wide influential encyclopedia that is Wikipedia.
        
        Biruitorul needs to address the issue of ill-informed and disparaging comments made by him about The Magic Castle. Biruitorul has made a critical error. He is turning a blind eye to the categorical deliberation and key issue at hand, which is arguably the most respected magic institution. Now, if that is not clear enough, I will proceed toward the platform of edification on this singular topic of The Magic Castle. My announcement is in dedication to all those who have been party to Biruitorul’s patent denigration pertaining to the notability of the Magic Castle, and reception of the Academy of Magical Arts diploma. You will discover the intent and purpose of my focalized point of the subject under discussion, with assistance of what is proffered below. And so, here are various points that will provide Biruitorul with valuable insight:
        
        Almost every legend who performed at the Magic Castle": Houdini, Blackstone, and Dai Vernon, the man known as "The Professor” who is considered one of the greatest sleight-of-hand artists who ever lived and who, in 1919, had a legendary run-in with Houdini. These are but a few who have honored the hallowed halls of this legendary venue. To become a ‘Magician Member’ is difficult, considering going through the test of performing for a panel of judges made up of essentially a who’s who in the world of magic.
        
        The Magic Castle opened its doors on January 2, 1963 as the home of the Academy of Magical Arts, Inc. The Magic Castle has continued to be a beloved celebrity hangout since it's inauguration. In the 1960s, hollywood legend Cary Grant, who first suggested a no-photo policy, used to welcome members at the door. Johnny Carson performed tricks there in the 1970s, and even donated a backdrop from The Tonight Show, which still sits behind one of the bars. Steve Martin has performed there too, as hasJason Alexander from Seinfeld. Other famous members include Jimmy Kimmel, Nicolas Cage, Dave Navarro, and Shia LeBeouf. Ryan Gosling has been known to drop in on occasion. When Katy Perry rented out the entire place for her costume-themed birthday party, the guest list included Skrillex, John Mayer, Ellie Goulding, and Kristen Stewart. Johnny Depp is a regular. He always requests one specific close-up magician for a private set in the Houdini Séance Room, displaying Houdini’s own walnut magic wand, handcuffs, and straitjacket.
        
        Biruitorul --- own up to your blunder regarding your demeaning, ignorant and inflammatory remarks about The Magic Castle, an American hallmark and the most prestigious institution in its specialized field. Cease from perpetuating your misplaced and off-topic banter on the nomination for an article on me, Joey Bond, in Wikipedia. You are eternalizing a war-zone by redundant commentary.
        
        Having said that, I find that your "contribution" is misplaced and is an off-topic banter on the nomination of the article on me, Joey Bond, in Wikipedia. I know that your username Biruitorul means Victorious; however winning has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. JOEYJEOBOND (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm glad you brought up the Beatles, because this highlights the article's fatal shortcomings. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of top-notch sources about the Beatles - books, articles, and so forth. These may not cover every single aspect of the Beatles, in which case it may be appropriate to turn to a more marginal source like a press release. Well, in the case of "Joey Bond", everything is marginalia, everything you've brought to the table is biographical ephemera. There isn't a single objective source that discusses him in any measurable depth. A press release, a few search results and a handful of other scraps: under no reasonable interpretation of WP:BASIC do these add up to "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The level of coverage simply does not justify an article.
    - And you know what else doesn't justify an article? The man's achievements. Working as a magician doesn't by itself make you worthy of an encyclopedia article. Neither does publishing a DVD or a book, or even hosting a television series - for which claim we don't even have a citation, and which we can therefore disregard. Sure, he's had, I suppose, an interesting career, but that's not the standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is, in entertainers' case, "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.... a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following.... unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" - and all backed up by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The standards are reasonably high, and there just isn't any indication the subject meets them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears sufficiently notable. I would suggest, moreover, that adding scads of "cn" tags makes the tagger appear foolish more often than not in such a case as this. The gold standard I often use is the NYT [54] (including "Things You Didn't Want to Know: I like to think that practicing my tai chi is my apple a day, Mr. Bond confides.") Collect (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While being covered by the NYT is often indicative of notability, not every single person mentioned by that newspaper in its 164-year history is notable. Depth of coverage matters, and the coverage here is simply not quotable in an encyclopedic biography. (If you think I'm wrong, I would be interested in seeing how you manage to quote this piece.)
- As for the cn tags: they are fairly appropriate in number, and they serve to underscore that not only is the cited material in the article of atrocious quality, consisting as it does of scraps of biographical ephemera, but that in fact much of the text isn't supported by any kind of source, reliable or not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Biruitorul Thank you again for your comments which I do appreciate. Let's agree to disagree and let some wise admin decide our differences without further disrupting scarce editorial resources. Meanwhile, I don't like to, but I'm afraid I have to mention that today you inserted 11 CNs in one fell swoop with one general explanation; that they are all unreliable and improperly cited is implausible. You added a {{cn}} to the Wikilink Mentalist (which is a mistake I imagine).
  - You have mentioned your interpretation of the criteria you believe in for notability/verifiability several times, so I do understand your point of view. Again, I respectfully disagree on certain aspects of your interpretation of verifiable accuracy and citing reliable sources. My understanding of these important principles as pertaining to the article in question, is that, in certain instances, they have simply been met here, some good, others to be improved upon. And other criteria has also been met following WP:Policy. In my view, seen from a broader perspective, verifiable accuracy and reliable sources should also consider Creative professionals, WP:Alternatives to deletion (ATD) which is WP:Policy, WP:Before and actually quite a few others, Wikipedia:No firm rules notwithstanding.
  - FYI, I am culling Canadian and US newspaper interviews with Mr. Bond so many more sources will be forthcoming ...hard to catch one's breath these days—I should take up Bond's Tai Chi lessons... Merci pour votre patience! Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, forgot one. Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time, to wit: "Just don't argue that a change should be made or prevented just because the rule says so, because that's not the nature of rules. Because the rule says so is not a valid argument for doing something. Focus on improvements, not rules." --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am for now AGFing on that "more sources to follow" claim, although everything in the article as it is now screams "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". As we stand, no sufficient coverage of this subject in independent outlets (a requirement, not an option) was provided, much of the info is unsourced (but is of the kind that would be accessible to Mr. Bond and other people doing his PR), and the sources that were cited can only stay if they can be said to round a text that is otherwise backed by secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). And no, a supposed one-time homage by Obama doesn't establish notability; neither does a passing mention in a newspaper of record. Instead of wasting the community's time with canvassing and echo-chamber debates such as the above, you could provide in the article itself the sources that establish why Mr. Bond is worth an encyclopedic entry, not just how oh-so-cool he is. As for the toxic insinuations against Biruitorul: he is doing the commendable job of acting as a filter for articles that may not meet wikipedia requirements, and he should't have to stand for this nonsense. If you wonder why and how he got to this pretty article of yours, it is probably the same way I did: by checking out the new articles on Romanian topics, filtered by the community bots. Dahn (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times gave this PBS series a category Rating 10 ; how is this not notable? ...good faith intended. ...working hard to improve the article. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that were true, it might make the series notable, not necessarily the series creator. But get this: it is not true. Reading the NYT source which is also the source for the citation in the article, we note that the NYT was rating three fitness shows in one article. Mr Bond's Tai Chi Interwave is the last one on that list; it does not "get a Rating 10", but the following:
    "Degree of Fun and Inspiration: Rating 2. Tai chi is a relaxing way to achieve fitness, but this show is a bit too relaxing. Degree of Diffculty [sic]: Rating 2, unless you count keeping a straight face. Likelihood of Sticking to This Program: Rating 10, if you seek serenity and control over your physical being; 0, if you're the kind of (shallow, frivolous, narcissistic) person who seeks nothing more than thin thighs in 30 days."
    So you see, it is not only a passing mention from 1996. It is a passing mention to ridicule Mr Bond. As we speak, the article you are "improving" is not just poorly sourced and evidently puffy, it is misleading. As stated, I am still AGFing -- but not for long, unless things change in some significant way. Dahn (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello Dahn. Perhaps the New York Times quote could be a little clearer. Thus, I corrected the text to quote the New York Times text verbatim, to wit: "Likelihood of Sticking to This Program: Rating 10, if you seek serenity and control over your physical being". It perhaps flows less well than "In 1996, Andrea Higbie of The New York Times gave a rating of 10 for ones' likelihood of sticking to this Program, 'if you seek serenity and control over your physical being'." I prefer the later, but the verbatim transcipt is adequate I imagine, and unobjectionable I would think. Your thoughts? Merci pour ce bon conseil. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, actually it is quite objectionable. The NYT piece is about videos for "getting in shape". It gave him a rating of 10 for something that has nothing to do with fitness, and a zero rating for something that the product was advertising -- namely, to keep one fit. In other words, it said: "look, you're quite good at that inner peace thing, but people should not buy your video if they actually want fitness results". It basically spells it out for you: if you want to have muscular thighs in 30 days, don't bother with Mr Bond. It clearly mocks him throughout, and it also clearly gives him failing grades in other criteria considered by the author. So either quote the piece in full, and show what the author meant, or let it float away as something that can only embarrass the subject of the article. And I will let reviewers of this debate assess what it means for the topic that its only mention in mainstream media we have so far is a brief fragment of mockery. Dahn (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello everyone! There have now been 77 edits completed in the last 7 days. I took the time and pleasure to do 26 edits today including translation, from my native French, of several Canadian newspapers. I believe the results have been fruitful on resolving issues of 'citation needed' using good sources; other progress has been made as well. Kindly pass by Joey Bond and share you thoughts for improvement, if you wish. Many thanks! Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have added is mostly (entirely?) from interviews in local alternative newspapers and blogs, and only covers some of the citations needed relating to Mr Bond's life. Such sources would be marginally acceptable were Bond's career otherwise noted and notable in more relevant secondary sources -- the "multiple and reputable ones" repeatedly mentioned above. Dahn (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...Dahn ...many more good sources will be forthcoming, including several from major newspapers, such as La Presse, Canada's largest French language paper and the legendary Montreal Gazette, founded in 1778. Voir magazine (from last night's harvest) is an iconic, extremely well respected Québec magazine, similar to Mahattan's Village Voice in context; it's often quoted and used for Québec cultural scene references in the French Huffington Post and elsewhere. Virus magazine was, as you say, an alternative newspaper ...had some family emergency—small health problems today to attend to but tomorrow I can forge ahead; lots coming... Voila pour l'instant. Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonsense. Voir is also an alternative newspaper, as our entry on it clearly states. In a google search, La Presse and Montreal Gazette appear to have absolutely no entry on Joey Bond. Dahn (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - discernment and judgement, not nonsense at all. ...Montreal Gazette did several articles and interviews with Bond before 1990; Montreal Daily News in the late eighties. I never thought of our beloved Voir magazine as alternative, but... La Presse has good stuff on Joey Bond; you have to subscribe on the French subscription page ("abonnement"). ...nothing concealed that will not be revealed ...as above, so below, as within, so without... --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:LavaBaron Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically instructs that a topic can also be considered notable, even failing the GNG --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean this?: "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Dahn (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't seem to be enough debating grounded in policy. Too many keep votes look like WP:ILIKEIT while some deletes look like WP:JNN. Relisting to get a better consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to follow this discussion, but I found little that dealt with his notability. I don't see the coverage to show he's a notable entertainer, either as a magician or TV personality. I also don't think he meets the notability criteria for either authors or martial artists. The biggest problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be much significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. I see a lot of promotional material and passing mentions or links to his show, but none of that shows he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On notability and GNG grounds. I was sure he did not meet either WP:GNG or the WP:MANOTE for martial artists. I was less sure about WP:ENTERTAINER but am now convinced the subject doesn't.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The adequate mentions in reliable sources that were being advertised above never materialized, and probably don't exist. Does not meet GNG or any notability guideline in any relevant field. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG & per Collect. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated by User:Ritchie333 in his reason for Relisting comment, I am following his recommendation of adhering to debate grounded in Policy. I have also included a section on my Sources, as many policies relate thereto. In general, I will state my reasons why Wikipedia Policy supports the Joey Bond article as being noteworthy, verifiable, neutral, copyright-secured, and with room for expansion. I'll try to show how the Policy has been respected in each instance, that the accuracy of my facts are verifiable and reliable sources have been well-formatted and appropriately cited. The sources used thus far include mainstream newspapers (New York Times, Montreal Gazette, La Presse, etc), alternative papers, online citations, knowledge gleaned from posters, record jackets, DVD covers, PBS Press releases (including statements from PBS Vice-President), and others.

--SOURCES: (When needed, all sources have been translated by me, from my native French to my native English)

The following citation sources presently exist in the article:

Virus Montreal, Voir magazine, Janson Media Pressroom (online), Google Books, with ISBN references, The Tampa Tribune, The New York Times, Libraries throughout North America carrying the 8-year PBS Joey Bond video series DVD, Highbeam online database research,Online commentary by Gustavo Sagastume (Vice President of PBS), Mr. Bond's album jackets, posters, book covers...

The following citation sources will appear within the next 2 or 3 days:

(Translation will be rendered, from my native French into my native English, of several Canadian newspapers). Montreal Gazette, founded 1778, who did several articles and interviews with Bond, Montreal Daily News, La Presse (Canadian newspaper), North America's largest French language paper, Le Devoir, and many others as time permits.

--POLICY:

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. The section below mentions some of the sources I culled, which I believe meet Wikipedia's important standards of Verifiabilty as outlined in WP:Verifiability and WP:What counts as a reliable source. Thus, you will find I have used Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers as so on as prescribed.

- As per WP:BASIC. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I believe this condition and all its subsections and ramifications have has been satisfied based on the following information...

- As per WP:Martial arts/Notability. Again, reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Bond is verifiably known for his nationally syndicated, PBS series, entitled Tai Chi Innerwave with Joey Bond, on the PBS Network from 1994-2002; it is distributed to all markets worldwide (television, DVD, VOD, non-theatric, and new media). This shows a degree of notability, visibility and celebrity few martial artists have achieved, and make the article notable in the Martial arts category as well.

- As per WP:Neutral point of view. As required, I have carefully and critically analyzed a variety of reliable sources and attempted to convey the gleaned information fairly, proportionately, without editorial bias. I tried to describe disputes, but not engage in them. I believe this policy has been fulfilled in the article in question.

- Note WP:Before nominating: checks and alternatives. I believe this Policy HAS NOT been fulfilled. Especially as concerns:

--Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted; or "lend a hand instead of complaining"

--Other checks - a great many

--Read and understand these policies and guidelines - specifically, WP:Reasons for deletion, such as Copyright violations, Vandalism, unsuitable content, none of which have been dealt with, but should have been before nomination for deletion. So this condition has not been satisfied.

- As per WP:Notability. The subject of the article has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, such as a nationally syndicated PBS television series running 8 consecutive years. This is not outside the scope of Wikipedia. It contains reliable independent sources to gauge this attention; the topic should have its own article; in fact, it is quite overdue!

- As per Wikipedia:Five_pillars. As well, I have carefully respected WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:What Wikipedia is not, and WP:Biographies of living persons. I believe all these policies have been followed as far as is humanly possible within the small amount of time given us on this our mortal orb.

- As per WP:Self-published sources have been avoided and are not present in the article, as required. Even though self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, I have used no personal web pages, nor claims from self-proclaimed expert (usually referred to facetiously as a legend in one's own mind).

- As per No original research, in particular Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. My research is based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. My secondary sources provide my own thinking based on primary sources. Because it is easy to misuse them, I have exercised care in my primary sources; they have been reputably published and, according to policy, may be used in Wikipedia. This policy has been thoroughly respected.

Finally, I believe that all WP:Policies and guidelines have been respected. I have chosen a traditionalist, more conventional approach to respecting Wikipedia Policy. Several other WP policies exist which represent alternative yet permissible Wikipedia viewpoints, such as No firm rules, and You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_Can%27t_Follow_All_The_Rules,_All_The_Time) (N.B. WP broken link due to %27 interpolation). My own use of Policy is, by design, based on the most basic tenets of Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

I have tried to make my comments here logical and reasonable. I have of course avoided any basis of revenge or hostility, which are not at all in my nature. A final policy is particularly important to me: Assume good faith. Thank you. In view of the large area which needed discussion, I hope that reading my comments has not been onerous or disruptive; it needed to be said. If need be, I will be happy to elaborate further and provide more qualitative and quantitative content.

PS. In view of the discussion above, a remark about the New York Times review might prove useful. Our highest aspirations are health and serenity. The New York Times says that the Joey Bond PBS achieves this and has given the highest rating in this category, stating "Rating 10, if you seek serenity and control over your physical being". These objectives are obviously much of the purpose of the series; thus the NYT article has understood, at least in part, and is noteworthy. It also said that if you are looking for a quick weight loss program and "...nothing more than thin thighs in 30 days", than the rating is zero, which is also appropriate; Tai Chi does not pretend to be about weight loss. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that WP:GNG has been passed through the sources given as per Collect and Robert McClennon.That a source is in some part critical of the subject is good as that demonstrates its independence.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope the closing admin remembers to note the canvassing above, the suspicious entrenchment of very focused recent accounts, and the complete lack of independent RSes as required by wikipedia. The NYT piece, as I have shown, is misquoted -- it is casual mention and a bad review, ridiculing Mr Bond -- and theother sources, though repeatedly invoked and promised, are not to be found in the article (the editor who invokes them has wasted days upon days of writing gibberish here, on this page, but has so far failed to provide an actual citation from said RSes). This discussion, in the absence of any content and changes to the article that would address the relevant concerns, is an outrageous waste of our time, lawyering around what looks like an attempt to promote Mr Bond at all cost. Dahn (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dahn You have left no less than NINE comments in this discussion so far! Your own present talk page shows 38 communications between you and Biruitorul, the author of this AfD. And yet everyone else is wasting time, colluding, lawyering, promoting...now that's gibberish...

Contrary to your assertion about 'no changes addressing the concerns', over 100 edits are shown in the article's history since this discussion began, so 100 edits all ignore the issues? --Jbeaton5 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are referring to me I have not been canvassed or canvassing, and have made 2000 edits .Also a number of the contributors to this discussion on both sides of the argument are very experienced like yourself. .Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that WP:GNG has been passed through the sources given as per Robert McClennon, Collect, Natalie Desautels, Corinne and Checkingfax.

I have taken time to carefully read over the Joey Bond article and will report my findings in support of my Keep suggestion. I agree with most points made by Natalie.Desautels above because, in general, the subject proves to be noteworthy, sources are verifiable, and the author's point of view is neutral. The mainstream newspapers cited seem to be all in order and well-cited, and primary sources are used for facts only, as recommended by No original research, in particular Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Information has been reported properly in line with a WP:Neutral point of view and the article shows no editorial bias. Indeed, the information comes from a variety of reliable sources and is presented carefully and fairly.

I have no problem at all with the WP:Notability. Mr. Bond's PBS television series became nationally syndicated and ran for 8 consecutive years, giving Mr. Bond significant attention by the world at large, his other accomplishments notwithstanding. The article contains independent sources proving this, and apparently more sources are in the works. Being a proven diplomed member of Houdini's legendary hangout, Hollywood's Magic Castle, of course adds to the notability earned by the PBS series, among other accomplishments.

Going through the list of 14 WP:Reasons for deletion, I found no applicable ruling and no logical reason to consider deletion of this article.

I also made my way through the 9 sections of WP:What Wikipedia is not, and could not find any policies that suggest this article is not fit for publication in Wikipedia. Based on my finding of noteworthiness, reliability of sources that are verifiable and the author's neutral point, I conclude that Mr. Bond should have his own Wikipedia article. Jbeaton5 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Everyone, I had a chance to do about 35 more edits, bringing the total to 478 edits by 10 editors, in order to radically improve the Joey Bond article. So, I expanded, referenced, tweaked and refined (I hope) the following sections as well as the lead:

-‘Early studies and teaching’ using source material and references from mainstream newspaper The Montreal Gazette

-‘Magician and writer’ using source material and references from National radio CBC/Radio-Canada 'Le Téléjournal"

-'Tai Chi Innerwave with Joey Bond (PBS series)' section using source material and references from alternative paper Voir magazine and mainstream newspaper La Presse (Canadian newspaper) . Hope it pleases. best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional. Wee I to encounter this without the benefit of the arguments above, I would probably have tagged it as G11. The addition of photographs of diplomas and similar wildly inappropriate material shows the intent, and the result is unacceptable. The addition of album covers of multiple albums is similarly inappropriate, free license or not. Release under a free license, is a very good thing to do for necessary photographs of important subjects, but in this case just makes them available for promotion. Advertising is of course is a permitted use of material with a free license, but not use on WP. Whether an adequate article could be written I do not know, but it acertainly would need to be started over, preferably in draft space. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Even clear promotionalism no matter how great the notability is a reason for deletion. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate your input and have deleted images which may be construed as promotional, albeit unintentionally so—to wit; CD cover and insert, photograph, PBS series VHS cover, diploma certification, magic show poster, and book cover. ... references were adjusted as needed. Feel free to leave suggestions for improvement on my talk page, if you wish. Many thanks; much appreciated. Merci. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seshan Rammohan[edit]

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

A search for references brought up this article which quotes Rammohan on a local crime along with user-generated content websites along with business directories. The article creator, User:CindyBlankenship created a number of biographies for Indian executives who were part of TIE during August 9-20, 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable, none of has better convincing signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. Another routine executive bio. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Gaitonde[edit]

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

Searches bring up this Wikipedia page along with Linked In, YouTube, Linked In and other directories. The article creator, User:CindyBlankenship created a number of biographies for Indian executives during August 9-20, 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also because none of this has the imaginably convincing signs of a better applicable notable article. Still a questionable article, SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. Routine executive bio. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Gupta[edit]

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

The references don't really support this article. Although the company's website indicates that Pradeep Gupta is an executive with Cyber Media, I don't believe he meets Wikipedia's standard for notability for business people. The article creator, User:CindyBlankenship created a number of biographies for Indian executives during August 9-20, 2010. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this has the better applicably notability for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. Routine executive bio. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈^(conjugate) 08:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Weinstein[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:Notability. College history professor who also served in World War II with publishing credits. References are the subject's obituary and death notice. This alone is not enough to justify an article. O.R.^Comms 07:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:OberRanks, suggest you withdraw this, we all make mistakes, edit too fast, whatever. Granted , the page does need expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment obituary in the nytimes = notability. why are you substituting your vast knowledge, for that of a reliable source? user:DGG?? Duckduckstop (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - NYTimes obit: Influential Historian on the Renaissance. That's all we need to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. He's not the most notable chap on the planet, certainly - but what we do have indicates enough notability to keep the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per New York Times RS I think WP:GNG has been passedAtlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following Philo[edit]

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

Book on Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and early Christianity written by P.J. Gott and Logan Licht. Proposed for deletion by User:Reddogsix ("Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK"); this was contested on talk page by the article's creator ("I think the page for this book should [not] be deleted because the book is quoted in other Wiki articles (such as Caenis and that for the Essenes) and overall, it's a very good and very well-researched book, that will have a couple of follow-ups."). (Note that a single-purpose account has added references to the authors' works to these articles, and I am currently removing them.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment

Sorry if I'm wrong for replying in here:

First, thank you for answering and thank you for moving it to this debate section! Also, sorry about the Freudian slip, I must have been a bit sleepy.

The book references in other articles were written about a month before I wrote that article so I thought it'd be oK to include the articles in the "see also" section! Sorry if I made a mistake in that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawanyh432 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, only published a month ago, no sales figures, fails WP:NOTBOOK, WP:Too soon and obvious undeclared COI editing including SPAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isnt even in world cat. It seems not to have been published by any recognized publisher. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are not even any minimal signs a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God of Cat Food[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 06:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources to substantiate notability. When I searched for "God of Cat Food" on google, I only got ten hits; there were no secondary sources that said anything meaningful about the game. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of the Ludum Dare challenge and wasn't even a winner of that challenge. Matt294069 is coming 00:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jussi Näppilä[edit]

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

Per the request of the subject here Meatsgains (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline notability per WP:BIO so defer to subject's wish to delete. ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a quick search, I couldn't find enough reliable sources to make this article much more than a stub. Also, per ukexpat. Sperril (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Moosa Khan[edit]

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

This article has been unreferenced since its creation almost nine years ago. I was unable to find any substantive coverage of this person, and he is not mentioned in the All India Muslim League article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's nothing for even minimal signs of minimal notability, sourcing and acceptability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage in independent sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hockerill Anglo-European College. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 08:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hockerill Boarding School[edit]

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

Duplicate article; an article by the name Hockerill Anglo-European College exists. Ninney (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, Hockerill Anglo-European College, it is mentioned, Reopened as Hockerill School in 1980 & known as Hockerill Anglo-European College in 1998. Nowhere, is the name Hockerill Boarding School used but if it is known by that name then REDIRECT would be the best option. - Ninney (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hockerill Anglo-European College. This name is apparently the former name of the college, so it's reasonable that someone might search for the "Boarding School" name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Inappropriate nomination. It's notable but should be merged with the main page. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2015[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article, relying exclusively on primary and affiliated sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage shown, about the most recent iteration of a lower-tier beauty pageant — and in addition, the article was recently overwritten with a commentary insisting that for some unspecified reason it got cancelled and didn't actually happen at all. If that's true, then it definitely needs to be deleted. And even if it's not, then it still needs to be deleted if it can't be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this organization is not notable, I've looked at this before. Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG, although on the slightly weaker side. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Viet Nam to host Miss Tourism International". VietNam News. Retrieved 3 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Vietnam to host Miss Tourism International 2015". Thanh Nien Daily. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
^ "60 finalis Miss Tourism International 2015 kunjungi Jakel Mall". Utusan Online. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
^ "Proud day for the Philippines". The Star. Retrieved 3 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Malacca's fresh approach to curb littering". The Rakyat Post. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
^ "Preparations for Miss Tourism International". Retrieved 3 February 2016.

- Delete. the actual sources seem to be PR coverage of a PR project. I wonder even about the justification of the main article on the series of competitions. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also was somewhat neutral about the article but I believe it's simply not overwhelmingly convincing enough and also for its applicable notability, delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as promo for a minor pageant. Interesting too is that on Miss Tourism International it is claimed that the pageant was postponed. The Banner talk 10:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical species erasure theory[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:FRINGE theory, created by a writer without a Wikipedia article about him and sourced only to his own writings, about cynocephaly. No reliable source coverage discusses this as a thing, as far as I can tell. I'd love to speedy it, but I'm not sure what criterion it fits. It's still a delete no matter what. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROMOTION Mduvekot (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backdropcms[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a CMS. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available, reliable sources. - Mr X 03:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this CMS. Dialectric (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely to better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there were two calls to keep this article, neither put forward a rationale for keeping that is supported by policy. The article is nominated for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. The only acceptable defence to this particlular deletion rationale is to provide reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in depth. Those calling for deletion judged the sources in the article not to meet this criterion and no argument was presented that sources exist that do meet this criterion.

The length of time an article has been on Wikipedia is no defence to deletion. Any article can be deleted no matter how old. For the record, the previously deleted article was at Nat (rapper) with redirects at Natalac and Sheldon Martinez Davis. This has been deleted twice before and I note that the deleting admin felt it necessary to salt the page. It appears that the article was only created at this title because the original title is protected. This is not the right way to proceed; the correct thing to do is to request unprotection of the page. For that reason I am going to salt this title also.

The argument that the page falls outside the unsourced BLP deadline date is inapplicable. It is arguable that it does indeed fall outside this deadline because it is based on the previous article (and I will be asking user:Euryalus why the history was not preserved) but this only prevents deletion under the BLP Prod process. This current debate is a full deletion debate and overrides that process.

The bottom line is that although references have been added to the article, and some of them may be reliable, none of them were claimed to have the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. SpinningSpark 11:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis[edit]

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

Artist from Natalac Records which is also up for deletion. There are a few sources, but nothing reliable and nothing in-depth. Fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These Wikipedia Pages since previously has been on for 10 years, but after 10 years later demoted to User Draft because of improper format and lack of references" Now some references have been added.... I believe as a artist grows so do their enemies... Yameka (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for the nomination. Well, I only improved the page and also added some references.

Actually, the Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis page was created long before March 18, 2010, (about 10 years ago).

Now this wikipedia policy says: Unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs) created after March 18, 2010, can be proposed for deletion using a special proposed deletion process. Refer to these 2 links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

So, it means, the Natalac Sheldon Martinez Davis shouldn't be deleted since it was created before March 18, 2010.

Aside from that, I've improved the page and added some references. Let other editors make their inputsBenleg4000 (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the two keep !votes above. As discussion regarding deletion are based on consensus and not vote count, I am hoping that you can help me see the rational behind your votes. There is a process to propose deletion; however, there is also this process which I felt best so that we can get a consensus on the issue. Also, there is no guideline that stating pages created before or after a certain date must be kept/deleted based on their date of creation. The reason for recommending this - and the others - for deletion is that there are no reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Can you provide some in depth sources that cover the subject? There is a possibility that I missed them as I do make mistakes. I would be happy to look at these and withdraw the nomination if they are reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment I only used the Search Engine you provided for Reliable sources "High Beam" cause it was offered and I found that Natalac is the Trademarked Word owner By Sheldon Davis Ty for the High Beam Search engine - https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3655765341.html

I went Further to look through other government sites looking for reliable resource info on Corporation Searches - and Found Natalac Records and Natalac Express in Good Standings - http://www.sos.sc.gov/index.asp?n=18&p=4&s=18&corporateid=704935 Express, http://www.sos.sc.gov/index.asp?n=18&p=4&s=18&corporateid=704934 Records these should cover Natalac, Natalac Records and Natalac Express as reliable Resources Yameka (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Yameka. These are sources but I do not feel they are reliable. Of course, that is just my opinion. Owning a trademark would not necessarily make that person notable. Also, High Beam is an archive database, not a reliable source in itself. Anything found on High Beam would need to be judged based on the original publication from where it was taken. If you look at WP:RS you will get a better understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. I know there is a lot of information at that link, but sources that meet that guideline are what will be needed for me to withdraw the nomination. Hope you understand. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome::: Ok, I only used the search engine you provided as Reliable and wrote what i found as Sheldon Davis owning the Trademark on Natalac i really had no idea. So heres the original Publication from United States Patent and Trademark Office http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86372570&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch The other two Links I provided were Government source Information That Proves ownership of the Mark Natalac and his Trucking and Record Businesses. I only thought Reliable - consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted. My apologies but After Reading WP:RS I see Natalac has Bio publications in MTV, and 24 hour Hip Hop article pictured with Styles P which is noted as references maybe you may have missed, That is a Highly regarded Magazine in hip hop culture I think that is a Notable Article / Magazine publication Just asking you may have missed. If Not My apologies, I'll wait for others Editors to weigh in. While i look at other Hip Hop Artists References and Articles on Wikipedia to further educate my self on Reliable and in-depth information. Yameka (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator -- this artist doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for musicians. I also note that the sentence in the text that asserts a "radio hit" for the subject is sourced to a web page that simply gives the lyrics to the song. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best actually and draft & userfy instead if needed, not enough for the convincing applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 10:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Belkin[edit]

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

I would of done a blp prod, but technically there is a ref-anyway non notable actress that is also a autobio. Wgolf (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR with basically one notable role, and WP:GNG as references save one are passing mentions with no details. One is a fluff piece interview in a dubious source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-possible sockpuppetry going on in the article-check the only 2 major contributors and there history. Wgolf (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely just forgot to log in, obviously not familiar with wiki. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one is a IP-the article creator has the same name as the girl who the article is about-and the major contributor is another new person. Wgolf (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that, didn't look far enough back in history. Looks like using multiple accounts in attempt to avoid scrutiny that the article is likely an autobiography. Of course an account named after an actress could just be a fan... Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This article needs improvements. Let's contribute to it and improve the article AnGeloAnoJan (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 20:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 20:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TOOSOON IMHO, Plus she fails NACTOR & GNG anyway, Better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈^(conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadiya Hussain[edit]

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

does not meet notability requirements Knights365 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom though she is conceivably a notable cook, which doesn't sound very notable overall. Curro2 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree vehemently with deletion! Hussain won the The Great British Bake Off (series 6), which is a HUGELY popular show in England this past year -- to the point where she was so popular the Prime Minister David Cameron publicly weighed in to say he was supporting her in the competition. I think the nomination is a big mistake and reflects a possible bias towards American popular culture. Hussain is also notable because she is an observant Muslim who competed in a traditional British baking competition, wore a head scarf throughout, and made legendarily unflappable cook Mary Berry cry on public television. She is VERY notable and deserves an entry. Because of her popularity, she was the subject of anti-Muslim death threats. I could add more citations if that would be helpful. -- BrillLyle (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. Lots of sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to being a wildly popular contestant on a wildly popular show, her appearance and post-show work has been noted as impacting cultural stereotypes about the Muslim community - I've just added in refs to the page indicating as much. The page has plenty of sources and is an important contribution to diversifying content about non-White women. Deleting it would be a mistake. Dnllnd (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multicultural icon and all-round nice person. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If her only notability were winning a reality show, this should be merged into the article about the show. But her role as a columnist for a notable publication should qualify her for a separate BLP. Netrogeractor (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her only notability is for winning a reality show, she should be merged into the article about the show. Inclusion will surely mean that all GBBO and reality TV winners are worthy of inclusion. (Knights365 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knights365 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't predict the future. And we don't know if future winners (if there are any) will get their own column in The Sunday Times, make many appearances on wholly unrelated TV shows, and secure their own book-publishing deals, do we? Have you actually read the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the proposer and you're voting "weak delete"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Knights365: Your nomination itself implies a recommendation to delete. Per WP:AFDLIST "to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations". Accordingly I've removed the bolded "delete" from the comment above, with the rest of the comment intact (nominators can certainly voice their opinions/arguments throughout the nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator started this deletion request as a result of the CSD G4 deletion of their article Jo Wheatley (which was a recreation of the article deleted here). It appears to be a bit of a "tit-for-tat" nomination from an editor with a possible conflict of interest. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing satisfies WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The article's already been speedy deleted under wp:G3. (non-admin closure) Neonchameleon (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short Love Story[edit]

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

This page is just a story that someone decided to "publish" on Wikipedia. I thought this would qualify for Speedy Deletion but i didn't find any criteria that could apply. WikiWisePowder (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ~~WP:U5 ("Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host")~~ WP:G6 (unambiguously created in error). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: Can this be used since the page is in article space? WP:U5 is for user space pages. WikiWisePowder (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWisePowder: My mistake ... it's been a long day and my mind is playing tricks on me. Maybe this qualifies for speedy via WP:G6 (unambiguously created in error)? I've always said there needs to be a speedy deletion category for pages that are clearly not intended to be encyclopedia articles so that we don't have to pigeonhole these pages into other speedy deletion categories. In any event, WP:NOTWEBHOST should mandate deletion if speedy doesn't work. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like it's already been tagged per WP:G3 (vandalism). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

}}

[1] "How did potato filling become a local holiday tradition?". Reading Eagle. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2] "Potato filling: Potato filling stars at Pennsylvania Dutch Thanksgivings". The Morning Call.

[3] "Recipes: Amish Potato Filling". The Seattle Times.

[4] "Hearty Potato Stuffing Tradition among Pennsylvania Dutch". The Lewiston Daily Sun.

[5] "Top chef visits Lancaster County, adds gluten-free potato filling to latest cookbook". LNP.

[6] Gluten-Free Girl American Classics Reinvented. p. 156.

[7] Good Home Cooking Across the U. S. A. p. 84. (subscription required)

[8] Yahoo! Finance

[9] New York (magazine)

[10] New York Daily News

[11] The New York Observer

[12] Vanity Fair

[13] "Studio Visit: Mathew Cerletty | Whitney Museum of American Art". whitney.org. Retrieved 21 January 2016.

[14] Johnson, Ken (29 November 2011). "Mathew Cerletty at Algus Greenspon". The New York Times.

[15] Hickey, Walt (7 Jul 2014). "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used To Be". FiveThirtyEight (ESPN Internet Ventures). "To see what the current state of classic rock in the United States looks like, I monitored 25 classic rock radio stations1 operating in 30 of the country’s largest metropolitan areas for a week in June.2 The result, after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists, with a total record of 37,665 coded song plays across the stations." 2,230 song list (WebCite archive)

[rocktracks-16] Whitburn, Joel (2002). Joel Whitburn's Rock Tracks: Mainstream Rock 1981-2002 : Modern Rock, 1988-2002 : Bonus Section! Classic Rock Tracks, 1964-1980. Record Research. ISBN 0898201535.

[Heatley_Hopkinson_2014-17] Heatley, M.; Hopkinson, F. (2014). The Girl in the Song: The Real Stories Behind 50 Rock Classics. EBL-Schweitzer. Pavilion Books. ISBN 978-1-909396-88-3. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[18] Leonard, H. (2013). 25 Top Classic Rock Songs. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4803-4059-6.

[Morse_1998-19] Morse, T. (1998). Classic Rock Stories: The Stories Behind the Greatest Songs of All Time. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4299-3750-4.

[Staff_Corporation_2002-20] Staff, Hal Leonard Corporation; Corporation, Hal Leonard Publishing (2002). The Best Classic Rock Songs Ever: 63 Legendary Hits. Best Ever Series. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-634-03648-4.

[Caldwell_2015-21] Caldwell, Christina (September 14, 2015). "10 Classic Rock Songs that Would Still Be Hits Today". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[McPadden_2015-22] McPadden, Mike (July 27, 2015). "Rock's Dirty Mouth Dozen: 13 Classic Songs Allowed To Swear On The Radio". VH1. Retrieved January 25, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)

[23] McPadden, Mike (August 11, 2015). "Decoding 8 Classic Songs With Lyrics That Have Baffled Fans For Decades". VH1 News. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[24] "7 Miley Cyrus Covers Of Classic Rock Songs That The Pop Star Tackled With Aplomb". Bustle. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[25] "Viet Nam to host Miss Tourism International". VietNam News. Retrieved 3 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[26] "Vietnam to host Miss Tourism International 2015". Thanh Nien Daily. Retrieved 3 February 2016.

[27] "60 finalis Miss Tourism International 2015 kunjungi Jakel Mall". Utusan Online. Retrieved 3 February 2016.

[28] "Proud day for the Philippines". The Star. Retrieved 3 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[29] "Malacca's fresh approach to curb littering". The Rakyat Post. Retrieved 3 February 2016.

[30] "Preparations for Miss Tourism International". Retrieved 3 February 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]