Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 January 8 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest living state leaders[edit]

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

A non-encyclopedic topic covering the trivial intersection between once being a leader of some country and living into one's 80's. Lack of sources and lack of RS discussing this topic in depth mean the ranking can not be verified. Even if all the data shown is correct (and we don't know if it is) we don't know who is missing making the assertion that x is the nth longest lived impossible to prove. Even if one argues this should be keep against WP:LISTN the longest living ones are already clearly shown at List_of_longest-living_state_leaders making this page redundant and an additional maintenance hassle. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant in that the Top 16 people on this list are on the other list marked in yellow as living (assuming the lists are in sync). Beyond the top 10 to 16, who actually cares about this trivia? Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders AfD was kept and per the above comments. This is a clearly defined list with inclusion criteria of notable individuals easily meeting WP:SAL. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous arguments. Star Garnet (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reasons as previous users. HeadlessMaster (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and (removed extended personal attack-comment on content not other editors) The list of the oldest living state leaders is a list that was wished from a lot of users for a long time. It was a lot of work to build an Its absolutely useful to keep track with the lives and deaths of state leaders around the world and a plattform to find death dates and keep Wikipedia as a whole up to date and as complete as possible and this in the clearly relevant field of rulers and state leaders worldwide. (Extended personal attack).--Dangermouse600 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has Legacypac the right to delete more than the half of my comment only because he can't face the truth? Currently he vandalizes the governors list. This list was decided to KEEP. Since then he has deleted more than three quarters of the content without consensus. Next step is a new AfD because this little content needs no own article and could be found elsewhere?--Dangermouse600 (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly reasonable to require sources - start with he top 25 on the list please. It is unreasonable to make assertions that someone who lived into the 80s is the oldest anything without any sources. Legacypac (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per previous arguments and as said by Star Garnet it is defined list with inclusion criteria of notable individuals. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or remove rankings. Unless a source is found for the list, it's original research. It's easy to show that Telmo Vargas is 103 years old, but what reliable source says he's the oldest living state leader? It's even harder to show that Walter Scheel is the 10th oldest living state leader. If someone wants to verify the ranking, how should they do so without somehow enumerating and researching every state leader (which itself is a nebulous term)? Pburka (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean, "remove rankings"? Even if we remove the rankings, the article is still going to show their ages and birthdays, as these are objective and verifiable information. And ages and birthdays are comparable and orderable, so it's still going to be possible to order them by age. JIP | Talk 17:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it is not a list of THE oldest state leaders, but rather a list of some old state leaders. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For sure its a list of THE oldest state leaders. Its compiled of every known state leader from various sources. You are free to find someone older. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't engage in OR to discover Trivia. You need RS to tell us these are the oldest state leaders and there are none. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to support the claim that this list include every known state leader? If not, you're effectively admitting that the list is WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 01:01, 11 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Grennan[edit]

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

It is not uncommon for amateur astronomers to discover supernovae and other astronomical events. Mr. Grennan's achievements, while laudable, are not notable per WP:NN./ Astro4686 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can't find anything to indicate that the subject meets the notability requirements. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 8 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Khamanaev[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG based on consistent coverage in Russian and Chechen press. He was a world champion in Sambo, which the Russians are really into. Do a news search below for his name in Russian. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can you provide a link to a good, reliable, independent source (preferably a news story) that shows he was a world champion? I found a claim that he was a world combat sambo champion in 2008 but I also found results from the 2008 event that don't list him as even winning a medal. Until such evidence is presented I vote Delete. Jakejr (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete He's not notable for his MMA and I couldn't find any independent reliable sources to support the sambo world champion claim. If such evidence is provided, you can change my vote to keep.Astudent0 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear it wasn't a Sambo world champion but a varient.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the "Combat Sambo" championships are held concurrently with regular Sambo. Papaursa (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources provided through the foreign language searches above show that he passes WP:GNG. this link seems to indicate that he was a champion at Sambo (admittedly, my computer translation program isn't conclusive, but it appears to show it). Onel5969 TT me 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm currently withholding my vote, but my search (even in Russian) only turned up routine sports reporting about his non-notable MMA career. Like several other editors, I think he's notable if someone can provide reliable independent sources to show his world championship. He clearly fails WP:NMMA and I didn't find significant enough coverage to show he meets WP:GNG, but a world combat sambo title would provide the presumption of notability (at least to me). Papaursa (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could find no reliable sources to show he was a world combat sambo champion and the sources I could find consisted of announcements and results of MMA fights. I saw nothing in the article mentioned by Onel5969 that said he was a world sambo champion and he's not notable as an MMA fighter. Also fails WP:GNG. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability and so far there's a lack of evidence from reliable independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm voting to delete since he doesn't meet WP:GNG and there's no evidence that he meets any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 14 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) –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fateh Singh (shooter)[edit]

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

Delete: notability not satisfied. Stub article whose GNG results are slim and biased. Quis separabit? 23:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think winning a gold medal at the Commonwealth Games probably meets WP:NSPORTS, but don't know enough about potential sources (that may well be in another language) to determine GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:12, 8 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism World 2014[edit]

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

Normally we would redirect this event article to the sponsoring business, given there are no other annual event articles, but the Miss Tourism World article has been deleted 3x already. This is commercial spam essentially. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. Not enough notability for this event to have a standalone article, especially considering the (would-be) parent article has been deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk)
  • Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG, for a standalone article. Onel5969 TT me 13:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't call it spam, really, but not apparently notable. This may be the first time I've seen Instagram used as a source. A bit of coverage of the winner in Japan (Miss Japan was the winner) and then a bunch of blogs and self-links. Fails WP:GNG. I also can't tell if the bit of coverage that there is is coverage for Miss Tourism World, or World Miss Tourism, or Miss World Tourism International, and so on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Blatant spam, Kill it with fire. –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 14 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 per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure). Also, the nominator is an obvious sockpuppet of banned User:The Devil's Advocate.
--PanchoS (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

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

Only one suitable source is used in the article, Playboy Magazine. The rest are Anarcho Capitalists writing their own thoughts and theories. That is unencyclopedic. A new article can be started using reliable, independent third-party sources. The easiest way to purge this article of unsuitable sources is to delete it and start over. EoT State (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— EoT State (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Speedy Keep The nomination is disruptive. There exist any number of discussions of anarcho-capitalism in reliable sources. A famous book - Anarchy, State, and Utopia - was written largely to discredit the position - and that's just one example; there is a whole section on anarcho-capitalism in Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. By writing that, "A new article can be started using reliable, independent third-party sources" the nominator is effectively admitting that the topic is in fact notable, which makes the nomination clearly inappropriate. If he was really acting in good faith, the nominator could have tried to improve sourcing at the article, rather than start a frivolous AfD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't listed any suitable sources yet. I'm not sure you're aware of what suitable RS's are. "Improving sourcing" would entail gutting the article. Would you be ok with that? I presume not, with the hostility you've shown me thus far. EoT State (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to use AfD for a purpose - removing most of the sources in an article - for which it is neither intended nor appropriate, and I'm sure that will be recognized as disruptive. I note that your proposal to gut the article comes immediately after a user was blocked for edit warring to remove very large amounts of content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of your duty to assume good faith? Enough with the hostility and accusations. EoT State (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTSUICIDE. I apologize if my suspicions are incorrect, but at this stage, I'm sure you can understand that they seem reasonable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Contra Anarcho-capitalism"
  2. ^ "Crypto Anarchy".
  3. ^ "Political Ideology Today".
  4. ^ "The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism".
  5. ^ "Alternative Vegan".
  6. ^ "Chaos Theory".
  7. ^ "An American Experiment in AnarchoCapitalism: The -Not So Wild, Wild West"
  8. ^ "Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism".
These are not "reliable, independent third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." Even if they were, the article still relies almost exclusively on sources that do not meet that criteria. If a few of us can get to work removing tons of unsuitable sources and any material that cannot be properly sourced, that could be an alternative to deletion. But it seems clear there are partisans who are going to strongly contest the removal of anything. Making deletion the much easier solution to the problem. Rip the band-aid off. EoT State (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're incorrect. For example, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the source of the first, seventh and eighth references I list above, is quite reliable. North America1000 23:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EoT State, as already pointed out to you, nominating articles for deletion is not an appropriate way to improving sourcing, or to achieve anything similar. You're also ignoring the fact that even if the article's current content were unacceptable for some reason, it would be necessary to preserve its past history, something which deleting the article would prevent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable to just start removing sources and the resulting unsourced content. However it only takes a glance at the edit history to see that partisans like yourself would strongly contest that. This is the path of least resistance. If you showed a willingness to work collaboratively (I.e. not calling my first contribution "nonsense"), this would not have been necessary. EoT State (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BEFORE. I ask again whether you have edited the article before with another account. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again whether you are assuming good faith. EoT State (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion given, subject obviously notable per sources linked by Northamerica1000 above and, well, everywhere. Also, given the recent history of this article, which includes extensive disruptive editing by now-blocked users followed by a nomination for deletion by a brand new user, I'd suggest looking into WP:SPI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My speedy keep is not, by the way, an endorsement of the current version of the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of the state of the article -- I really haven't even bothered to check as Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP -- the Google Scholar results alone above easily establish notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - No reason at all given for deletion, the subject is obviously notable, the sources are clearly notable, and the nomination is clearly not in good faith, given that the person who nominated it created an account almost immediately after another individual's account was blocked for a week for disruptive editing/3RR--which smells an awful lot like Sockpuppetry (which isn't allowed except under certain circumstances). This nomination is simply someone's vendetta and nothing more than a waste of time which could be otherwise spent on better things. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 23:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all sources do not conform to policy. They are not reliable, independent third party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It's frankly shocking you'd claim even the blogs are RS's. It's POV-pushing editors like you who make this path to improving the article necessary. EoT State (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This concept has received significant coverage in philosophical, political, and economic scholarship. There is no doubt this passes WP:GNG comfortably. Any disputes about content within the article should be discussed at its talk page, not at AFD (see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile-on speedy keep. This nomination is not the correct course of action whatever the intentions of the nominator: cleaning up the article is (however difficult that may be perceived to be). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:09, 8 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. North America1000 02:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Seborga[edit]

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

Seborga is a self declared Micronation. It's "history" is basically a self invented rationalization about how it has been a sovereign state in the past. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the whole argumentation the list is based on is WP:OR. No sources for any of the events this list is based on. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where to start. Original research seems like the best (and most charitable) thing to pin on this article. That aside, this is a list of 'rulers' since 954AD, who never actually ruled a place, because claims of micronation status only arose in 1963. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Close to a hoax. The "nation" of Seborga does seem to get enough independent coverage to justify its article. However this "list of rulers" is uncited, argumentative, original research, you name it; it totally fails WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. I suppose a redirect is possible but I do not favor that option, given that the content of this "list" is completely unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Dias[edit]

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

non-notable, Fails WP:NACTOR and references used are not reliable JMHamo (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 7 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  08:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability careers[edit]

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

Reads like an essay with a lot of WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even if an economist at the BLS used the term, doesn't mean it's not a WP:NEO. I'm not seeing the exact term used in multiple reliable sources, even if the concept likely exists. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are academic programs and job & career resources that are developing in this area. Here is one example https://www.onetonline.org/find/quick?s=sustainability+careers The value of this article is that is will provide a first stop for people research this area. Today's additions are moving it along as this kind of article.

  • Delete for now and draft & userfy as the current article looks like a journal report instead of a solid encyclopedia article yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 9 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) –Davey2010Talk 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese in Canada[edit]

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

This page seems to be an essay on cheese in Canada, and not really a topic. The content is a hodgepodge of information, and the page is WP:OR. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
– (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG quite comfortably. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Based upon some spot checking, content in the article is accurate, and simply needs to be better-verified with more secondary sources. Some of the article's content is verified with this source, the Canadian Cheese Directory, which is maintained by the Government of Canada, so the notion that the entire page consists of original research is not qualified. North America1000 22:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Canadian Cheese. 240 pages.
  2. ^ The Definitive Canadian Wine and Cheese Cookbook. 240 pages.
  3. ^ The competitiveness of Canada's cheese manufacturing plants - a benchmarking analysis. 225 pages.
  4. ^ Variety Cheese in Canada. 66 pages.
  5. ^ Compositional Standards for Cheese in Canada. 7 pages.
  6. ^ The Complete Idiot's Guide to Cheeses of the World. pp. 192–. (subscription required)
  7. ^ "I Went to the Oscars of Canadian Cheese". Vice.
  8. ^ "Canadian blue cheese from Ontario wins Best in Show". The Globe and Mail.
  9. ^ "Fayrefield Foods wins Best Canadian Cheese in international competition". CTV News.
  10. ^ "This Canadian cheese named best in the world". The Globe and Mail.
  11. ^ "America, Your Favorite Cheese Is Canadian". Vice.
  • Keep. This definitely passes WP:GNG with plenty of sources to substantiate notability. Also, I don't see any OR in this article -- everything is cited to a reliable source. As for the argument that this is "not really a topic," I think the sources cited above demonstrate otherwise. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG - sources above alone would qualify. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG clearly after the sources listed above by Northamerica1000.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 12 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. Article is found to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Gaignard[edit]

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

Notability Ueutyi (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject is notable and credible. He's founded numerous 7 figure companies and has been written about in LifeHacker and Entrepreneur.com several times, as well as other places. Linealchamp (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now at best but I would consider renominating again later if the article is still questionable. Draft and userfy so delete for now at best as the best I found was only some links at News and browsers, and yes there's considerable coverage currently but I'm not sure if this fully satisfies the notability guidelines for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given long profile in Entrepreneur, Forbes, National Post, etc, page more than meets the basic notability guidelines for a stub. If anything, shorten and remove some language. Dabramsdt (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article: promotional in nature. This is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is considerable coverage of this person, including several profiles, which qualifies them as notable. Regarding promotional nature, if there are any suggestions for making the page less promotional let's discuss. Linealchamp (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibly , though the subject may be unknown to the general public, he seems to be known in his field and is sited in Forbes thus just making it through Wiki rules, but I would like to hear what others say.
baswana89 talk 2:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — baswana89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
information Administrator note - Editor baswana89 began editing at Wikipedia yesterday, heading directly for AfD discussions, which is a peculiar place to start. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note - Editor baswana89 has been blocked as a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rdactyl. Striking their !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Here are three sources already listed in the article:
    1. Kugler, Logan (2015-05-28). "How This Entrepreneur Went From Dead Broke to Mega Influencer in One Year". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2016-01-07. Retrieved 2016-01-07.

      The article notes:

      Jayson Gaignard felt like he’d been sucker punched. The credit card statement just didn’t add up. He was reading a massive list of transactions charged to his online ticket company, Tickets Canada, and he didn’t remember any of them.

      There was a good reason why: He never authorized them. His business partner fled the country and racked up more than $120,000 in tickets on his credit card, selling them under the table and leaving Gaignard holding the bill.

      ...

      In just over a month, Gaignard went from $5 million a year in sales to a defunct company and $250,000 in debt for which he was personally responsible since he’d been using his own credit cards to fund most of the company’s transactions. To further increase the pressure, he was raising a daughter born just four months earlier and preparing to get married in just over a month. “There were so many moving parts, and I felt like I was just spinning out of control,” he recalls.

      ...

      Fast forward three years later and now 30-year-old Gaignard is no longer broke but debt-free and running sold-out MastermindTalks events, an elite, invitation-only summit for entrepreneurs that is designed to connect and amplify the networks of world-class people while also helping founders work on themselves that connect world-class entrepreneurs with invaluable experts. But to say it was easy would be a joke.

    2. Pachner, Joanna (2007-12-27). "A concierge for all seasons: the decline of do-it-yourself, and the rise of do-it-for-me services". National Post. Archived from the original on 2016-01-07. Retrieved 2016-01-07.

      The article notes:

      It’s hard not to giggle when you open the door to find a fully liveried butler — especially when he looks like Jayson Gaignard. The founder of VIP Services Inc., a Toronto personal concierge service, Mr. Gaignard is tall, lanky and only 22, and dressed in his company’s uniform he looks like a teenager trick-or-treating on Halloween. But he’s all business and clearly at my service from first greeting. “I’m Jayson. What can we do for you today?”

      ...

      Mr. Gaignard reports that when he started VIP three years ago, there were just two other companies in the Toronto area; as of late summer, there were almost 40.

    3. Corcoran, John (2015-01-08). "25 Professional Networking Experts to Watch in 2015". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-01-07.

      The article notes:

      Jayson Gaignard

      Gaignard is the founder of Mastermind Talks, an invite-only conference for entrepreneurs which has attracted some big names, from Four-Hour Workweek author Tim Ferriss (also listed below) to WSJ bestselling author James Altucher.

      Gaignard is also the author of the Amazon bestseller Mastermind Dinners: Build Lifelong Relationships by Connecting Experts, Influencers, and Linchpins, which details Gaignard’s process for connecting with influential people you admire by bringing them together in group dinners, a strategy which he credits in part for helping him to recover from a debilitating depression following the failure of a prior business.

      Prior to founding Mastermind Talks, Gaignard founded an online event ticketing company in his native Canada. He also hosts the Mastermind Talks podcast, where he shares stories and interviews entrepreneurs about relationship-building and networking.

      A recent tweet: “You need to surround yourself with people who are batteries and not black holes.”

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

    Cunard (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article presently does not have a promotional tone, and the subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3] (4 paragraphs), [4] (2 paragraphs), [5]. Success (quote: "My friend Jayson Gaignard is a master at this strategy. Instead of sending traditional email introductions to connect people, he records a...") (subscription required). North America1000 23:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources provided above are enough to show they meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:18, 15 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kshetra Mohan Mahanta[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, and coverage doesn't seem significiant enough for WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No coverage that specifically talks about this individual. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, and there isn't enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Rahmer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The article itself says it all: Rahmer was originally hired to play Belle Black on the daytime soap DOOL but was almost immediately replaced by Martha Madison. IMDb indicates no other "significant" roles. Also, article has been unsourced since 2005. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 7 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward L. Keithahn[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found four other books that he wrote, and the main one listed is in over 700 libraries (which is a lot considering that it's on a fairly obscure topic). It does indeed appear that it is a major book on totem poles. Some of his books seem to be based on native tales and have been included in compilations of native american tales. I found many mentions of him and his work in G-books. here here here and others. I am judging that if one had access to a good library on native Americans and especially Eskimos that it would be possible to fill out this stub. Unfortunately, I don't have that access, but I'll add what I can. (It helps to search on his first and last name, without the "L". I found the best stuff with that search.) LaMona (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if all of this suggests he's notable and acceptable. Notifying librarian DGG who will be interested to comment at this subject. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the books are widely read, which make him an authority in his subject, according to WP:PROF. (it doesn't apply only to those with formal academic positions). DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination Thanks to all for your comments, you've proved me wrong Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 12 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Solitaire[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem with redirecting to Solitaire is that it is simply a redirect to Microsoft Solitaire. Not having an article on the generic card game seems odd, but that appears to be the situation. Also, there's a second problem here. The instant article is unsourced and, thus, there's no evidence that this game isn't something that was just made up by the article's creator. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I spoke too soon. There is an article on the generic game, under the title Patience (game). Indeed, that was where the article Solitaire originally redirected, until someone changed it to the computer game. I've changed it back (to a redirect to Patience), but I'm still recommending a 'delete', for the reason stated above. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would say redirect, but I can't find sources supporting that this variation even exists (granted, I didn't look that hard, due to the commonality of the name). At first I was thinking merge, and create a section in the Patience article about variations, but this article is so poorly written, I wouldn't know what to keep and what to throw out. If a source for this variation could be found, wouldn't argue with a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 13:22, 14 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 Solitaire. Never close on one !vote but it does make sense to just redirect it..... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Pair Solitaire[edit]

No Pair Solitaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sammy1339 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:17, 8 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  12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bradley (actor)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations. No significant reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor). Created by sock of banned sockmaster Benjiboi, but too many intervening edits to allow for speedy.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO as only has awards that are scene related and one is an ensemble category. The Pornbio area states "1.Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Seasider91 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned, not yet satisfying the pornography notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Lack significant coverage by reliable sources to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 2010 Grabby Awards wins for: Best Pornstar Website is not scene award, so, meets of the PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:54, 9 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 RHaworth, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that hinder Teaching and Learning in Education[edit]

Issues that hinder Teaching and Learning in Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very clearly a personal essay which was copied to Wikipedia. Would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic (even then, I imagine much of the content would be added to existing articles and not contained in a new one). Nsteffel (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It maybe deleted! It was written for a project that needed to be submitted in a wiki page. Didn't realise it was t this Wikipedia but another page that the university has. Therefore it maybe deleted as it is written from a personal viewpoint... But other than that, I don't really care. So please let the readers feel better by deleting it :)

As the article creator has requested deletion above, I've applied a {{db-author}} tag accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G7. It looks like this is already in progress but I thought I should add my vote for good measure. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:59, 7 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Brock[edit]

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

Non-notable as martial artist or youtube persona. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and there's nothing to support the claims he's notable as a martial artist and/or entertainer. Papaursa (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing to show notability as a martial artist or entertainer. Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per. WP:GNG.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:47, 13 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zdeněk Dokládal[edit]

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

Non notable physician--unless perhaps for his films, which I am unable to determine DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as my searches found nothing outstandingly better with this apparently the best coverage I found. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability clearly not demonstrated against WP:GNG or WP:PROF. The article contains no English language sources and I didn't turn any up. Most of the article is unreferenced anyway. There are 4 sources in Czech which do not appear to give any in-depth coverage of him. He appears to be quoted/mentioned in source 1 and listed/briefly mentioned in sources 2, 3 and 4. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:55, 7 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 McMaster University. (Selective merge) (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbrea Centre for Studies in Aging[edit]

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

academic center within a department of a university. These are not ordinarily notability DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not vandalism, he was actually fixing some poorly written prose. Check the diff again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, thanks. Of course it's not a hoax. It's instantly verifiable by a Google Search, its university website is right there--including quite a few news article mentions in major Canadian outlets, mostly tied to its director, a Gail Elliott. Honest to god, some of the garbage I see at Afd... <shakes head.> Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge per Northamerica1000. It seems to be doing some vital work and its director, Gail Elliott, has been quoted in news stories about aging issues by CBC, National Post, etc. but it does not (yet) seem to have enough independent notability for a separate article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge per Northamerica1000. Not enough coverage for a standalone article, and merging some of the info would definitely fill a void in the target article. Onel5969 TT me 13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as mentioned, perhaps not solidly notable but at best can be mentioned there. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 14 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. North America1000 02:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sor (film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON at best. Doesn't (yet) meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Prodded it and 2nded by CactusWriter; contested by 45.127.136.69 with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:27, 7 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  08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SixAxis[edit]

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

I do not think this company meets the notability guideline for companies. A Google search turned up no reliable, independent sources. The in-flight magazine source, upon further review, doesn't actually talk about SixAxis as a whole, just some of their products. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:23, 7 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 GB fan, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of Creator (Book)[edit]

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

Article for non-notable book created by the author, with the only citation being a link to the publisher's website. The author has also recreated his own page Rahul khismatrao (using different capitalization) that was previously deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Khismatrao. — TAnthonyTalk 17:07, 7 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 GB fan, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G4. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul khismatrao[edit]

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

Recreation of a page (using different capitalization) that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Khismatrao — TAnthonyTalk 17:03, 7 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. Obviously this is going to be a controversial one. There are both good arguments and bad arguments made on both sides of this discussion, as well as some concerns about COI raised. With that said, while there seems to be a numeric total in favour of keeping, there are some good analysis by those on the "delete" side which are not really refuted. It's impossible to fish a consensus out of all of this, and in the absence of a knockout argument from one side or the other a "no consensus" result is the only option. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manitonquat[edit]

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

Insufficient indicia of notability, COI editing, and unsourced BLP. Per previous AfD, Author has one book on Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, and the book may meet NBOOK. Individual fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NAUTHOR. No evidence that he is a member of any Recognized Indian Tribe, nor that his claims as to the Rainbow gatherings are externally verifiable. All the rest of his publications are self-published or on small presses. Montanabw(talk) 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Montanabw(talk) 16:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With all due respect to those who participated in the deletion review, as issues of Native status and cultural information vs misinformation can be confusing for those outside the communities, I don't think the users in the deletion review were sufficiently familiar with the history of this article or the subject manner, as it appears they took Horse Dancing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s word for it that unsourced misinformation that he keeps inserting into the article is true. The deletion review took place while many were on holiday, and was not announced at any wikiproject. I was unaware of it till recreation had basically been OKed (after Horse Dancing had already recreated it without any review). Horse Dancing is a SPA, editing only this article (except when he goes to linked articles and also deletes any criticsm or linkage with other ethnic imposters), and pushing to have it be an uncritical, unsourced, promotional piece full of misinformation on someone he seems to be connected to in a COI manner. The user clearly has some emotional investment in this. Horse Dancing has not declared COI, but as an aggressive, edit-warring SPA I think there's something going on here. Please note as well that Horse Dancing made a bizarre claim in the deletion review that this article was deleted because of racism against Native Americans. The thing is, Talbot/Manitonquat is white. He's a Rachel Dolezal - most notable for ethnic fraud. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I try to stay out of commenting in both DRV and AfDs on the same article, but this article was literally cleared for recreation yesterday, after an extensive discussion during which a large number of good sources were identified. At the start of that discussion I was expecting to endorse the deletion, but as the discussion developed and also in my own research it became clear that the GNG is comfortably met.
In terms of the issues raised in the nomination:
  • "Insufficient indicia of notability" - the consensus at the just-closed-yesterday was that sufficient sources exist to show notability, and that the WP:GNG is therefore met.
  • COI editing - per policy, not an argument for deletion.
  • Unsourced BLP - technically true, but I will add in a few of the many sources identified in the DRV after I am done writing this, and then it will no longer be an unsourced BLP. - done - the article is no longer unsourced. 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:BLPNOTE - I disagree, but it doesn't matter because it meets WP:GNG.
  • Fails WP:NAUTHOR - doesn't matter, meets GNG.
  • No evidence that he is a member of any Indian Tribe... is not an argument for deletion.
  • Has small-press or self-published books - doesn't matter, meets GNG.
As a side note, I am dismayed to see the alleged colour of someone's skin literally and explicitly being suggested as a reason to delete an article. Please, everyone, remember WP:BLP applies on this page too.
Thparkth (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is relevant here, Thparkth, is that he is claiming to be something he is not. Indian tribes get to define who is a member of their tribe under federal law in the US, and skin color has nothing to do with it. This person has no verifiable Native heritage that I can find, and therefore he appears to be a fraud. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this is relevant in a deletion discussion. Is there a specific claim in the article that you are taking issue with? If so, why not just fix it rather than deleting the article? Thparkth (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thparkth wanted it noted here that he and I have been reverting each other on the article today. He added three sources that I do not think are particularly useable. One is in Greek. The other is in Italian. En-wiki users shouldn't be assumed to be able to read these languages, or trust a machine translation, so we can't actually evaluate whether they source the content. However, the content they source is just that he told them he's involved in the Rainbow Gathering. A bigger problem with them, that is the main problem with the third source, is that the authors merely copied his official bio where he states he is Wampanoag. The source that is currently being used to falsely state he is a member of the Wampanoag is a passing quote from Talbot's book, and she simply repeats his bio. As the author did not do this basic research into her sources, she has no expertise in issues of Native identity. The source is usable for saying he's been quoted by someone writing about Millenial issues, but not about his history or qualifications thereof. I am going to delete the false claims of Native identity again, and add this to the talk page. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be an assumption here that the ethnicity claim is false. I don't see a reliable source that supports that (or indeed any source). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that mainstream, usually non-Native, writers are more likely to accept false claims and have access to publishing opportunities that Native critics simply do not have access to. Please read the comments and links below in "Move to draft." There is plenty of criticism out there, his genealogy is online, but it's been published largely in native forums that don't meet WP criteria for inline sourcing. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information - the article does not contain an ethnicity claim, and if it ever did it was many revisions ago. Regardless, that would not be a concern for AfD. Thparkth (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point - it's not actually about ethnicity, it's about citizenship in a sovereign nation. Subject is not a citizen of any federally-recognized Native American tribe. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is irrelevant to deletion criteria. And also unless you have a source to back that up, about as useful as an unsourced claim he *is* a citizen in a sovereign nation. To address a few points above, foreign-language sources are perfectly acceptable. While English sources are preferred on English Wikipedia, it does not disqualify them if they are not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft I'm deeply worried about reliability issues here, but there are certainly a lot of sources. I'd hope that someone goes through the URLs on http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=888.0 and looks for reliable sources (may need to be rescued from archive.org). I've polished the article slightly. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest folks looking over the research on the psiram site. Psiram uses a wiki format, but is a stable wiki that requires sign-in and approval of edits (so, not an "open wiki"), so while it's reliance on sources like en-wiki and Native message boards makes it unsuitable for inline sourcing use on en-wiki, it does meet potential inclusion criteria as an external link per the external link guidelines: psiram.com/en/index.php/Francis_Talbot[6] - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a promotional article about a non-notable person making spurious claims. Not every human on the planet that has written a book requires a Wikipedia article, and if they do, let someone unconnected to them write it. Yuchitown (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Delete Analysis of cites (esp. for those who think this meets GNG) 1) Greek publication, but, as I will also say about 2) the German publication, this appears to have been a publicity tour and there's no reason to believe that these folks did due diligence (if you know about Germany you know that they are MAD for native Americans and their stories) 3) a minor Italian publication, not RS 4) no mention 5) name check 6) mention 7) a mention in a big book 8) a report from 1859, not available, but clearly not about this person who wasn't born until 1929 9) a few paragraphs in a book that appears to be self-published 10) 1 page - describes his program 11) photos of prisons, no relation to subject 12-13) no mention. LaMona (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG as per Thparkth. Arguments about his supposed ethnicity are irrelevant to deletion. The article does not make any, and even if it did, he could be a German Nazi claiming to be a Mohican and it would still not be relevant. Probably make him more notable actually... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I am new to the wiki experience and still working to familiarize myself with standards, I fail to see how Francis Talbot is notable enough to have a wiki page. Anyone has the ability to self-publish if they own a printer. That does not make them notable. A handful of articles makes him no more notable than the guy in town who regularly gets arrested for shoplifting and gets his name in the paper. His so called celebrity is so small nitched that it's inconcequential. The claims of success within the prison system have been proven to be grossly exaggerated and sources were provided to show that his claims of indigeneity are false. So he sells workshops to desperate Europeans. How does this make him noteworthy?Indigenous girl (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 29#Manitonquat (Medicine Story) participants: Horse Dancing (talk · contribs), Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Jreferee (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Rubbish computer (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs). I am not pinging Thparkth and ThparkthCorbieVreccan, who have already commented here. Cunard (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitonquat participants: Fotoriety (talk · contribs), Coolabahapple (talk · contribs), and Bejnar (talk · contribs). I am not pinging CorbieVreccan and Montanabw, who have already commented here. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep in the light of the very recent consensus to allow re-creation of this article at DRV. Alternatively, if editors are permitted to keep listing articles at deletion discussions this rapidly, with one debate following closely on the heels of another, then I certainly have a number of nominations that I'd like to make.—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources meet our requirements, article is now sourced. Per DRV. Hobit (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have now checked out two sources closely, and they show independent, substantial book coverage of the topic. So this article passes WP:GNG based on that. Whether the person involved is making misleading claims about his roots is not relevant to the keeping of the page, and instead is related to the content on the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep - This AfD2 was listed 7 January 2016, one day after the DRV close on the topic. Montanabw what is your view regarding the 6 January 2016 DRV and why do you think it reasonable to list this AfD one day after Sandstein close the DRV as Recreation allowed? Did you discuss this with Sandstein before listing AfD2? AfD1 itself was close 26 December 2015 - 12 days before this AfD2 was listed. What substantial procedural errors or significant new information has come to light since either AfD1 or the DRV that would justify more process? What reliable sources do you have to assert that Manitonquat is claiming to be something he is not? If there are reliable sources to assert that Manitonquat is claiming to be something he is not, isn't the solution to include that in the Wikipedia article rather than try to force Wikipedia to use its article space to take a stand on your personal issue by using process to delete the article or at least compel others to address your issue? Alternatives to AfD2 would include requesting reconsideration at DRV2 or discussing with Sandstein whether the article at the time of list AfD2 meet the 'Recreation' standard of the DRV close. A better move at this point would be to withdraw this AfD nomination and relist 3 or so months after the DRV - 29 March 2016 or after if you think there is a need. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jreferee, the DRV did not consult or notify the people involved in the original discussion; the whole thing was a done deal before anyone even knew it happened. Worse, the DRV folks took the COI article creator's word at face value and didn't dig into the sources. The reasons for deletion were adequate and the sources provided since fail the neutral, third-party RS. First off, the Assonet Band is not a federally recognized tribe and only formed any kind of government in 1990... that is a BIG DEAL, not a minor aside. if a bunch of people want to play Native, that's their choice, but there is no unified single "Wampanoag Nation" -- each tribal group determines its own membership standards and federal recognition includes a deep and thorough look at a groups' history and culture. To the extent that "Manitonquat" is an "elder" of this unrecognized group, that doesn't establish his notability at all. These plastic shamans are the bane of native people trying to retain and preserve their authentic cultures. His one book might be notable; he isn't. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as pointed out above by multiple people, none of that is relevant to a deletion discussion unless the article is obviously containing false information (it's not, it's disputed, and even then not very well). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First, apologies for any irregularity in commencing the DRV. Probably I made the faut pas. I'm new to this process, have never been involved in a DRV / AfD discussion before. However belatedly, I'll try to better familiarize myself about this & mend any error that I can.

I'm posting a screenshot of my edit of Jan 7. Please note some of the citations included, which have since been deleted; (presumably by some zealous editors who here claim that I provided no citations.)

File:Manitonquat - Wikipedia REVISION 010716.png

I'd like to hear explained the deletion of these citations:

  • www.ic.org/wiki/manitonquat(Bio article on the website of American network of intentional communities: acknowledging Manitonquat as a notable influencer, involved in the development of intentional communities in the US and other countries, over decades.)
  • Columbia Documentary History of Religion in America Since 1945, Columbia University Press (includes extensive interview with Manitonquat regarding Native American influence on New Age spirituality, and his involvement in founding the Rainbow Gatherings.)
  • Profiles in Wisdom: Native Elders Speak About the Earth by Steve McFadden
  • www.circlewayfilm.com Is there some reason why link to an upcoming documentary feature about Manitonquat's thousands of followers has been deleted?
  • Christian Science Monitor article, Sept 17, 1987, page 1 http://postimg.org/image/403v9q1st/ "How the Founding Fathers took a page from the Iroquois book" by J Denis Glover Interview with Slow Turtle, "Supreme medicine man of the Wampanoag nation and executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs" and Medicine Story, who officiates with Slow Turtle at a ceremony honoring Native American ancestors and the Iroquois League, for their influence in the "foundation for the US Constitution." Manitonquat/Medicine Story is quoted at equal length with Slow Turtle and is clearly a close associate of the "Supreme medicine man of the Wampanoag nation."

It would seem that any evidence which documents Manitonquat's tribal affiliation or notability is what some editors think should be deleted.

There is certainly some shrill emotional tone here: largely from those instigating a second AfD which has been acknowledged here as extraordinary and contrary to policy.

It seems appropriate to question what could possibly have motivated "bizarre" deletions of independent, authoritative sources, supporting notability; documenting that this author is an acknowledged authority on Native American culture & spirituality, a close associate of Wampanoag spiritual leadership, a prominent organizer of intentional communities, and of the Rainbow Gatherings since their inception.

It's an object lesson to see how the history of a man so well-known could be confused, obscured, or made to disappear in this context.

Since I have been made the subject of some personal comment here, I might point out that I don't need to ask the ethnicity of anyone who hits the ceiling & screams bloody murder at mention of the word "racism". They're always white. Horse Dancing (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Dancing (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Horse Dancing account was exclusively created to discuss the Manitonquat article. This article was clearly created as promotional material with a conflict of interest. If it were a musical group, it would have been deleted in a heartbeat. While not as common as promoting unknown bands, individuals attempting to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their books, and their spurious claims to a Native heritage does happen frequently enough that it's a routine. I am Native and know numerous actual medicine people IRL. They never refer to themselves as medicine people. The state-recognized group Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation is an "intertribal" heritage group that included non-Wampanoag members, so membership to this group is no proof of Native heritage. If this article fails the AfD and stays put, neither you nor anyone else will be able to use to bolster false claims. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not press releases, promotional material, or self-published material including blogs. Yuchitown (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I still hear no answer to the admittedly unanswerable independent, authoritative sources on Manitonquat's work (posted above on this page, by me, today's date.) Of course when some can't win an argument, they resort to personal attack. But that's forgetting a worthy axiom, attack the post, not the poster.

By the way, sorry, you guess wrong. If this extraordinary, misguided, & unjust wrangle over the Manitonquat page will ever get over itself, I might get a chance to do anything else around here. There is nothing the least unusual in someone starting an account to work on a particular area (Native American), because they're inspired to do so by a topic they happen to know & care about, which is poorly recorded on Wikipedia, and/or clearly vandalized / libeled.

If you must know, I attended the national Rainbow Gatherings from 1982 through 1995. Manitonquat was present at every one I attended; (for many years unique in being the only person who'd been to every one in history.) He was quite prominently in evidence every year as a facilitator, elder, organizer, who did not first attend in 1982 like myself, but had been there for a decade before I heard of them. He was one of the organizers on the very first in 1972(which was originally planned as a one-off event.) He stood at the welcome gate to greet the first arrivals, and was one of the clean-up crew who decided try to turn it into an annual event.

I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling. In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, including up to a hundred people; all thrashing out together, with total strangers, incredibly emotional, complicated safety issues. Where people sat together and tried to re-invent a new way for society to deal with violent offenders who endanger the community; other than with more violence & punishment. This "Rainbow way" of doing things is the basis of what he now teaches to communities all over the world as the "Circle Way". (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.)

I don't expect my personal testimony to be considered as an authoritative source (although the point is arguable); but you see my interest not merely academic. Nor is it motivated by personal gain. I'm just trying to repair libelous vandalism against a good person, a well-known humanitarian who's spent his whole life trying to help people, never got rich, and isnt' trying to. Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.

Robbing Native American people of their native identity has been a key tactic of cultural genocide since time immemorial. Native children were sent to schools where they were forbidden to speak their language, practice their religion, sing their songs, etc. They were given Anglo names & forbidden to use their native names. Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names.

Targeting Native American writers, erasing all citations about their Native heritage, shrilly denying the basis of their ideas in Native American traditions, is just more of a piece with this sort of anti-Native agenda. Not that I'm accusing anyone in particular here of consciously pursuing such an agenda. I think everyone's contribution to this discussion speaks clearly enough for itself without assistance from me.

Sincerely thankful to all who have taken part so far. Especially those who have researched sources, urged impartiality, and decried extraordinary emotional agendas. Horse Dancing (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*The Rainbow family itself has been strongly criticized by Native people for its cultural appropriation of Native culture. Nothing "racist" about it. This is one example, and here's another. Mr. Talbot is a classic plastic shaman, but more to the point, not notable. Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Dancing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) "I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling." There are accounts on line about people participating in sweats withTalbot at Rainbow Gatherings where they dropped acid. This goes directly against traditional cultural teachings and protocol.Horse Dancing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) "Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names." This is simply not true and undermines tribal sovereignty. Your ideology perpetuates assimilation and indigeneity based on the desire of the individual rather that the community. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI Admission by SPA Horse Dancing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): "I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, ... In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, ... (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.) ... I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself"[7] (bolding added). At the very least, there is a high probability that Horse Dancing is editing on the subject's behalf. I think there is also a reasonable probability that this is an autobio. Either way, Horse Dancing is too close to this subject to be creating, recreating and editing this article and AfD. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRAPES WP:SVT WP:REPEAT WP:WABBITSEASONUser:CorbieVreccan has in recent days been warned by User:Horse Dancing for Vandalism, subtle and otherwise; also concerned in report to Administrator Notice Board:Biographies for vandalism to page in question, and instigating an edit war immediately following a DRV whose outcome was contrary to said user's vote. Also has been notified in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thparkth that extraordinary emotion demonstrated in this debate suggests advisability that User:CorbieVreccan could, in this case, stand to back off & take a few deep breaths (if I may paraphrase.)

In seeking a balanced view, direct experience of the subject cannot be entirely silenced and disallowed, in favour of ignorant prejudice, or passionate hostility based on complete lack of direct experience. It is certainly significant that the person rushing to shout "COI" is the one who has been previously been named in vandalism allegation. WP:SVT I allege that this COI complaint by User:CorbieVreccan is retaliatory User:Sandstein User:JReferee User:Thparkth

As for COI, my acquaintance with the person who is the topic of the article in question by no means amounts to COI. He is neither family, client, employer, nor any other connection mentioned in COI policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I have no interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the discussion. The direct experience of his work which I detailed in the spirit of complete candour explicitly amounts to no more than what a hundred others also saw, in the course of his public appearances. My account also explicit that this occurred most recently in the 1990s, over twenty years ago. Horse Dancing (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horse Dancing stated,"Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.", if this relationship occurred over 20 years ago how is it possible for him to retain a current letter from Talbot regarding controversy. It's clear to me that the relationship has been maintained. Rainbow defines themselves as a family so this in itsself creates a familial relationship. User:Horse Dancing neglected to disclose his conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Common sense dictates that User:Horse Dancing has provided security for and participated in ceremony with Talbot and is in close enough contact with Talbot that he is able to provide a statement from Talbot himself. I see his editting as conflicting, from his own statements and content inclusion he is attempting to maintain a positive only entry regarding Talbot. He states he created a wiki ID specifically to edit Native American topics. All of this causes me great concern.Indigenous girl (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous girl Are you reading the COI policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Manitonquat is a public figure, not hard to contact. Sorry if I'm too inexperienced to understand that, in case of an article about a living person, it's anything other than logical to try to get their side of the story. Horse Dancing (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is "Articles for deletion", not "Editors for discussion". Even if Horse Dancing turned out to be Manitonquat himself (which I don't think anyone is claiming), that would not in itself be a reason to delete an article on a notable topic. Thparkth (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Unfortunately were I to weigh in, I would have to side with keep. WP guidelines of notability do not require that anyone's notability be honorable. However, that being said, NPOV requires that IF the claims of native heritage are going to be in the article, claims that his nativeness is refuted must also be there. He appears to be a notable fraud, who meets GNG. I find it interesting that German WP has chosen to remove him from their article [8] but English WP's guidelines which have nothing to do with academic standards of evidence, show that he has been mentioned, over time, with significant coverage the only question is how reliable are those mentions and whether they are based on self-generated promotion (thus the fallacy of using secondary sources to prove anything). SusunW (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the most part. (Also DEWP is frankly much better at some things than ENWP) However going by ENWP's rules there are just not RS out there that we would put in a BLP to refute someones ethnicity. They would need to be the strongest of sources to avoid being reverted on sight. What there *is* consists of blogs, mailing list posts and tabloid gossip (often related to associated organisations rather than the subject themselves). The other big problem is of course, this is one area where what ENWP classes as a reliable source is heavily biased in favour of white western publishers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Due to the very heavy content churn over the last couple of days I have moved the article to draft staus. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved it back to mainspace. Please do not move the article while this discussion is open. Once a consensus is reached and the discussion is closed, then it can be moved if it is not deleted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some objections I'd like to respond to, and just able to get round to now: Indigenous girl Re: official genealogy records All I'm saying is that official government records cannot be relied on to accurately record native ancestry.

You are right in decrying racist agendas as you see them, and I support you in that. But please take it easy on demonizing others as the enemy of native people just because they have a different outlook on the issues than yourself. Keeping the public confused on these issues is part of the racist agenda. Many are confused on these issues. Keeping the public poorly informed on these issues is also the racist agenda. Many are poorly informed. So many people make mistakes which further racist agendas, while trying to do their best to be fair. Even people who are quite well-informed.

Regarding your comment that I have COI based on family: Many Native Americans habitually refer to each other as "brother" "sister" "uncle". In fact, in Native American spirituality, everything in the world is referred to as "all my relations". So does that mean that all Native Americans are prohibited from editing this because of a family COI? Let's use common sense.

As for contention that I "wants a positive only article": I want to see deletion of false libelous claims that this man is an unprincipled fraud; for which there is no evidence except a lot of shrill insistence based largely on attack sites. If you consider this an unreasonable, unbalanced "poz only" on my part, I must point out that there are countless articles of notable people that accuse the topic of no fraud.

SusunW Thanks for your comment re "fallacy of secondary sources to prove anything." However erroneously, it's a noble effort in all editors here who mean well, this pursuit of sorting fact from fiction. Which this page proves can be no mean feat. Certainly there is some fallacy in attitude that many interviews, in authoritative sources, are not reliable evidence of notability. [1] (This article referenced above, but perhaps you didn't get a chance to click it.)

re "apparently notable fraud": Denial of his Native American ancestry is pure rumor, emanating largely from attack sites. There is no relevant documentation which believably supports it. It's acquired plausibility in this debate only because a lot of hotheads keep saying it. "We all say it so it must be true" is not relevant.

Comment:No conjecture. I took the time to look up the family history which shows his illustrious English ancestry on his father's side going back to the 1660s in Massachusetts. His were some of the founding ancestors of the area and very prominant. I verified the printed sources with census records, which also do not confirm native ancestry. I read the Pease Report. I read the Boston Globe interview in which he acknowledges that he was an actor and a playwright who became discouraged and took on a native personna. Due diligence, not rumor. However, totally irrelevant to the discussion here at AfD. SusunW (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the principle of considering the risk of harm in case of error. I would like each & every participant here to consider, (especially those so quick to accept a flimsy fraud claim, while very picky about accepting abundant evidence to the contrary): what is the risk of harm if you are wrong? I'd like everyone to imagine just for a moment the fraud claim proving entirely spurious. Wouldn't we feel silly then? How much damage has been done then, wittingly or unwittingly? Horse Dancing (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horse DancingNot all indigenous people believe in the "we are all related" concept that has been co-opted and used extensively out of context. My COI concern is that you have maintained a relationship with the individual in question. I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that you were forth-coming in this regard. However the facts that you were involved with religious(spiritual) excercises with him for a large block of time, that you supported his position during heated conflict resolution and provided security for him and that you are currently in contact with him in a sense that you offered to provide direct communication from him regarding controversies makes me doubt your objectivity. There is nothing wrong with wanting to support somebody that you hold in esteem though this is not the forum in which to do this.

Regarding the genealogy of this particular individual. I did link to the biography of his great grandfather and I believe the Earle Report and there was no reflection of ties to Wampanoag community. There is also the Pease Report which I don't believe to be available on line and the Mashpee Aquinnah Census[2] as well as documents pertaining to the Guardians of Indian Plantations. If his family is not included in any of these documents they are either not Native or they assimilated so far back in history that no records remain. What most people fail to understand is that when it comes to early reports these were made at a time when familial and community connections were impportant and people regularly included members who may not live within community yet maintained community connection. This is reflected in the early reports where individuals are listed who live outside of the physical community. I am sure you do not want to hear this and that it is also difficult to grasp. I understand if you want to continue to deny this and stand firm on your position. Rather than continue to muddy up this and the subject at hand's talk page I would like to request that we take any further discussion to our own personal talk pages.Indigenous girl (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Indigenous girl Thanks for all that. That's very informative. Very good points. Yet I fear you still rush too quickly to judgement that you couldn't be wrong.

I agree with you to continue this at my talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. However, I must respond here to what you have posted here which concerns my integrity.

I don't know where you got "large block of time". That's nowhere in what I said. I attended a couple of sweat lodges which were public events attended by many others. You say I "supported his position in a heated conflict". If you mean the councils involving a hundred people I mentioned, I don't know how you can conjecture what position I took in relation to him. You misstate also that I "provided security for him." I didn't say I was his bodyguard. I said I was an organizer on event security at a gathering of thousands. You seem to go a long way to twist everything I said into some intimate relationship to him. I don't know if you've been to a Rainbow Gathering, but it's hardly an intimate setting. There are thousands of people there. As to his being a public figure whom anyone can contact thru his website, I hope you took the trouble to read my earlier reply above, on that question.

I will allow that I may be less than entirely objective. But I don't think my objectivity, as demonstrated in my posts here, can be seen to be much more impaired than many others', who've seemed far more emotional & unreasonable than me. Horse Dancing (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. on balance, because 1/ there is some quite solid material: the children's book The Children of the Morning Light : Wampanoag tales published by Macmillan, and in 344 libraries according to WorldCat [9]. A number of reviews s have been already cited, and there is also one in Publisher's Weekly al o [10] . They all need to be added.
2/ we have the concept of cultural bias, which means that in certain areas where there is difficulty in finding materials, we have generally been much more flexible about meeting the formal criteria.
3/ the promotionalism can be decreased -- I just now made an edit to do so.
4/ the decision at Del Rev followed much too soon by this re-nomination. A greater time should be allowed before an AfD2. The decision was allow recreation, not just relist. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 16 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) Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Iadarola[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. No apparent secondary source coverage of subject, except as tangential coverage of another story, and almost all of the information is self reported (WP:SPIP), and thus not independent of the subject. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This case is going to involve WP:NWEB. From what I can see, The Young Turks, both as an individual show and as a youtube based "network" are receiving huge viewership numbers. That certainly makes their content relevant due to the sheer reach. We are talking 1.5 million views a day, over 2 billion total views. Huffington Post calls it the "biggest online news network." The content is largely self-important pundits talking about political news. Iadarola is listed as their #3 on-camera talent after Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian on the primary show and he hosts secondary content on the network. I don't think we can regard that as inherited relevance, there are a lot of people listening to what this guy has to say every day. With that much exposure, its a responsibility of wikipedia to try to explain who this guy is. The digiday source I added to the article credits him with boosting the Think Tank show to number two on the network. That's an individual accomplishment. We certainly wouldn't consider deleting Glenn Beck who is also a self-important pundit distributed on an internet based network, yet his audience is only around 300,000 a day (compared to 800,000 or more subscribers of Iadarola's Think Tank alone). All of these self-important pundits essentially are creating their own stories about themselves to fill in their background and why they are important to listen to. These folks are professionals at social media, there is a lot of content generated by them or their PR people about them (somehow I doubt he has "people"). Most of the sources do circle back to what Iadarola said "on the air." With the immense audience also comes a lot of reposting of his quotes, mostly in video form--that appears to be a lot of the sources in the current article.[11] [12] Thats not just by one man bloggers. Like Beck and other pundits, he also generates a lot of criticism of his opinions. [13] It also shows he has a large following, making him relevant. As the Burnt Orange report interview points out, TYT is alternative to conventional media. Thus conventional media is going to be less likely to build up the talent on their competition. Thus their coverage is going to be more likely from other alternative media in alternative forms like youtube videos. Where do the secondary sources about all of these personalities go to get information about the subject? A lot of them start with interviewing the subject themselves, which by the way is not too different from most news stories. Most non-controversial biographical stories start with "Who are you?" and stenography until there is a reason to doubt what they are saying, most of those facts are not checked out by any reporters, New York Times on down. I've found sources that are essentially third party interviews of Iadarola individually and the TYT cast as a group. The Kickass Politics group interview is reposted on a lot of other sites. I've added the Burnt Orange and Charlatan independent interviews of him to the article. [14] You can nit pick on the content of the article and delete certain statements you don't believe are true, but as a whole, on WP:GNG grounds alone the article absolutely should stand. Trackinfo (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment: fair enough. You've convinced me, along with those couple of interviews that it should stand with perhaps some checking for verifiability and notability of content. thanks.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:05, 8 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. North America1000 02:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Said[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a place where every young entrepreneur will publish their biography. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is being used for legitimacy by people who are barely qualified to be on LinkedIn. Dkendr (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as questionably notable and it's likely best not to move instead to the company article as there are risks of this being restarted. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not anywhere near notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 11 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  12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACE & Company[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and this AfD entry could have been bundled with those for the pages for the principals in the subject's business. Dkendr (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned, certainly questionably notable and perhaps not satisfying companies notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 12:05, 15 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) –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piff the Magic Dragon[edit]

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

Subject is of dubious notability, barely passing WP:GNG and article details subject's progress through a game show. Article lacks substance, references and detail. Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Had to laugh that this act made it to Wikipedia. Funny act. The comedian is not notable/encyclopedic - the act, less so - it didn't even win. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Note that on the surface, some of the headlines suggest trivial coverage, but be sure to read the sources, most of which provide significant background about the subject. Note that per WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles; it's based upon the availability of reliable sources. North America1000 18:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://postimg.org/image/403v9q1st/
  2. ^ http://history.vineyard.net/dukes/gh1860.htm
  3. ^ Josh Chesler. "Piff the Magic Dragon on America's Got Talent, Being a Dragon, and His Chihuahua Mr. Piffles". Phoenix New Times.
  4. ^ "Piff the Magic Dragon on how a tiny dog helped him become a star". Herald Scotland.
  5. ^ "Piff the Magic Dragon takes TV success to the Strip". Travel Weekly.
  6. ^ "Our interview with Piff the Magic Dragon from America's Got Talent". BBC.
  7. ^ Robin Leach. "Piff the Magic Dragon, Mr. Piffles to headline at Flamingo". LasVegasSun.com.
  8. ^ Franco Milazzo (28 July 2011). "Interview: Piff The Magic Dragon, Cabaret Magician". Londonist.
  9. ^ "'Piff the Magic Dragon' hits MOA comedy club this week". TwinCities.com. 8 December 2015.
  10. ^ "Piff The Magic Dragon Jokes - GQ.co.uk". GQ.
  11. ^ "Piff Will Puff-Orm to Tivvy Audience". The Mid-Devon Gazette. (subscription required)
  12. ^ Nick Warren. "Piff the Magic Dragon Ready to Slay Audiences". Erie Reader.
  13. ^ "Three Questions with Piff the Magic Dragon". Boston Magazine.
  • Keep Per Northamerica. Seems to pass basic notability. There are a number of sources noted. Only reservation is that his career could go either way from this point. Eagleash (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eagleash: Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Note that per WP:NTEMP, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, notability is not tempoarary; "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". North America1000 19:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eagleash: That seems to play to WP:TOOSOON in favor of deletion, not keeping. Dkendr (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Northamerica1000: Sorry to say though there may be adequate sources out there to establish some degree of notoriety if not notability the article does not capitalize on them and does not convey anything besides "Piff and his dog were on a game show." I don't think there's enough there to craft a decent article out of, hence, I still maintain "delete." Dkendr (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: Yes I know, its just a point to add to the discussion for other editors' consideration. @Dkendr: You would say that wouldn't you? :P Eagleash (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't say that - I stand behind my assessment of the article. In fact the most recent substantive edit to that article was the removal of a passage about the subject's appearance in the game show's final round. There is nothing there and it's WP:TOOSOON to show there will be enough. WP:BASIC doesn't cut it for media figures; they're held to the (ephemerally) more stringent WP:GNG. I didn't say anything about cleanup; there's been cleanup notifications on the page for quite a while that were never acted upon. The article doesn't convey anything except "Piff and his dog were on a game show." Cleanup isn't the problem - there's no meat on those bones and they don't belong here. Dkendr (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG and WP:BASIC say nothing about media figures supposedly being held to WP:GNG as opposed to WP:BASIC. Sure, you don't like the article and want it deleted, but let's not make up our own notability guidelines here. North America1000 22:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do me the courtesy of not assigning a personal animus to me about the article or its subject. I proposed the article for deletion, and therefore I am going to argue for deletion, just as you're arguing for retention. I don't make your motives personal - don't make mine personal either. Ultimately this is a community and will reach a consensus we all respect. Dkendr (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal at all, or intended. Sorry if you were offended. So, how does WP:GNG trump WP:BASIC for subjects? WP:BASIC is part of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page, which is entirely relevant toward people. North America1000 02:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC refers to people - but the article isn't necessarily about a single person, it's about a magic act called "Piff the Magic Dragon." The individual behind the act isn't noteworthy enough to have his own article by Wikipedia standards - at the very least if it was it'd be revised into a section in the act's article. Incidentally, the performer behind the act fails WP:BASIC since he is not profiled independently of the "Piff" character in any of these references. WP:GNG holds that notability isn't temporary, but that is tempered by WP:TOOSOON, which is where I believe that the Piff the Magic Dragon act fails to achieve sufficient notability, to wit: Piff didn't win on the game show, a level of notoriety was attained on a game show, and the article details just his appearance on said game show. WP:GNG specifically addresses this scenario: Orbiting a clearly notable entity (the game show) does not make the satellite (Piff the Magic Dragon) notable by association. The notes about poor or missing references, poor structure and lack of detail on that article aren't new, and they've never been addressed. (That's irrelevant to the notability issue I raised in the original AfD nomination per WP:CONTN.) There just isn't enough supporting material on the performer or the act once you take away the game show, and at that point the act is just a novelty magician in a funny costume. Of course WP:TOOSOON could be revoked later if the act takes off but that is another debate for another day. Dkendr (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The man and character are one in the same, and the man/character also passes WP:GNG. The following sources I listed above also include the subject's name: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Lastly, WP:TOOSOON is an opinion essay, but nevertheless, it states in its lead, "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." Independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage do exist, so the opinion essay does not even confer to this subject. North America1000 06:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting tired of this back and forth. You can twist and nitpick any policy you want any way you want and cherry pick bits of policies to fit your argument all you like. The bottom line is, is the actor notable, NO. Is the act notable, NO. Does the subject stand alone without the game show appearance, NO. Is the article encyclopedic and of sufficient quality, NO. The argument seems to be that the more stringent standard fails so let's apply the looser standard. The article fails on the media standards so let's make it a BLP. I'm not going to be sidetracked again on this topic. My vote stands as STRONG DELETE. Please don't come back on my talk page asking me to reconsider. Dkendr (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Whatever. Cheers, North America1000 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're trying to negate anything I say by ascribing a personal animus or motivation. I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that you tried it or the fact that I took the bait and called you on it. Dkendr (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't do argumentum ad hominem. Sorry again if I offended your sensibilities. We disagree in re the subject, so let's just keep it at that. Cheers, North America1000 16:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said you made an ad hominem argument. You suggested I was motivated by WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which assumes a personal bias against the article subject rather than an objective reading of the article's noteworthiness and quality. My personal opinion of the subject is irrelevant, and the nomination for deletion stands on the facts. Don't assign my motivations to personal animus. Dkendr (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again if I offended your sensibilities. Cheerio, North America1000 16:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage exists, and he's not simply known for America's Got Talent. I didn't even know he's been on it but was aware of him from his British TV appearances. --Michig (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michig: Do you have some references that could be added to the article detailing the act's British TV appearances and any coverage on that side of the pond? If you can add that to the article then some critical mass might be achieved and the whole debate becomes moot. In other words WP:PUOSU. Dkendr (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is this one of the top magicians (actually magicial acts) in history? Is it encyclopedic? This wasn't even a reality game show winner or in the top 3. He didn't win on Penn and Teller, either. When do these "acts" become encyclopedia (Piff is not his name, its his act). Do credible third party references not matter here? Nothing in the article is covered in the citations. I have to admit, this is confusing to me - are game show contestants (pop culture) getting to much credibility in Wiki-world (like computer games)? I found a nav box for Americas Got Talent if it helps. Look at some of these articles - no meaningful content in them - no meaningful accomplishment in their field. Example is Kevin Skinner one of the most significant country western singers? Encyclopedic? This whl;e thing feels like marketing of the show - the symmetry is startling. Just encouraging everyone to find some rationalle to support their votes. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The table shows that everyone in the history of the show who got an honorable mention or better has an article and if you click on the links you will see a striking similarity in many of of lessor talents in terms of formatting. Coincidence or WP:SPAM? With this logic, we should start listing the contestants on Jeopardy. I personally think this entertainer is a great novelty act, but my Wikipedia editor's view say little significant accomplishment and only minor press coverage likely driven by the talents shows PR office. I think some of these other acts should also be deleted. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it timely at this point to diss the dissident. What a sad expenditure of gall this wiki psyc is. I just spent lots of time watching all the Piff performances on youtube. Since USA is a rather large country, and a large number of people are watching the show, I am sure there must be millions aware of as well as fond of this performer. This regime of deleting wiki entries that puff and droll pedants disapprove of reeks of "1984". In fact, I just specifically went to Wikipedia to find out if Piff won the contest or not, and also went to see if there was any other information about the act. I would certainly not expect to find this kind of information in Encyclopedia Britannica or whatever the humorless toads consider encyclopedic. As a verb I always thought that word was associated with completeness and conciseness, as in encyclopedic memory. Which would include not just the rivers i Belgium, but also lesser known tributaries. But maybe not names of all current living pets in Belgium. I would consider Piff at the level of tributary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.17 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 January 2016
Your remark shouldn't be taken seriously and you're either the article subject hiding behind a sock puppet, his agent, or someone who is not as familiar with the subject's genitalia as he/she would like to be. Dkendr (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He's not just a guy in a stupid dragon suit, but a notable magician, and has non-trivial coverage, including from before he was Piff. I've added his three Magic Circle Awards to the article, which should be more or less sufficient to establish notability on their own! ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 01:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the Citywealth Magic Circle Awards have been themselves the subject of a debate as to whether a list of winners of said award was noteworthy. Dkendr (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the Citywealth (financial) Awards , but the awards of The Magic Circle. ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of "Magic Circle awards" on that article and the only mention I could find for those awards on Google was the Citywealth awards. How notable could these awards actually be? Dkendr (talk) 16:05, 13 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. Aww, come on guys. You don't like the cute little T-Rex? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to Connect to the Internet[edit]

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

Lack any proper content. Mixing error messages. The "unable to connect to Internet" is part of Google Chrome article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Merge to Google Chrome, which at this time, contrary to the nomination here, actually does not mention this aspect of the browser at all. The topic has been covered in reliable sources, but coverage is mostly about an Easter egg: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Merging will enhance the merge target article, and this is also a valid search term. North America1000 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Google Chrome Easter Egg T-Rex Mini Game". Business Insider.
  2. ^ "Play Google Chrome's Secret Offline Game".
  3. ^ "How do I find the secret dinosaur game on Google Chrome when my internet connection is down?". RadioTimes.
  4. ^ "Google Chrome's 'Unable to connect to the Internet' page has a hidden". The Independent.
  • Comment – I have added information about the Easter egg to the Google Chrome article. A merge isn't necessary, because such types of messages are likely present in other browsers, and a merge result here would result in a redirect to Google Chrome, which would not be entirely accurate. North America1000 03:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge FWIW, I agree with Northamerica1000. While most likely WP:PATENT out of context, placed in the Google Chrome article as an "Easter Eggs" sub-section under the "Features" section makes sense to me. I don't know if it's possible to do a merge, without any redirect (as the current title is utter nonsense out of context). Oh yes, and please don't bite me, I'm fairly inexperienced on WP. :) Chrisw80 (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think merging or redirecting this term is proper. Being "Unable to Connect to the Internet" in general has very little to do with this easter egg, and redirecting/merging leaves a redirect that "forever" (until a better target arises) ties this term to that little game. I can just see a legitimate user searching for why they are unable to connect on another computer, only to find themselves in the Chrome article. CrowCaw 20:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because merging would be a waste of time. There's nothing here to merge. The only thing that could come from this discussion that could help Google Chrome is the Easter egg. Being unable to connect to the internet is not only in Chrome. Anarchyte 02:47, 10 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) 01:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G-Worldwide Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a place for every local recording label. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not finding significant coverage. Coverage found consists of mentions and very short articles (e.g. [23], [24], [25]). North America1000 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 13:38, 14 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. North America1000 02:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenstash[edit]

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

Non-notable street art practitioner. CK One he ain't. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, take it easy. If you haven't seen these stickers you've had your eyes closed. E.g. [[26]]. I reckon you'll start noticing them now. I've seen them for ages and always wondered what they were. I was disappointed not to find any mention on Wikipedia so when I finally figured it out I created the page. But suit yourself. Econnally
Even in my prime my sight was not good enough to see anything the other side of the Atlantic. And as an aficionado of street art (I live in Bristol in the UK, possibly the UK's most graffed up city) I'd say these stickers are on the dull side of dull. Angry Face he is not.TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire and storm: Seriously? Based on the assertions of a single blogger (who doesn't name the artist, and who doesn't proffer any evidence that he's talking to the real creator), a SPA thinks this passes notability muster? Leaving aside that I'm a native Bostonian interested in street art -- such as produced by the late and greatly mourned Sidewalk Sam -- who's never seen any of these stickers, massive GNG failure, never mind that there's scarcely anything here from which an article can be created. Ravenswing 16:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing like Andre the Giant Has a Posse. Fails WP:GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete lack of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 8 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 CSD A10 Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Sky Hotel[edit]

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

Looks like an entirely ordinary hotel in an entirely ordinary bui;ding, and the references do nothing other than confirm that it exists. TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Science publishing platforms[edit]

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

OR/SYNTH. Weird collection of different online journals, preprint archives, and other websites. None of them are what I would call "platforms", unless any online journal is a platform. No independent sources about this concept, nor any sources that justify inclusion of any of these entries. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally opposed the PROD because I didn't think the rational held up, or at least that it deserved a bit more debate than a PROD. I agree with RK that this is a weird collection of... something, and that as of now, it's sort of so ill-defined that I don't even known what to think of it. However, I also think that if we could define more clearly what that something is, or at least what the something should be, we could shape this article/list into what it's trying to be. I have no objection to deletion if the community fails to determine what this article is trying to be, but I think the effort at least has to be made before we give up on this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some sympathy with the opinion of Headbomb that we should try to determine what this is really about. However, I am not seeing anything that can not be included in other articles. I suggest deletion. If there is anything here, a new article can be started under a different title ("Platform" should not be part of the title). --Bduke (Discussion) 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know we're not supposed to say "as per nom", and leave it at that, but Randykitty's assessment is spot on, and there's really nothing to add to it. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 14 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 "keep" opinions do not address Wikicology's thorough analysis of sources.  Sandstein  12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chioma Nnani[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. The sources provided are unreliable and majority of the sources are self-published material about the so-called novel Forever There For You she authored. I also find one or two interview with local website with no credible editorial control or oversight. To be honest, Wikipedia is not a place for everybody that publish one or more books. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having got a nomination for BEFTA award is not enough to get a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. People don't get freebie page on Wikipedia because they are nominated for one or two awards. A person is likely to merit a page here if they are nominated for notable awards such as BEFTA, Grammy and AMAA awards multiple times. The sources you provided here cannot establish WP:notability. Ref 1 is a primary source, ref 2 is a self-published material, ref 3 is a wordpress and not a reliable source, ref 4 is a primary source that describe the international students in which she is one. Ref 5 is about the 7th BEFTA awards 2015 nomination which only provided an evidence that she was nominated for the award and same with ref 6. Ref 7 looks like a self-published material and the source is questionably unreliable. Ref 8 "Konnect Africa" is not in anyway close to a reliable source. Ref 9 is an interview about a book she author. Ref 10 is another interview by a local website which do not fall in any category of reliable sources per WP:RS. Ref 11 is a local magazine with no good editorial oversight. In fact, I can't even verify if they have staffs. Ref 12 looks promising and ref 13 "Reconnect Africa" is not in anyway close to reliable sources. The award she won in porthacourt is a local and non-notable award. Thus, this seem like WP:TOOSOON to me. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete including as WP:TNT as all of this would simply be best restarted as there's nothing to suggest current notability, improvement and acceptability. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A little research shows that this article is over a year old on Wikipedia and have been patrolled by many admins, so why delete now? Those admins that found it worthy after patrolling it, did thy err in allowing it? Or they no longer know Wikipedia notability rules? And again with the references concerning the article I Googled, I think the article is ok and should be kept. If this article doesn't meet notability, it means that so many articles on Wikipedia in their thousands shouldn't have been kept. Mavin7 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a policy based argument? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm just not finding reliable sources on my searches. This: [40] is the best I've been able to find. The hits I'm finding are blogs and websites, not edited publications. Flag me to take another look if someone finds reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E.M.Gregory This: [41] is not the only reliable source. Maybe you didn't see these too: [[42]], [[43]], [[44]]. Lord Ru 02:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, User:Lord Ru I am not confident about the reliability of "All Africa" (because I could not readily verify it) although this article: [45] does appear to be an echo of an article that appeared in Media Trust which I take to be an actual, edited newspaper. This [46], an opinion column, is also from in Media Trust. The problem with the other sources is that, for example, the university's website is reliable, but not useful as a measure of notability since it is not independent. Amazon.com is not usable, it's just a bookstore. What are needed are actual, edited publications. Or material on the website of reliable institutions that are independent of her (i.e., a university that she did not attend and where she does not teach ). The sourcing at this point is extremely slender.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, actually "All Africa" is a rated news website with editorial oversight. It's rated 271 in Nigeria and 11, 766 globally by Alexa. That says a lot. For the university website, I understand your point, but I don't think we expect a school Chioma Nnani didn't attend to publish her story. Reason being that, they can't leave their former students and be talking about someone else. For the fact that her alma mater in the UK found her story worthy and published it, is evidence of her notability, after all, not all former students get their stories published by their alma mater. Otherwise, the school website might crash due to numerous publication of stories. In my opinion, I don't see anything wrong with Chioma Nnani's page. Thank you. Lord Ru 04:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might want to read WP:GNG , and look at some other deletion discussions. When a person is notable, you often find that they give lectures at a university, or that writers go somewhere for a semester as a visiting scholar - and that gets written up. When a university writes up the accomplishments of its own graduates, we do not regard that as counting towards notability at Wikipedia. What is really needed here are reviews of her books, articles about her career, discussions of her writing in multiple magazines and newspapers. Often, with a young novelist, it is WP:TOOSOON for there to be a Wikipedia article, and that looks to be the case here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 15 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 keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is suggesting a merge, which is not a valid rationale for deletion. Discussion regarding a merge can occur on an article talk page. North America1000 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mr. Meaty characters[edit]

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

Non-notable show, very little reliable sources dealing with the characters. Merge into the main article. Phil A. Fry (talk) 12:57, 7 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  12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rinil Gowtham[edit]

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

This is another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was deCSDed with the rationale to send to AfD. A search for sources finds non-reliable sources such as IMdB. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Joseph[edit]

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

An article about this person has been deleted twice previously; however, this was years ago and all of the claims for notability are newer than the last AfD. However, I could not establish significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so I decided to refer this back to AFD. Delete unless independent sources can be found. —Kusma (t·c) 11:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still lacks good sources. Still lacks verification of charting (which is a bad chart anyway. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no new reliable sources have emerged to establish notability since the previous AFDs.This is still WP:UPANDCOMING Kansiime (talk) 03:07, 14 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  08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi (1982 film)[edit]

Lakshmi (1982 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was dePRODed with the rationale to send to AfD.

A search for sourcing doesn't bring up anything, although it does bring up plenty of false positives due to Lakshmi being a fairly common name. Like the others, it's possible that foreign language sources exist, but I'm not able to find them because of the language barrier. There's also a film the 70s that appears to be unrelated, created by the same editor, which I've also put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:01, 7 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  08:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi (1978 film)[edit]

Lakshmi (1978 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was dePRODed with the rationale to send to AfD.

A search for sourcing doesn't bring up anything, although it does bring up plenty of false positives. Like the others, it's possible that foreign language sources exist, but I'm not able to find them because of the language barrier. There's also a 1982 film that appears to be unrelated, created by the same editor, which will also be put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with the other, not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 14 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) Rcsprinter123 (confer) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching clinic[edit]

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

Unreferenced dictionary definition. Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG with ease. This term refers to a type of organization, patient care provider, medical facility and business entity that has received a great deal of coverage in various contexts; much more than a simple dictionary definition. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. North America1000 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, so now it's a dictionary definition with random Google Scholar search results pasted onto the bottom. So much better. Not. --Calton | Talk 10:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they're select links that cover aspects of the topic in detail; not random. I take my source assessment and contributions to AfD seriously. Did you actually read the articles? Check out WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP: AfD is not an article expansion service. Perhaps you can donate an hour or two of your time to expand the article. It seems like you expect others to do so. North America1000 11:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually took your contributions to sources and AFD seriously, you might have actually sourced the article instead of lazily doing nothing more than pasting your Google search results to the bottom of the article. But that's the ARS way, I guess. --Calton | Talk 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an ARS member. I actually have slightly expanded the article; it appears you didn't bother to actually view it. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. North America1000 14:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The teaching clinic: a supervisory alternative". PMID 391248. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  2. ^ "Immunization recall: Effectiveness and barriers to success in an urban teaching clinic".
  3. ^ "A Prospective Study of 2,000 Patients Attending a Chiropractic College Teaching Clinic". JSTOR 3765334. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  4. ^ "Supervision in the outpatient clinic".
  5. ^ "Antibiotic prescribing practices in a teaching clinic: comparison of resident and staff physicians".
  6. ^ "Monitoring self-reported adverse events: A prospective, pilot study in a UK osteopathic teaching clinic".
  7. ^ "Benefits of Care Coordination for Children with Complex Disease: A Pilot Medical Home Project in a Resident Teaching Clinic".
  8. ^ "Factors associated with adult periodontitis in a dental teaching clinic population".
  9. ^ "Visit characteristics of 217 children attending a chiropractic college teaching clinic".
  • Keep. This definitely passes WP:GNG. As indicated by North America's comment above, a cursory google search will reveal hundreds (if not thousands) of sources that substantiate the notability of this topic. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As indicated by North America's comment above" is quite proper, because there are many sources there that provide significant coverage about the topic in reliable sources. North America1000 11:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, this article passes WP:GNG comfortably because the articles cited by North America show that this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It sounds like the nominator is citing WP:NOTDIC to support their argument for deletion, but WP:NOTDIC does not apply when a "word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources" (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is referenced and is not a dictionary definition so the nomination is mistaken. There is an issue though – there are two sorts of teaching clinics – medical clinics using trainee medics and teacher training facilities, which provide professional training and development for educational teachers. But sorting that out is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:08, 8 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 - blatant vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar laag[edit]

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

No secondary coverage. Fails general notability. Blackguard 07:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:59, 7 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. Not clear whether there's consensus for a redirect; this may need further discussion.  Sandstein  12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo (Blazing Saddles)[edit]

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

Minor character from a notable film. Article is completely devoid of any citations and barely any outbound links and the only inbound being the Mongo disambig page, the Blazing Saddles page, and alternate title, and the page creator's Talk.

The article content is simply a rehashing of the movie, explanation of the jokes, and descriptions of the film and filmmaking process. In other words, nothing but synthesis and OR.

There is not even any attempt made at establishing notability or impact on the movie or culture at large. Not only are there no references of any kind, but the two external links are both just to IMDb.

This article's "unknown notability" tag has been up for 30 months. Time to go. JesseRafe (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it is. (It seems obvious now.) Debouch (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I cannot imagine who would point their web browser to wikipedia dot org and then type into the search bar "Mongo (Blazing Saddles)" or even less likely en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongo (Blazing Saddles). I think I spent more time typing that out than the collective time any putative user who would be served by the redirect to Karras. There are no substantial inboud links to the Mongo page that would serve a redirect rather than just nothing. But I am, sure, do it if you want to. JesseRafe (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One only has to type "Mongo (" when it pops up as an option. More important than this is that a general cultural awareness is more important than incoming links to a specific page. Sometimes who plays a minor character and how is more interesting or revealing than its technical relation to other characters, and this character (minor though it is) has international appeal. Debouch (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason it should redirect to Blazing Saddles. That's where the most likely to be expected information on the character would be found, and if the querier already knows the character's name (which is not frequent and why many people start with the film or show first) then it should be no problem to find Mongo either in the plot or cast list and click on Karras's page.JesseRafe (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply altogether as it seems Alex Karras was known for other accomplishments other than an actor for which he had only a few works here and there. SwisterTwister talk 08:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this matter to someone searching for Mongo (Blazing Saddles)? And why should it prevent them from finding out what it is, who played the character, and what else this person has done in his career? Debouch (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with Redirect: I like the idea of redirecting to Karras' profile. There is an entry in the Mongo disambiguation page for this usage. Dkendr (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why not redirect to Blazing Saddles? That seems more relevant to the search. JesseRafe (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you specified Mongo from Blazing Saddles, you might just have specified Blazing Saddles and left out the Mongo. What do other similar situations suggest by way of precedent? Dkendr (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any reason for Mongo (Blazing Saddles) to redirect anywhere, since I don't see anybody ever typing that in as a search term. On the other hand, redirects are cheap, so I have no real objection to it. Change the entry under Mongo#In_fiction to point to Blazing Saddles. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 15 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. Can be userfied on request.  Sandstein  08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary logic[edit]

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

While the term 'evolutionary logic' does appear in say google scholar, it does not seem to refer to the notion outlined in the article. Non notable idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am finding one or two reviews for the book, but no evidence anyone else is working on the idea. If more reviews can be found, perhaps some of the material could be refactored and moved to an article about the book? Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Perhaps not yet a solid encyclopedia article, restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify/Draftify -- keep the article around in case anyone wants to take it up but take it out of circulation. Dkendr (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the actual topic here is better known by the name "evolutionary epistemology". --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Needs more detailed coverage before we can consider an article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93:@SwisterTwister: Please note that the nominator removed the bulk of the text immediately prior to making the nomination. The article as it stood before his arrival is here. I'll refrain from !voting just yet because the subject is a little deep for me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sammy1339, I took a look, and I am not convinced that even that state of the article is worth preserving. There are three parts to it; one section which is a summary of Modularity of mind, and covered there; another section that could and should be merged to Evolutionary psychology; and the unsourced (and highly confusing!) lede, which does not seem to have any notability. The sections seem, to me, to be quite disparate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I removed that stuff as it had literally nothing to do with the article. It just seemed tacked on for literally no reason. Indeed the 'evolutionary logic of the brain' bit I removed the day it was added. The IP had attempted to add this stuff to Evolution so I looked at his/her contribs, saw this, deleted it and then put this up for deletion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:52, 8 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. A separate discussion may be needed to determine whether to redirect and where to.  Sandstein  12:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Kirk McGill[edit]

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

An auditor that blew the whistle on corruption. The three main sources are a 180 page primary document, McGill's resume and McGill's linkedIn page. We also have video of and hour plus long committee hearing and sources that don't mention McGill, but mention the corruption. There was a section on a Wikipedia page being vandalized and how it was unusual it wasn't noticed. There is also a bit of WP:SYNTH going on.

The problem is there are no reliable, independent secondary sources. It's either primary or unreliable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extended comments by User:Hethofpern
McGill is mentioned in the 3 December congressional hearing by name as the source of the information that triggered three different congressional hearings (it's in the Chairman's opening statement). That segment of the hearing was also included on Fox News [1] (McGill is mentioned by name just after the one minute mark) which also had an article and another prime-time tv discussion on the matter [2] The secondary sources linked to the National Ecological Observatory Network page demonstrate that NEON, Inc. was fired from running the multibillion-dollar project because at least one of McGill's allegations (the possibility that the project could go over budget without anyone noticing due to the lack of control over the project's contingency reserve) actually happened and the project was at least $80 million over budget. Also included on that page was the letter from the National Science Foundation to NEON, Inc. terminating them from the project. I think that's more than enough sourcing, especially for an ongoing issue, to meet the standards for inclusion. There are other articles on NEON out there, as well as several NSF Inspector General reports, but none of this contain McGill's name because the media doesn't name whistleblowers without permission (eg Snowden), but McGill has never talked directly to the media (as far as I can tell) so he's never given permission. Outside of the hearing process, even Congress has simply called him 'the whistleblower'. For example, in an article for The Hill [3] they refer to a "courageous Federal whistleblower", which has to be McGill give the that he's the only whistleblower mentioned by name by Congress, and nothing suggests there was more than one whistleblower involved. Anyway, I welcome the community's thoughts and input on the matter. I can go provide more secondary sources (like news articles) as references in the entries if that would be helpful. There's definitely more out there.

The thing that I think is noteworthy about this guy is I'm like almost every other whistleblower he actually did all of this stuff while still on the job – in other words he never broke the law (unlike Snowden, however justifiable someone may think his actions to be) but still managed to get the information to Congress and the issues dealt with. Also, the fact that he is the first whistleblower in history ( as far as I can tell) to do the whistleblowing as part of his job is definitely worthy of note since that could really change the dynamics of whistleblowing. Right now, whistleblowing is a pain because you have to do it on your own time. If federal employees can whistle blow on the governments time it's a lot liklier that they will do so and that could have a major impact on fighting corruption within the government.

Hethofpern (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApTVqNwK3A
  2. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/03/audit-taxpayer-dollars-paid-for-eco-groups-25g-christmas-party-and-more.html
  3. ^ http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/256524-nsf-evades-oversight-negligence

I also note that in McGill's April 27 disclosure he links a lot of sources including emails and letters from Congress so that document (the 180 page one) is both the primary and a secondary source insofar as it contains links to other primary sources. Of particular interest to me when reviewing the Congressional record was the fact that that document has a lot of official documentation copied within it including, for example, a letter from Congress asking that the director of DCAA make McGill available to Congress for briefings. That would seem to substantially back up the primary sources and when combined with the other information discussed in my entry immediately above would seem to give us sufficient sourcing to keep this article in place - albeit, perhaps with better referencing on my part.

Hethofpern (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 refs you mentioned above never mentions McGill. The video briefly mentions him. According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." None of your refs qualifies. Mentioning his name is not significant coverage Snowden had significant coverage in almost every newspaper, magazines and news shows. There is even a movie coming out about him. GNG doesn't specify only people who abide the law get articles. The rule on Wikipedia is GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. My point is that the issue (NEON) has revived and is receiving a lot of attention. They have their own entry here National Ecological Observatory Network, which has been modified to reflect that they've been fired. The Defense Contract Audit Agency also has an entry, which is also effected by these mostly proven allegations. McGill is named as the source of the information that out those investigations in train. Without him, it appears that none of this would have happened. He's basically the anti-Snowden. He blew the whistle on major government wrongdoing without going public or breaking the law. Thus, the only reason he isn't mentioned more - is that his identity was being protected since he didn't go public with the information. However, the fact that he exposed fraud and corruption at the largest scientific research construction project at the National Science Foundation and was proven right in his allegations (when NEON got fired) would seem to meet the requirements for inclusion. There's a dozen articles in major news sources on the fraud, and several more on NEON getting fired. On top of that, the NEON project itself has significant coverage - as demonstrated by a single Google search. That being said, I'm new here and defer to the greater wisdom of the community in the matter. Hethofpern (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will add additional references to this entry and the NEON and DCAA ones to show that there is considerable news coverage of these issues. The hearing (and I'll upload the transcript so people don't have to watch the whole thing) is then the link between McGill and those sources. That's good enough for me to keep this here, but again I defer to more experienced folks for a final decision. Hethofpern (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about McGill, not the scandal. If the article was about the scandal, McGill would only get a brief mention. Please base your discussion on Wikipedia policies, not your personal feelings. You have not shown any refs that meets GNG for McGill. To delete or not delete will be made on policy, which every deletion discussion is handled. Adding more refs about the scandal does nothing. Bgwhite (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the primary source references and confirmed at the 3 December hearing, McGill's disclosures are the only reason there was a scandal in the first place. That's the point. He triggered the scandal with his whistleblowing and that lead to everything that occurred thereafter. I suppose we could include everything he did under the articles for DCAA and NEON - but there was enough material it felt better placed under a separate page. Not to mention, he allegedly only went to congress because a over up was ordered by senior defense officials. Deleting this information on our part feels like we're perpetuating that cover up. At the very least we need to make sure the information gets preserved and moved to a more 'appropriate' spot if the decision is made to delete this entry.


Hethofpern (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, since you're citing the GNG - we seem to have skipped some steps of looking for other information for noteriety beyond the few sources I put in the page when I wrote it. There's other stuff out there - which may or may not be sufficient. Keeping in mind that this is my first stand alone entry I'd think we'd want to go look for sources beyond what I put in initially. That's what I was suggesting above, and that seems to be consistent with the guidelines before we jump straight to deletion. If that's correct (and correct me if its not) then that's the next step I'll take.

Hethofpern (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, leaving the deletion issue for a moment (its not going to be my call anyway since I'm 1. the author and 2. brand new to the community) -- I read in McGill's 27 April disclosure the allegation that a Department of Defense official had vandalized McGill's entry on the List of whistleblowers page way back in September 2014 after the first news article broke (in the Washington Post). That seemed like kinda a big deal, so I just managed dug up the original (albeit redacted) investigative report and uploaded it here: [1] Should this concern us? I mean, they basically tried to do a (really juvenile) smear job on the guy, and tried to use Wikipedia to do it...

Hethofpern (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now that I've had some time to think things through, here's my thought process (for what little it may be worth).

We've got multiple primary sources (including the 04/27/2015 "Disclosure" summarizing McGill's allegations) to compare against the secondary sources.

On 09/18/2014 there was an article in the Washington Post about NEON that includes the statement "Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said the practice came to his attention earlier this year when a whistleblower provided him with a draft audit that showed a climate change group used federal funds to pay $112,000 for lobbying, $25,000 for an office Christmas party, and $11,000 for “premium coffee services” and an unspecific amount on French hotels."[2] That matches up with the primary sources, so the "whistleblower" has to be McGill.

That's confirmed in the 12/3/2014 hearing when the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology says:

"Auditors discovered several highly questionable expenditures of taxpayer funds by NEON, including hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on lobbying, lavish parties, liquor for office happy hours, over $1,000 per month for premium coffee service, and trips to a high-end resmi in France. These suspicious taxpayer-financed activities were not detailed in the audit submitted to the NSF Inspector General, which was limited in scope. But to his credit, the principal auditor, J. Kirk McGill, invoked the Whistleblower Protection Act to make sure that the Inspector General, Congress and ultimately the public was aware of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars being spent on improper activities."[3]

So, as of 12/3/2014 we know that the "whistleblower" is McGill. So next I went looking for articles talking about the NEON scandal in which the "whistleblower" played a prominent role. I found quite a few:

"Grassley noted that the inappropriate spending came to his attention through a whistleblower. 'Otherwise, it may never have come to light'” Grassley said. 'I appreciate having whistleblowers come forward to correct wrongdoing and look out for taxpayers.'[4] [5]

"of the government’s incompetency. Several highly critical financial reviews, two project audits, a courageous federal whistleblower, and three House science committee oversight hearings warned NSF and NEON of big problems."[6]

"These figures drew a rebuke in September from Republican senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rand Paul of Kentucky, who were provided a draft of the audit by a whistleblower. In a written response, the NSF called NEON’s use of the funds disconcerting."[7]

"Grassley and Paul said they were alerted to the allegations of improper spending by a whistleblower who provided them with a draft audit of NEON performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. The audit showed that from fiscal 2009 until fiscal 2013, NEON received more than $888,000 in government funds for the "management fees" that were used for unallowable costs, they said.The concern raised by the draft audit is "considerable," the senators wrote, "but it is amplified by the possibility this is a widespread practice within the NSF and possibly the federal government." They requested correspondence between NEON and NSF about the so-called management fees and paying for unallowable costs, and a detailed account of all the unallowable costs incurred by NEON."[8]

"In his opening comments, Chairman Lamar Smith almost accused the IG and DCAA of an attempted cover-up of these issues. The findings were not reported in the final audit report but were raised by a whistleblower"[9]

It sure looks to me like we've got a ton of well-sourced evidence that NEON would not have been caught and this scandal erupted without McGill. Also, if you look at the hearing documentation for all three hearings and McGill's "Disclosure" the "management fee" issue ended up causing major policy changes at NASA and the Office of Management and Budget -- so there's significant impact to McGill's actions beyond NEON.

Put that all together and I think we have plenty to support this entry. What the entry needs, I think, is some clean up by someone more experienced than me (it is my first complete entry after all) to make the sourcing more clear and eliminate anywhere where I drift into speculation and/or away from proper neutrality. But that editing stuff. Bottom line, its my (however worthless) opinion that this entry deserves inclusion and should not be deleted. In other words, keep it.

Hethofpern (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as the current article needs excessive improving that it would likely simply be better to restart it when better. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the substance of the allegation discussion to the Defense Contract Audit Agency article presuming that this one will be deleted. I leave it to others to edit that as needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I will try to add additional materials as the situation develops -- it's tough because this sort of situation is extremely important to have recorded especially to be accessible to future whistleblowers and the public, but by the very nature of government there isn't that much information out there. While I understand (and generally support) Wikipedia's guidelines, in this particular case I'm afraid that they're going to result in a lot of important information that ought to be publicly available not being publicly available. That said, I respect the results of the process and Leavitt others to determine how best to get the information that ought to be on Wikipedia to where it belongs. I appreciate the constructive criticism from the community on this matter. I will try to learn more about the communities guidelines and expectations before I make another attempt at major edits or any standalone content. I appreciate the patients of the community for new members like myself. That being said, I would strongly encourage the committee to keep an eye on this particular issue in case there is an attempted government censorship/vandalism again.

Hethofpern (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect- As per WP:BLP1E - aside from that incident, nothing to make him notable, so an article is not appropriate. I would have suggested a merge to List of whistleblowers, but he's already there. Since there is news coverage of the event, someone might search, so redirecting to the List of whistleblowers would work. Onel5969 TT me 12:02, 15 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) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Natoli[edit]

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

This appears to be a real person, but drastically embellished (for example, the full name does not appear on any sources). The accesible sources do not appear to actually be about Francesco. The article was created by a user now blocked because they were unwilling or unable to communicate. PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable.--Yopie (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 7 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 List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. And merge as appropriate.  Sandstein  12:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huaman (character)[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article about a non-notable fictional character, that appears only in a non-notable work (if the article is to be believed, she appears in a non-notable play, and not in the much more famous work of historical fiction that the play was based off of). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't know about non-notable, the play she appears in is centuries old. But I agree that there is nothing salvageable from the article in its current condition, and if there should be information about this character it should be covered in the article about the play when it gets made. _dk (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assumed that the play was not notable because it was not even named in the article. If the play is notable, and has an article, I would be fine with turning this article into a redirect to the play's article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:35, 7 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 Martha Finley.  Sandstein  12:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Life of Faith[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no substantial coverage found, just lots of listings and non-reliable reviews, original books are notable, these are not. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability since substantial reviews are not available. Per nom, original books may be notable. Cocoaguy ここがいい 07:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We could probably merge and redirect this to the author's page since she has a bibliography listed there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:35, 7 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) –Davey2010Talk 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Display Team[edit]

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

Individual display aircraft are fairly common and rarely notable, most large air forces have solo display aircraft which can be dealt with using a one line summary in the air force article although they are mostly not notable enough to even mention there. The proposed deletion was removed with the statement that most display teams are notable but as this article is about three individual display aircraft they are clearly not a display team as most readers would recognise. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A solo team is a contradiction in terms. The phrase "solo display team" appears to indicate the people, etc. who support the displays, for example there may be more than one pilot who may be called on for any given display, or one or more aircraft held in reserve. There may also be a dedicated ground team. Such "teams" get some coverage in their local media and may even get brief international mention for some special event, but frankly I cannot see that such a team is made notable on that account. This Dutch team appears to be no exception. Here are a couple of precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo Türk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team. Also, if this article were to be kept then it would need moving to a more explicit title. Otherwise, that more explicit name ought to be created as a redirect to say the Royal Netherlands Air Force.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC) [Updated 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep – Several air forces have a WP article about their display teams. Notability is established by multiple independent sources such as [47] [48] [49]. Maybe RNLAF Demo Teams would be a better name for the article though, because there seem to be three separate teams and apparently the "Solo" is problematic for some. I don't think splitting up the article into three separate articles is a good idea, it will only scatter the information. – Editør (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other articles is no argument - see WP:OTHER (I only included a couple of AfDs above so that editors can see the arguments used there). Short, chatty media reports do not establish notability either: the topic needs to be treated in depth. Furthermore, three non-notable topics do not together make a notable topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is sufficent information available to demonstrate that this team (however you want to define "team") meets WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the problem three individual display aircraft flown at seperate events is not an aerobatic team and individual they are not notable. The only compromise would be to list all the other individual solo display aircraft in the world, and they are a few of them around but they are not really notable justy like the three here just a standard part of the air force public relations role. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It isn't "this team" as suggested, it's just three Dutch aircraft rammed into one article. Furthermore, whether individually or collectively they appear to fail WP:GNG. That requires "Significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail", and we have seen no evidence that is the case. I just googled "Solo Display Team" and France, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece all use the phrase. No, there is nothing in the "keep" arguments to date but empty claims and pious dreams. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Editør (talk) 21:44, 7 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. WP:G3 - no evidence the subjects of the article exist. The Bushranger One ping only 11:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Nepali[edit]

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

Unsourced essay, apparently completely WP:OR. Neither of the two alleged mixed languages listed, "Khewari" or "Maipali", have any hits on Google; these are apparently either hoaxes or neologisms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing at all to suggest this can become a notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 7 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. Cunard's analysis of the sources is definitive. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anta Plumbing[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Promotionally written article about a local plumbing company in Toronto with no claim to notability - having the highest number of positive reviews in 2012 on a regional ratings website does not confer notability. Sources are primary (press release and company website) or trivial mentions of the company's founder. bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found it notable as per WP:CORP. The references cited therein are reliable and back up the information in the article. Aha... (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific, please? Which part of WP:CORP is met by this local plumbing company, and which references meet WP:RS? --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Currently nothing to suggest better regarding better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are no major issues to do with notability of the company. Some improvements or more sources pointing to the problems discussed above in the article itself if such problems exist would be helpful in imrpoving the article. Coverage by third party sites like this and this meet the WP:GNG principle. Kansiime (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as pointed out by Cunard above, the Huffington Post "Lead Exposure Still Exists" piece (your first source) is a trivial mention which does not cover the company, it simply mentions it in passing; the BBB link (your second source) is simply a directory listing, and it cannot be used to show notability. Having a high BBB rating is not the same as being notable. --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 11 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) 23:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oded Bahat[edit]

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

Poorly references BLP Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:30, 7 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 Thamirabarani River. To be absolutely honest this didn't need to be brought here ... It's an obvious Merge, Be Bold! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flood in Thamirabarani River in 2015[edit]

Flood in Thamirabarani River in 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an EV article and suits for news AntanO 10:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 7 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) 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demetri Betts[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Full of questionable original research that does not belong in a BLP. No charting, gold, reviews, major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is a huge mess and likely would be a candidate for deletion based on that alone. Regardless my searches turned up no reliable sources about the page subject and therefore does not likely meet the GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:08, 7 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  12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teta Colamonaco[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NARTIST JMHamo (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:BAND (and merge any cited info) to Screaming Tea Party. Sources[50][51][52].--Jahaza (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is written by an WP:SPA and largely promotional with very weak sources. I don't think redirecting is helpful. She left the band, so there's not likely to be anything noteworthy happening with regards to her as a member. She seems to want to establish herself as an artist, but fails WP:Artist at the moment. The vogue reference is to an open submission portfolio site, the refernce to the collaboration with Maguire is based on what looks like a press release. I can't find anything about her as a painter. There is one interview with her in the Italian vanity fair. Mduvekot (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as the band article is also currently at AfD, nothing here suggest a better solid notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Onel5969 TT me 11:53, 15 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 and redirect to Project CARS#Downloadable content.  Sandstein  08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project Cars DLC[edit]

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

Not necessary to have within Wikipedia. Fails WP:VGSCOPE. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 05:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:52, 7 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. I've speedied for the third time and salted. Irrespective of notability, it's blatant full-on spamming. Creator and sock indeffed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Himalayan Land Development Company[edit]

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

I'm somewhat reluctant to send this article to AfD as I found a forum post which suggests that the company has been featured in at least one news article. Unfortunately, I cannot find the said article on the web, and a search failed to find much else other than websites which promote their real estate projects. I'm aware that the company is based in India and coverage on Indian subjects is spotty, which is why I'm reluctant to send this to AfD, but unless someone can find sources which I may have missed, I can't see how this is company is notable. Not nominating it for speedy deletion as there is a credible(?) claim to notability as being the largest land development company in the Himalayan region of India, but I can't find a source which confirms that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:11, 7 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) 00:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Bennett[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Bennett doesn't appear to meet WP:JOURNALIST notability guidelines, and lacks independent sources. The NYT source is just a wedding announcement, one is an article he wrote, the others are routine listings. Based on history, this was very likely created as paid editing. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worth noting is that this article was a creation of a blocked sockpuppet. John from Idegon (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 03:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 03:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was only able to find very trivial mentions of the page subject when I searched. No substantial coverage at all. From what I can tell, subject does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:04, 7 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) 01:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parvatiyar[edit]

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

Caste does not appear to exist from basic google searches. Ref list given not helpful and no inline citations. ツStacey (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find this concept in any reliable sources. Therefore fails WP:GNG - impossible to write an article without any reliable sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:02, 7 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. NA1K has proven the BLP is notable enough to warrant an article and that NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply .... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Hull[edit]

Toby Hull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep - having one's own series on the largest of the UK's three nationwide commercial terrestrial networks (CITV is ITV's equivalent of CBBC) does, I think, satisfy the notability requirements of WP:Entertainer . Plutonium27 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: No significant multiple roles/fan base/innovation, so doesn't meet WP:Entertainer.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, either to Emu (puppet) or to Rod Hull#Legacy. The subject's notability is effectively inherited from his performances with the puppet after his father's death, but a search term redirected to either the puppet or the father is certainly justified. PWilkinson (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 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) 04:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a compromise as there's nothing to suggest a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either puppet's article or father's article (unsure which). The Guardian and Mail articles are on the slight side, and just introduce him (i.e. they aren't reviews or anything).--A bit iffy (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It was his fathers act so that's the redirect location. Szzuk (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I-15-028-H_Final_Response_Package.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/09/18/rand-paul-chuck-grassley-shine-a-light-on-the-nonprofit-climate-change-group-neon/
  3. ^ http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20141203/102771/HHRG-113-SY00-20141203-SD004.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.theiowastatesman.com/3328/grassley-presses-nsf-on-funding-lobbying
  5. ^ http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-national-science-foundation-violations-laws-funding-lobbying
  6. ^ http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/256524-nsf-evades-oversight-negligence
  7. ^ http://www.nature.com/news/critics-allege-misuse-of-funds-by-us-ecology-project-1.16498
  8. ^ http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060006169
  9. ^ http://pacificnwc.blogspot.com/2014/12/house-committee-on-science-space-and.html
  10. ^ "Interview: Toby Hull". the Guardian.
  11. ^ "Emu set for television comeback".
  12. ^ "New-look Emu back on television".
  13. ^ Oliver Duff (23 October 2011). "Watch out, Parkie - Hull's son is bringing back Emu". The Independent.
  14. ^ "I'm going to emu-late my dad". Daily Record. (subscription required)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubravka Stojanović[edit]

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

Delete: -- has not reached threshold of notability for an acadmeician or historian for a standalone article. Just too soon, I reckon. Quis separabit? 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- she seems to have published a lot, but the only source is the webpage of a association where she is a co-founder.--Mondiad (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added some awards she has won. There are plenty of other references out there in languages I can't read. -- haminoon (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WorldCat shows a few edited (by others) volumes having reasonable holdings, but the many books written by her are all right around a dozen holdings each, which is pretty low by PROF standards. A few news-pieces, as mentioned above, but which fall far short of GNG. (Parenthetical note: it seems the argument of academics being notable via "punditry" is being advanced more frequently nowadays e.g. a recent AfD, but such commentary is within their routine activity scope.) Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The low number of holdings would be because her books are writen in Serbian. -- haminoon (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree. The corollary, however, is that sufficiently important books are translated, usually at least into English. In fact, translation itself is a fairly conclusive indicator of notability. But, as far as I can tell, those books have not been translated, so we still have the problem that her work has not been widely "noted". Agricola44 (talk) 00:10, 7 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) 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, winner of several notable awards. Article will be expanded.--Zoupan 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The awards don't establish her notability. Not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG, and as Agricola44 pointed out, she doesn't pass WP:NPROF. Onel5969 TT me 11:56, 15 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  08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kokqepa[edit]

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

No notability. The "satirical website" is an personal fun blog, no coverage, no serious work within. DMOZ lists it as "blog de humor". The only links point to facebook or other personal non-reliable sources. The account that created the article falls clearly under WP:SPA Mondiad (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falls into WP:Promotion.--Mondiad (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. 14:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC): Noyster (talk), 14:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned because this is still questionably notable and improvable for the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 13 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laoise Murray[edit]

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

A young actress who had a recurring role in The Tudors. In the five years since there this biography was created there have been no solid reliable references or indications that she meets WP:NACTOR./ Blue Riband► 03:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Only finding passing mentions in sources (e.g. [53], [54], [3]). Does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. North America1000 20:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned, not yet a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability. Snappy (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:N. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not even close to meeting WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - There's about 2 mentions and that's it .... not worth saving tbh, Had she starred in more shows I perhaps would've dug deeper but she's only starred in 3 and even those wern't notable, Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 14 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari[edit]

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

Advert for subject and his Institute, written by an account in the name of the Institute and/or himself, and primarily sourced to his/the Institute's website Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF and not enough coverage for GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer nom fails WP:GNG. Now there are thousands of Islamic scholar not clear why this particular subject is notable.Further Ihsan Institute does not appear to be notable does not have a corresponding article WP:WTAF and the article is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:42, 14 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) 00:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Front[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as possibly non-notable since September 2008. It was previously brought to AfD over a year ago but closed as no consensus because no one else commented. Of the 7 references in the article, four are from low quality blogs, one is from the band's possibly defunct myspace page, one is a Facebook page, another is a video, and the NY Daily News article barely mentions the band. My searches turned up no reliable sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since old unimproved non-notables are even less notable seven and a half years later. Dkendr (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above. It seems as though the band is defunct now and was never actually notable to begin with. Gargleafg (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as none of the current links and including the article itself seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 10 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kipnuk Adventure Series[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable book series. The only hits I could find online are websites selling the books (such as Amazon), or profiles on websites such as Goodreads or FictionDB. No reliable coverage or reviews could be found. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is nearly even speedy material with no better signs of a better notable article here. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a self-published series and while that doesn't mean that it's automatically non-notable, it does make it very unlikely that it'll pass. I could find nothing to suggest that it's notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. No reliable sources found, only the usual bookseller and other non-useable sites.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources from search links atop this discussion. North America1000 16:34, 12 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) Rcsprinter123 (cajole) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrovul Ciocănești[edit]

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

This does not strike me as fulfilling WP:NGEO nor even WP:N. Even the Romanian version does not seem to include "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". I don't see how this article would ever progress beyond the stub it currently is. Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason: Ostrovul Mare, Islaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 02:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it is governmentally recognized as a Special Protection Area, which seems to be a EU-wide scheme; whether it will ever progess beyond a stub is no reason to delete the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy which states that being a Special Protection Area makes a place notable enough to warrant its own article. Any data on these things can also go in a list or table.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 18:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't, but we don't have a policy for every contingency. I suspect that some might say WP:GEOLAND applies if it has received a European Union recognition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to agree with Carlos in this case and say that the EU designation means that WP:GEOLAND does apply. Certainly, others may disagree and indeed its section on "Named natural features" -- which this would be, as an unpopulated (by people) place -- is very open to interpretation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comments above spell out why it should be kept quite nicely; I can do no better than to agree with them entirely. Also, "it'll always be a stub" is not a reason for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • btw, the Bulgarian wiki article shows some ways in which it could grow, right now, and there are more: an island like this in Europe must have a human history of settlement, no? And then there are the questions around the species of animals that are protected there now, and the process by which this area was submitted for and received EU-designation. I don't agree with the "always a stub" position, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 13 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. North America1000 06:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welmex Programming Language[edit]

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

I can't find any sources to confirm the subject's existence, nor that of the editor. Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - zero coverage online. If it really does exist, there's no indication of notability per WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned, not yet a fully formed article. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search turned up no RS coverage of this language.Dialectric (talk) 10:52, 9 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Dome Robbery[edit]

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

Non-notable movie. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ALTS:
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep. I don't agree that it's non-notable. Google Books finds a few mentions, then there's the above-mentioned review, and Highbeam finds mentions in the Mirror and Daily Record. There's a whole bunch of films on WP with fewer verifiable sources than that. Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 03:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While other stuff exist is usually not a valid argument at AfDs, the lengthy review, pointed out by Sir Michael through a diligent WP:BEFORE and the other coverages I found may be enough to satisfy WP:NFILM. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:30, 12 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 keep. Sorry, but the rationale for deletion is not a valid one. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales for deletion. North America1000 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Late Late Show guests[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 00:33, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_January_7&oldid=1142622504"