Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 July	11 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at modeling pageants[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unsourced NN list of participants in random pageants with no connection to one another. MSJapan (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at major beauty pageants[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. Duplicates information elsewhere in a format that is not useful to the reader. MSJapan (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:LISTPURP as a functional information source and navigational aid. This is evidenced by the significant number of page views the article receives, such as 5,217 in the last thirty days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per North America¹⁰⁰⁰. However, the article needs third party reliable sources. --Richie Campbell (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at 2nd-tier male pageants[edit]

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

List of NN participants in "second-tier" contests, with no real indication of why that might be, and many of these pageants are relatively new. claim of importance is entirely subjective. MSJapan (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fancruft. Seriously, Philippines at - 2nd-tier - male - pageants? Stuff like this is suitable for Wikia, but not here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.----Richie Campbell (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at major male pageants[edit]

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

Incorrect tile aside (because it's really some sort of list), this is WP:TRIVIA/WP:FANCRUFT, with mostly NN people on it. We don't maintain lists of contestants across pageants in countries. MSJapan (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IRS tax forms. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Form 1120[edit]

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

This article consists of instructions pertaining to the U.S. tax form 1120 for corporations. It reads like something from the IRS. Wikipedia is not a manual WP:notmanual. It appears the article was created by a new Wikipedia editor. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a number of other sources, including tax websites (TurboTax, HR Block), news websites (e.g, The New York Times, that has been covering the form since the end of World War I, and The Wall Street Journal). The article as it currently stands doesn't reference a lot of third-party sources, but it can be improved to include those. I'm in touch with the author of the original article on how to make the relevant improvements, and we expect to be done by the end of the week. In the interim, it seems that the article as it stands right now is a good start, and should simply have tags indicating need for improvement rather than being nominated for deletion.Vipul (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above are search pages for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. There is no specific coverage of this form in the NYT as far as I can tell, and I am not going to look through all the titles to see if one turns up. Also, the tax forms are subjects of these stories and how they might impact constituents concerned with these. The tax forms are mentioned by name and that is it. These articles are not what this Wikipedia article is - the boring minute details of instructions on par with a booklet the IRS produces about what each line item of a tax form means - and this latter description is a summation of what this Wikipedia article is. It is not about "Form 1120" as the subject - it is instructional.

In the Wall Street Journal search page, there is only one hit on Form 1120 and that is a PDF download for Form 7004 in the year 2011 [1]. In the WSJ, here is an article about what to do about taxes if you're an entrepreneur [2]. It is not an approximate replica of IRS instructions, which is all this Wikipedia article is.

Please provide sources that are on point. It is the author's responsibility to provide verification WP:BURDEN. To wit - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds...material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into IRS tax forms- the form itself isn't idependently notable, and Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. However, some of the information may be relevant and useful for the IRS tax forms article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) into IRS tax forms#Entity returns. While US corporate taxation is a highly notable subject, the 1120 and 1120S forms themselves don't seem to have generated in-depth coverage other than tutorials and manuals. I was unable to find multiple in-depth RS about the form itself. Basic information is abundantly verifiable, however, and as a major IRS tax form, it warrants some coverage at IRS tax forms#Entity returns. In order to not unbalance that article, I suggest not more than a paragraph or so be merged. This is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark! There are a lot of references in the article itself, including the history section (that includes a reference to two New York Times articles back from 1919: this and this) and in the Reception section (such as a Tax Foundation report, another New York Times article based on an earlier Tax Foundation report, plus other coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and other locations). You and Steve are correct to note that a lot of this coverage does not specifically discuss the individual lines of the form, but media coverage of a form is generally going to discuss its broader social implications (including the cost of compliance, reporting requirements, etc.) and not individual lines. I believe that this external coverage of the form (across the decades) is sufficient to establish notability. Whether some individual details need to be included or not (i.e., whether individual pieces of information have adequate reliable third-party coverage) is a separate issue.

As I noted above, although I didn't create the article I did ask for it to be created and worked closely with the author. Subsequently (after the nomination for deletion), I have added a lot of content to the page, some of it prompted by the concerns raised here.Vipul (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can agree with Mark and Joseph - merging is probably the best possible outcome for the page under discussion. Vipul, the point is this article does not reflect any kind of significant coverage from reliable sources. The topic "corporate taxation" is most likely notable - but this tax form is not notable, and this article is formatted and reads like an IRS tax manual. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Wikipedia is not a how-to, and I don't see any other way this page could roll. The form changes every once in a while, and that in and of itself is not notable. WP:ENN certainly applies. MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Taxation is based on legislation not some independent forms process. In-depth articles that discuss tax policy mention the form number in passing. It's not in-depth about the forms. I can see the value in the suggested merge. Gab4gab (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. P. B. Nayar[edit]

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't claim any evidence of notability. Prevan (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abctales[edit]

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

This has actually (1) not substantially improved since starting in August 2008 but (2) also has not actually substantially improve since the 1st AfD by DGG in January 2013, that AfD itself was kept because of a few links listed but that's all they were, a few links and quote "paragraphs", nothing substantial and my own searches have found this also. This has also not improved since Drmies tagged and protected three years ago (note he deleted his own 2nd AfD). The first two sources, The Argus and Spiegel.de mention them a few times but it's still questionably borderline at best. I should note I still confirm my original PROD: "Listed sources are not actual substantial coverage sources and their own links are also noticeably listed, my searches also found nothing convincingly better to suggest this can be improved. The best source listed, The Telegraph, is only a mere paragraph about the website listed along with several other websites". SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister, I think I reverted after Twinkle informed me that mine was the second AfD, and followed the links in the first AfD. I'm mildly for keeping this. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article for a site devoted to self-promotion -- "Read one of the 117,522 stories from our 19,199 authors" DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Khan (actor)[edit]

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

The two sources mention but do not discuss a S. Kkan who is described as the producer of the movie, not an actor. This editor seems to have competence problems, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F A Khan where the editor again has used sources discussing a person who is not the subject of the article. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my own searches and examinations have still not found the needed substance to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Editors are divided on whether to delete this content. The text as written when this AfD began was clearly unsatisfactory, but during the course of the AfD, Patar knight has substantially rewritten it. His rewrite was a marked improvement but I should think some additional sources will be needed in future. If they are not forthcoming I would expect that this content will end up being merged into health insurance in due course. This "no consensus" close does not preclude this outcome, which can be proposed in the normal way. What this discussion has found is that health cash plans should not become a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 21:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Health cash plans[edit]

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

Heavily WP:PROMO article created to support notability of Health Shield by the same SPA. The material not sourced to the above company's website is a WP:DICDEF. MSJapan (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Promotional article. Aust331 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:A quick google search uncovered several reliable sources covering this topic, Including this 2006 article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/2947195/Extract-more-value-from-your-cash-plan.html Also characterizing the creator of this article as an wp:SPA seems to contravene wp:AGF. Ottawahitech (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you look at the fact that the editor never did anything but promote HealthShield on several articles, write an article on HealthShield, and write an article on HealthShield's major product, the cash plan. Once he did that, the editor had no further interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Sounds like a single purpose to me. Would you rather I cited WP:NOTHERE? MSJapan (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: what the hell does an SPA have to do with the notability of a topic? the article may be poorly written but that doesn't mean that it's not notable. Demonstrate its lack of notability, not the quality of the writing. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, here's lack of notability for you. No GNews hits, and every regular hit in the top 20 to "health cash plan" is sourced to a company that sells one. Therefore, one is going to be very hard-pressed to find NPOV sourced in and amongst the advertisement. Yes, it exists, but WP:ENN. That Telegraph article isn't substantial enough for coverage, and if that's it, then that's saying something about GNG, isn't it? MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan:, might I request a quick google books search for "health cash plans". I'm curious what you make of it, would you still consider this for delete or not. The article most definitely needs significant work, but, is there any notability to it? Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're finding, but I'm finding a lot of "how to use a health cash plan in investing"; "guide to selling cash plans for financial advisors", "employer's guide to health cash plans" and the like. Just because it's an investment vehicle and an employment item doesn't mean it's notable if the the only coverage is commercial in nature. Wikipedia is not a how-to on what you should do with your money or what your responsibilities are as an employer, or how to sell a product to a customer. Everybody sells Band-Aids, but we don't assess notability or write the article based on that fact alone. MSJapan (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, I took a second look and yes, they're all how to guides on selling health cash plans. I can back deletion for this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above discussion, while there is some coverage for Health Cash Plans they take up the form of how to sell these plans, without better evidence of notability this article does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide as MSJapan rightly point out. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as this could at best be acceptable but it would still need majorly better improvements, something of which is likely best simply restarted as to convince anew, with better overall. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic seems to be notable [3], [4], but the article needs work. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep – Notable topic. E.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]. The article is presently not promotional, per copy editing that has occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out here as well that the articles cited are personal finance how-to's - "How to extract more value from your cash plan" etc., so it's not falling outside WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTADVICE, especially the Google Books refs. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After relisting three times, no consensus has been established. The arguments for keep (specifically Lelijg's comment) noted that the subject is notable and many reliable sources exist. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Etcheverry[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR for any particular accomplishment and no reliable source coverage present to support it -- the sourcing is entirely to primary sources like the self-published websites of her own business endeavours. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- it takes reliable source coverage in media, supporting a claim of notability that would pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, to get one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Comment~~ per Ipigott: We appear to have a Spanish-language writer (and article editor, too, perhaps). I'd ping someone like SusunW or another editor who works on articles about people from Spanish-speaking nations. Let's see what can be found. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some information in English, she is the winner of the nuestra palabra competition in 2008 [9] (though I'm not sure how big that is). She is interviewed in Cloudburst: An Anthology of Hispanic Canadian Short Stories [10] (via Project MUSE). I find her in Spanish sources, too. I'd ping Ipigott since I think he's fluent in Spanish, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the basis of the sources I have found, she appears to be an author who has received attention and interest for her work published in Canada.Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post the sources here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as the coverage still seems thin and there's nothing else convincing, I'll note WorldCat also only lists 31 library holdings. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WorldCat holdings alone are not a particular indicia of notability, but searching there, I find she has also been published as Gabriela Miralles-Etcheverry, and most of her works, as noted in both this article and there, are short stories and literary criticism, things generally published in anthologies, not stand-alone works. She has at least three published books, and it looks like most of her works are held in Canadian libraries, so if you get 31 hits for Canada, that's not bad, particularly as she appears to write in Spanish. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is still no consensus that I can reasonably act upon in this debate. I'll give it another week rather than no consensus as the latest contributions are very new. KaisaL (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be just enough to warrant notability i.e. prize winning and widely published. MurielMary (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where exactly are these sources on the basis of which it is being claimed that it passes GNG? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as being known for her writing, she's known for her part in Hispanic-Canadian cultural life. This includes a variety of activities like participation in a government educational programme to do with migration, talks in schools, theatrical work, conferences etc. See [11] She's on the editorial board of a trilingual academic/literary publisher and plays host at Hispanic-Canadian literary events - like [12] and [13]. There's lit crit of her work online at [14] and [15] and she's mentioned or discussed in books at Google Books, unfortunately mostly snippet view, but see Poética de escritoras hispanoamericanas al alba del próximo milenio Perhaps this video interview for a mag, "Mundo en Español Canadá", online and monthly print edition, helps build her notability. I can't follow it but it does show her getting attention. Lelijg (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correction - I probably shouldn't have included an article by her husband (?). Also, here's a dissertation with a chapter on her work. Using the spelling Gabrielle Etcheverry finds more about her university life and a couple of articles (Border work - resituating writers and Cultures of Coloniality: Latina/o Writing in Canada). Lelijg (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ipigott. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Octobera cave[edit]

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

Cannot be verified. The article is almost incomprehensible, and the lack of references means it cannot be repaired. I could find no other references to an "Octobera cave." The Karst caves exist, and are a world heritage site, but I could not find an article about them mentioning this cave. ubiquity (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless the cave exists under another name there's nothing to be found for the article. A search of google revealed only links back to Wikipedia, a search of google books and news returned nada. The article itself gives me little to work off, if I do find something then I'll note it here. Therefore, WP:V, WP:HOAX and WP:GEOFEAT apply. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomprehensible, no sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VSoft Corporation[edit]

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

This is a not notable company and the article is an undisclosed paid editing job. I do not see why this particular information technology company is notable. There are hardly any independent reliable secondary citations covering the company. I could only find mentions in biz journals and press releases. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I could not find enough information from reliable sources about the subject to justify an article. Jujutacular (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most that this company can profess is being listed at >4000 in the 5000 companies in Atlanta. Not notabie by WP:CORP. LaMona (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vangi Gantsho[edit]

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

The citations provided include several that lack independence or are the subject's own work. I have done a search for independent reliable sources: what I was able to find makes only a borderline case for retention of the article. The subject's work does not appear to have met the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, but I would like others to check that work and identify some acceptable sources if they do in fact exist. Specific concerns with the existing refs are as follows: 1. LinkedIn profile fails WP:I and WP:RS; 2.) The Poetrypotion website and journal appears to be a journal that publishes poetry, not a journal that reviews it or critiques it, and as near as I am able to tell it has no editorial oversight with all of its non-poetry content generated by the journal's founder, Duduzile Zamantungwa Mabaso; 3. Piece written by the subject, fails WP:I; 4. This is a PDF to one of the subject's poems, making it a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE; 5. This is a press release/ information packet PDF, not a citation to an independent reliable non-trivial source; 6. This is a link to a website for another poet which does not mention the subject of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no trace of notability can be found about the subject in reliable sources, it fails WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Take sourcing concerns, if any, to the talk page. czar 09:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHAV[edit]

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

This post amounts to little more than an advertisement for the business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioToupe90 (talk • contribs)

Response (Speedy Keep):

Business? What business? Current license is non-commercial, held by a non-profit community entity.
This article (not "post") is no more an advertisement than the thousands of WP articles about other radio stations, few of which have call signs with as rich and interesting a history. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Hertz1888. Nom cites "the business" but as Hertz1888 describes, the article describes a succession of businesses, the current callsign user being a nonprofit and most of the earlier ones now defunct... so it's hard to see who's benefitting from the "advertising". Anyway, WP contains many articles that are solely about businesses, and an unkind (or maliciious) eye could see many of them as "advertising"... but as long as the articles are written in accordance with NPOV, DUE, etc., they're ok. Nom does not specify how article meets any of the AFD criteria, merely alludes to #4 (advertising)... but #4 says:

" Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)"

The WHAV article contains considerable encyclopedic content. I'll also note that this is apparently the nominator's first contribution to WP; she or he does not even know enough to sign their post nor to provide a wikilink to the subject article. AFD should be summarily closed as specious and nominator should be advised to get more experience here before wasting our time with any more AFDs. Jeh (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I wouldn't mind seeing a few more sources, but all and all, the article more than meets GNG, NMEDIA, RS, NPOV, V and N. As for the "business" issues, which I'm guessing means "advertising", I'm not seeing that here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:25 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)
Comment: User:RadioToupe90, the creator of this AfD has had but two edits. The one to create this AfD and one to add the template to the WHAV page. I recommend we take this AfD with a grain of salt and speedy close it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:27 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)

Snow Keep - Clearly satisfies WP:BROADCAST: "Notability can be established by... established broadcast history, or unique programming." Whether or not article reads like an "advertisement" is irrelevant here: article quality does not determine notability. Incidentally, long-standing convention at WP:WPRS that licensed radio stations which originate their own programming are inherently notable. Levdr1lp / talk 10:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: As previously mentioned, this doesn't really look like an advertisement, especially since more of the article is devoted to the history of the original station than to the current WHAV. In addition to this !vote, I've properly formatted this (weeks-old) AfD, which might help to at least lead to a former closure of the debate; I'll also note that the nominator has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia since the nomination, which to date still comprise the only two edits by RadioToupe90 (talk · contribs). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Well meets WP:BROADCAST easily. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: Not only is this AfD of a well-written, well-balanced article (almost entirely focused on a defunct station) that's not remotely promotional on specious grounds, but I'm comfortable with terming this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 05:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fox Chase Line#Beyond Fox Chase. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line[edit]

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

This article was created by Oanabay04 (talk · contribs), who was banned for massive copyright infringement. This is one of several articles he wrote dealing with SEPTA's diesel services on the Fox Chase Line. There isn't wholesale copyright infringement that I've been able to detect; I removed minor infringements last September. What concerns me is that when I checked the various citations he'd sprinkled in throughout the article I didn't find information which backed the assertions. Possible conclusions are that he just wrote an essay and sprinkled in citations to give a veneer of respectability, or he committed copyright infringement from some heretofore unknown source. Either way, I don't think the current article's history should stay on Wikipedia. The topic is absolutely notable, but it's covered for now on Fox Chase Line#Beyond Fox Chase. There's nothing in the current article which I'd feel safe merging.

Short version: the topic is notable but the current article is toxic and should be deleted as preventative measure, with no prejudice toward recreation from sources by a non-banned user. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fox Chase Line#Beyond Fox Chase. Oanabay04's flagrant copyright violations are revolting enough, but the notability convinces me it's worth keeping and rewriting. Plus you did mention that you removed the copyvios. On the other hand, if you decided to delete it and I just restored it as a redirect, I hope the original version's tainted history won't show up. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct; administrators will be able to see the deleted revisions, but they won't merge with the redirect's history. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DanTD (and I agree with the deletion the create the redirect method). It's a notable topic, probably with enough independent notability for its own article, but the mess that that sock-puppet-using, POV-pushing serial plagiarist left should be expunged from the public record. oknazevad (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can nominator provide examples of the false citations so I can confirm this? It seems these form the basis for this AfD so we need proof. DeVerm (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed most of them and tagged others in September: [16]. After that I gave up and moved on to other issues for a while. Unless you're local to Philadelphia or a devoted railfan I doubt you'll have access to the relevant sources and they're not available electronically (which is, in part, why Oanabay04's copyvios went undetected for so long). Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This is a POV-fork by an editor with a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one. Anything of value in this article can be moved to the Fox Chase Line page. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination, though I'd like to see it recreated (or the section in the Fox Chase Line expanded) as soon as possible. Although some of the current sources might be valid and useful, it's probably best to redo the history with 100% certainty. (Incidentally, I did just upload File:Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line 1981 schedule.pdf which is a PD replacement for one of the fair-use images in the article.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 ^talk 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Yaremchuk[edit]

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

Repeat nomination, inspired in large part by the prevailing argument at WP:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen. The subject of this particular article similarly fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF - he does not hold a named chair position anywhere nor has contributed to his field of study in any way sufficient to be immortalised on Wikipedia. The initial version of the article was a blatant promotion and most likely was created on behalf of a marketing agency once involved in promotion of the article subject elsewhere on the internet (I have been warned not to out it). After one nomination the article somehow survived deletion, but still fails any and all notability criteria for Wikipedia in my view. Hence repeat submission. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 18 papers on GS with over 100 citations passes WP:Prof#C1, Nominator deserves a WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Mere 18 papers with 100 citations are very low for someone with such a long professional history as claimed. I'd rather trust Jbhunely's calculations below. — kashmiri ^TALK 12:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep ~~Calculating from GScholar his h-index is 50 and g-index is 88 with ~~380~~ 433 papers. His top 14 papers have over 200 citations each.~~ I refined of my search term (using MJ Yaremchuk rather than M Yaremchuk) and have come up with numbers I am more confident in H-index=44, G-index=80, Papers=253, Citations=7168, Avg Cites/yr=~205, Pub years=35, 18 papers over 100 cites. He has authored a textbook Yaremchuk, MJ. Atlas of Facial Implants. Philadelphia: Saunders-Elsevier, 2007 but I can not find any indication it is considered significant in the field. I do see several press releases and he is a columnist for HuffPo which clogs up searches. Still looking.Jbh ^Talk 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 14:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I am finding lots of press releases about his work in Medical Devices & Surgical technology Week. They do not contribute to GNG but they do show that he is providing ongoing contributions in his field. There are a couple of articles where he is quoted in newspapers and a bit of trivia for the article that he was the reconstructive surgeon for Joe Thornton. Really nothing biographical out there but he meets PROF#C1 by his publications and per consensus in the previous AfD so I am changing my Comment to Keep. Jbh ^Talk 02:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 20:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Would you be able to doublecheck whether the citations are not mostly self-citations? That's pretty common in academia, unfortunately, and for someone so strongly engaged in self-promotion as the subject this would be highly likely. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not digging through over 400 papers but his stats are so high I seriously doubt there are more that the usual number of self cites. He has, according to my report from the Publish or Perish software, 433 papers over 38 years with 9223 cites to those papers. His top 20 papers average about 20 cites per year. He averages 242 cites per year overall but only a little over 10 papers per year so even a first order inspection (not to mention common sense based on H) says he is not getting his numbers by self citation. As a comparison, one of the co-authors of his most cited paper WPA Lee, who is a Professor of Plastic and Recnstructive Surgery at The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine has h=32, g=51, 347 papers over 28 years, 3529 total cites, top 10 papers average about 10 cites.

Yeah, this guy seems to promote himself more than I find tasteful for anyone in the academic or medical world but he is a major contributor to his profession and a long way from some fad "Doctor to the stars!!" type of guy. Jbh ^Talk 14:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder if that's indeed a lot. I run names of a few personally known doctors/professors of medicine in Google Scholar and get 764 publications by "E Mercuri" (yes, this is all one person), 1130 by "E Bertini" (again one person), 1,300 by "F Muntoni", 502 for "A Manzur", etc. Do they all deserve an article just based on the number of publications? I am VERY hesitant to equate plain number of publications with substantial contribution to the field. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well "E Mercuri" when you correct for there being two in similar fields (Euginio is an Associate Professor of Pediatric Neurology the other seems to be a geneticist) has H=38 and 457 papers over 48 years so maybe he has a long career worth looking at or maybe "he" is more than one person. "E Bertini" may be of interest his H=75+ (I stopped the query Google was getting annoyed) (The high citation rate may come from Eugenio Bertini of Bertini's Theorum so not one person either.) but both of them are in genetics and each field has differing citation rates, "A Manzur" is unlikely one person either as the search is returning papers on Dark matter and Glucocorticoids - wildly different fields.

In any case all of those people may be worthwhile to look at for articles if they are indeed one person. With this subject at a minimum all of the papers which contribute t his H-index are in the field of plastic surgery and a scroll through the others looked like they were as well - there are other Yaremchuks in academia so there is a posibility of crossover in total citation count due to limitations of the profiling software and how much time I want to spend tweeking it but based on expending about twice as much effort As I did to figure out the issues with the examples you gave I did not find any issues with the Yarmechuk. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, no one it talking about total papers they are talking about total citations and citations per paper. See H-index ("Among 36 new inductees in the National Academy of Sciences in biological and biomedical sciences in 2005, the median h-index was 57") and G-index which are standard metrics for academics sort of like Impact factor is for academic journals. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I added several sources to the article talk page [17] which might be useful in expanding the article. Jbh ^Talk 14:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The statement that the article "somehow survived deletion" is a stipulation that this nominator is unwilling or unable to verbalize the arguments from the previous AfD. The points about "named chair" and "promotionalism" are well covered with a casual reading of the previous AfD. I don't see any new information relevant to this AfD to be found in the alleged "similarity" to an ongoing AfD. Everything was already covered six months ago. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the previous AfD above, those interested in the arguments can easily browse there. The main argument in the previous nomination was that he was notable because of the high notability of the hospital where he works; however, notability is not inherited to which I hope editors here will agree. FYI, subsequent nominators have no obligation to prepare summaries of previous AfD's. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE B4 states, "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Your nomination does not have evidence that you did that. Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would scarcely say that unanimous sentiment to Keep (other than, of course, the nom) constitutes "somehow survived deletion." If the nom is truly wondering how the article possibly could have survived deletion, allow me to enlighten him: everyone disagreed with you, then as now. Ravenswing 05:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the previous AfD and try counting? Numbers are not that high, around the nursery age. For your kind information, "everyone" were mostly editors arriving there through Hullaballoo's page, with whom I had a clash about something else on his Talk page, and this had spilled onto the previous nom. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well respected, significant scholar in the field. Passes point one of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence? Or one of the WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments? — kashmiri ^TALK 11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominator has added no new arguments since the last AFD. Also the nominator stripped back some content to make this look worse before nominating. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My last edits to the article were in December 2015, your allegations of "before nominating" hardly holds ground. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, WP:POINTy nomination, very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the article's appearance of lacking independent sources is mostly because the nominator removed them rather than because they don't exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Person does not pass WP:PROF#C1 that is; 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Thus do not satisfy WP:GNG. I wounder why vote for keep ignore the highlighted phrase. Where are these independent reliable sources? Where is compliance of WP:NOR and WP:SYN? Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the enormous number of citations to his work is conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It is generally accepted that the NUMBER OF CITATIONS is NOT a measure of impact in the discipline. This was actually the rationale for coming up with more complex measures, like impact factor, Eigenfactor, h-index and others, some of which also look into HOW the article was cited, in particular by what other authors, by what journals and, also, by what publishers. There have been unfortunate cases bordering academic fraud where some (well-known) academic publishers incentivised authors to cite only from journals published by the same publisher, or required a given percentage of such citations (coercive citation). So, your assertion that bare "number of citations" is equivalent to impact is plainly wrong. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is so wrong-headed that I don't even know where to start with it. First, what you claim is "generally accepted" is the opposite of reality. Second, "impact factor" should never be used to measure individual papers or the people who publish them, as many reliable sources report. Third, eigenfactor and h-index are basically just numbers of citations in fancier dress. Fourth, your insinuations of academic misconduct in a case where there is none border on being a major WP:BLP violation. And fifth, nobody is asserting that "bare number" of citations is what is relevant; rather, they're asserting that this high number in comparison with other academics in the same discipline shows a high impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Read the comment to which I responded. Then read it again. If you still see any "in comparison" or anything referring to this BLP, try to read it again. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that the citation record of a chief at Mass General has been falsified? Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Harvard professor and Chief at Mass Gen with WoS h-index of 38 and >3,000 citations in one of the lower-cited fields in medicine (surgery) is conclusive pass of PROF c1. Nom and rest of the doubters should rather direct their attention to the growing spate of early-in-career academics (some listed below, if you're currently viewing this in academics' AfD) that are increasingly kept in AfD because of recentism and advocacy agenda. Agricola44 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

h-index of 12 in social sciences (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen) could not satisfy many WP editors as conclusive for notability. Let us see the only indicator; h-index of 38 or 44 in medical and health sciences pass notability? Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally, 10 to 15 is borderline. H-index is not "linear" in the way some people think it is, but is rather at least quadratic and 38 is above most academics on WP. It far exceeds PROF c1 requirements (his raw count is >3000). Your observations are much more applicable to early-in-career academics rather than senior ones at top research institutions. This will end in "keep" without question. Agricola44 (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

We should take in to account the differences of disciplines; medicine and health sciences, social sciences. Medicine and health sciences publication and citation trend can be seen in Web of Science where there are citation based indicators. Medicine related journals have impact factor of three digits. It is not rare. Social sciences in comparison have smaller single digit impact factors in few research journals. We need to be little bit realistic in setting any bottom. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is a vast difference between h-indexes of 12 vs 38. This individual has >3000 citations to his work, which is larger than most academics on WP, including those who work in medicine and the sciences (Most science/medical papers are cited either only 0 or 1 time; see the review article The top 100 papers by VanNoorden et al in Nature 2014). Because this conclusively satisfies PROF c1, this article is certain to be kept. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

There is numeric difference between h-index of 12 and 38. We need to consider differences of disciplines; social sciences and medical sciences. Authorship patterns are also important to consider. Authorship in social scineces has no trends of including all research group members as real authors of any research article. It is accepted in sciences including health sciences. Single paper of a dozen authors definitely gets more citations. Citation patterns (stated above) by kashmiri are also worth noticing. I don't know in terms of 'end in "keep" without question' and 'article is certain to be kept'. No need to say sorry. Nothing wrong to me if it is kept as final decision but only h-index of 38 in health sciences is not convincing in this case. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seem unable to impress upon you that h-index of 38 shows more impact than most academics on WP and is likewise far above average in medicine. I'm retiring from this discussion. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redactem[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Only sources cited are from the distrubutor, the game's Facebook page, and an AMA run by one of the devlopers. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable independent sources. No hits at all from reliable video game sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything that would show notability. There are no reliable sources to be had. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Facebook isn't a reliable source, and when it's the page of the developers, it's also not an independent one. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, quite possibly a promotional article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian A. Schwarz. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCD International[edit]

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

Not notable self proclaimed religious organisation. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Natural Church Development.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7. The banned sock accounts are now requesting deletion.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 at the request of the sockpuppeteers who created this.

Christian A. Schwarz[edit]

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

The articles made to look like well sourced, but it overloaded with references to NCD International web site. Not notable self proclaimed religions leader. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7. Part of a WP:Walled garden of articles created by banned sock accounts, which have now explicitly requested deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: I see you'd added some categories. That's the only substantive edit outside the banned sock accounts. Any objections to a G7 deletion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to speedy deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. G5 is the speedy deletion category for banned/indeffed user creations, but this article is ineligible as it was created before the block. G7 is for requests by an author to delete content they created — do we have such a request here? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We do @David Eppstein:, for all three walled garden articles. I'd linked to it, above. Here it is again. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 despite the disagreement below. The article looks ineligible because of significant edits by multiple users, but that's only because of the socking. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Church Development[edit]

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

Looks like original research for specific religions organisation promotion. Speedy was removed by newly created account with this sole edit. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also NCD International.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ~~WP:G5~~ WP:G7. The banned sock accounts are now requesting deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Articles aren't generally deleted per the request of the filer, particularly when they've progressed this far. If the filer had blanked the page or requested speedy per G7 early on, that would be different. I'd rather not decide whether A7 applies to these two articles. The articles bother me more because they are clearly partial duplicates of each other. It feels like I'm looking at a cracked mirror. In any event, if you feel A7 applies to one or both, you should tag them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now responding to your substituted comment, G5 does not apply. The article has to be created by a sock after the block for G5 to apply.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. thanks. But @Bbb23: as no substantive edits were made to the article outside the sock IP accounts, their request for deletion could be honoured, could it not? Also, as for your "early on" point: this article was created just yesterday. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unseemly for a person to create articles, get blocked, and then request they be deleted. At this point, it's A7 or let the AfDs take their course.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me: I'm not even sure they were actually using those duplicate accounts deceptively or maliciously and should have been blocked. Anyway, you're the admin, not me, and certainly rely on your judgement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ^[SSTflyer] 14:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbos App[edit]

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

This page was created as advertising by the developer of a hoax product called the "Shabbos App". It caused a small amount of controversy for a short period of time, but all of that controversy was predicated on there actually being such a thing as the "Shabbos App". There never was. The official website of the "app" is gone. This was all a clever trick. Wikipedia is not to be used in this way, and the momentary controversy caused by the creator of the hoax is hardly notable. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This vote has a condition: people, stop protesting that you can't call it a hoax. The so-called 'app' was based upon problems in Jewish Law that don't exist, problems in Jewish Law that cannot be solved, and technology "solutions" that would have permanently burned out a phone. There is no evidence that it ever existed. It was and remains a bad joke. Worthy of a Wikipedia entry on that basis, only. Boyblackhat (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale falls under WP:OR. Just because it would burn out people's phone, it doesnt mean it was a hoax. You might not believe it ever existed, and it might not have, but unless you find a WP:RS stating it as a fact, it has to be written on WP as if it was real and never released. - Galatz ^Talk 13:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hoaxes (or even vaporware) can be notable, and this one is, as can be seen by the worldwide significant coverage in reliable sources extensively cited in the article. In "Category: Hoaxes" and its various subcategories, you can see that we have hundreds of articles about hoaxes, including over 70 articles about internet hoaxes. This topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that we have 55 articles in "Category:Vaporware". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the logic is very flawed as to the rationale to delete. No matter what the original reason was to create, it does not anywhere resemble the original listing and it does not read as an advertisement, so that logic is flawed. Secondly, regardless of it being a hoax, it is notable. It was news worthy and covered by many RS over a long period of time. It meets the criteria for notable. - Galatz ^Talk 22:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Galatz, I would also like to clarify that Lisa is using the same reason from the 2nd nomination which resulted in a keep. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but at the time of the second nomination, the thing still at least had a website. There was room to argue that there was something there. And even so, the fact that the page was created by the "developer" of the "app" shouldn't be allowed to stand. It sets a bad precedent. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 08:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. See below. Notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Times of Israel
The Times of Israel
Haaretz
Popular Mechanics
The Jewish Week
Orthodox Union
The Jerusalem Post

Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate its notability; many of those sources also acknowledge the controversy surrounding its status as a "hoax" product. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because this article is about a hoax doesn't mean it's not notable. Significant coverage in news sources like The Times of Israel prove that the subject of this page meets WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As other has pointed out, being a hoax isn't a reason to delete an article. However, there aren't any reliable sources saying it was a hoax, so that's original research. The only thing on the page is one guy speculating it might be a hoax. This is certainly not confirmed. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwurd Fudwupper Fibbed Big[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. No reliable coverage and no sources since creation. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Back to userspace. Let's cut the chase -- I'm closing this as a speedy IAR back to userspace and I'll FPP the mainspace title to avoid it being moved back out of drafting by someone who is less-than-fully-aware of the circumstances. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MonteCristo[edit]

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

This was deleted at AfD just a month ago, userfied after a trip through DRV, immediately moved to draft space, and the resubmitted with only the addition of a few very dubious sources (twitter and random esports blogs). I don't see how any of the objections at the original AfD were met by this new draft. The article in thisisgame.com is in Korean, which I don't read, but from the auto-translation, appears to be an interview, which is not a reliable secondary source. Another non-article in the daily dot. And so on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the AfC was denied by one editor, but then subsequently accepted by another within a span of a day, without satisfying the suggestions of the first. Do you think we can just close this and send the article back into draftspace?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to other contributors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 29: @DGG, Jclemens, Thincat, Hut 8.5, JDDJS, Davey2010, and Stifle: See, this is why I think that "delete" means "delete" and not "userfy", and why I decline to userfy deleted content if no good reason is provided to make me believe that it will be ready for mainspace soon. All it produces is usually this sort of time-wasting exercise with several runs through the deletion process because some editors either don't understand or have no interest in complying with our inclusion requirements. – Concerning the article itself, I am not interested enough in the topic to form an opinion. Sandstein 06:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. Interviews conducted by RS'es are perfectly acceptable as sources. ESPN covers the guy. I don't see what the issue is here. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet NSPORTS-- we have always regarded being a coach as less significant than being an player. The article is essentially promotional for his activities. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Sandstein abut time wasting though I still think the userfy was appropriate. Does WP:CSD#G4 not apply? You need to read G4 very (excessively?) strictly for the intervening userfy to rule it out. On the other matter, no, different AFC reviewers may well take differing views. All this merry-go-round is tantamount to a quick recreation after an AFD delete without significant improvement. The DRV endorsed the AFD deletion and there is no reason to review all that for a second time. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What a fucking waste of time! - I (like many others) expected the nom to actually turn the article around and source it better ..... Anyway I'm not seeing any evidence of notability and IMHO it still fails GNG. (and I apologize Sandstein for having a moan in the last review - Now I see why you don't userfy anything), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 09:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Rogers (YouTube)[edit]

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

This BLP article I created has only one source. IMO it's too little amount of sources for a BLP. Until more sources pop up, I nominate this article for deletion. Redolta📱 ^Contribs 17:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Redolta📱 ^Contribs 17:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7. Creator has requested and no other editor has added content @Mr. Granger:'s edits were to clean up and fix problems and I am pinging him to see if he objects to a db-author deletion, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We would need actual coverage showing that his YouTube channel is felt to be worth noting, not just the number of subscribers which does not mean much on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article speedy deleted under CSD A7 by Iridescent. (non-admin closure) Hx7 07:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahar (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at this time. No cites, either. Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and speedy delete per CSD G8 the redirect Siriywi as that redirect will be dependent on a non-existent page once the article is deleted. The article clearly lacks notability, however the article does not qualify for an A7 speedy delete. Hx7 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Oraisom will likewise need cleaned up. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#A7. Band has no reliability and the speedy deletion tag as be re-added to the article, after the creator removed it. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOT Creator/s seem to mostly be interested in wp:PROMOTION. 220 of ^Borg 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Purohit[edit]

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

This is an autobiography that was deleted and (re)created several times. The problem is the WP:NOTABILITY. None of the sources cited is what we call reliable independent sources with significant coverage. All are personal or promotional pages, pages about his book(s), not about himself. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of no WP:NOTABILITY established here and plus, I didn't find any media coverage of this person. I also suspect that this article could be an autobiography or a case of WP:COI because the username of the user who created this article is similar with the name of the subject here. Ayub407^talk 12:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the links offered in the article, only the DNA India piece might stand as a reference, but that is merely an unbylined two-paragraph piece on the subject as a student who writes/self-publishes. I also found another DNA India piece ("Duped Amdavadi Writer Opens Own Publishing House" – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but neither of these is sufficient for biographical notability, whether as WP:AUTHOR or more broadly. AllyD (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reads like a (self)promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a writer who has not had enough coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kunin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable doctor. Sources cited in the article do not establish notability. Additional search for sources turned up a few low-quality sources, such as from Natural News and other alt-med fan sites. Delta13C (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE subjects have a higher standard of sourcing: the sources need not only to be reliable and in-depth, they also need to provide a sufficiently mainstream take on the subject to provide an adequately neutral point of view. But in this case, even the based standard of WP:GNG for non-fringe subjects has not been met. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 21:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Faisal[edit]

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

Reason Manoflogan (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sole reference is a dead link. The previous authors have not provided any references or reasons to about the person's notability. The only reference I could find of the actress is this link: http://www.tv.com.pk/celebrity/Saba-Faisal/124/biography. I don't think the reference is noteworthy or reputed.

Delete - BLP with no sources. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have provided three strong reference. check the article page for references. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hi, Snehahurrain, Thank you for providing references, but I don't believe that provided references are credible enough. Wikipedia does not consider IMDB as a reliable source for career credits. Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb#Inappropriate_uses has more details on this matter. Most of the information on IMDB is user provided.

Your 2nd source http://www.tv.com.pk/ is one of the verticals of http://www.onepakistan.com.pk/. One Pakistan claims to be a Pakistan's new portal, but it's own "About Page" located at permalink http://www.onepakistan.com.pk/data/corp/ suggests that it is a marketing company, and not an organization that is considered to publish trustworthy information. I quote from their website

OnePakistan.com is a venture of Growfurther Infotech Inc, a private company specializes in brand building, marketing and web 2 development

.

A link from a marketing website can not be relied upon to be a trustworthy source.

http://www.stylishpie.com/top-5-pakistani-celebrities-look-younger-real-age/ resembles a listicle functioning as a clickbait. The website itself states that it is a Pakistan celebrity gossip site. Wikipedia has strict standards on what constitutes a reliable reference. All references must pass WIKIPEDIA:CHALLENGED criteria. I am not sure that a gossip site like stylishpie meets that criteria.

In the absence of sources that meet WIKIPEDIA:CHALLENGED, I believe that this article should be deleted. Manoflogan (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would consider this a BLPPROD by now, still nothing at all actually suggestive of independent notability, a list of works: yes, but still nothing better aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not credible. Engleham (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 08:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set in the future[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

What I said about List of films set in the past applies to this list as well. This is an indiscriminate list that could have included almost every sci-fi or speculative fiction movie, and would have been better handled by categorization. (See the previous nomination.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'Set in the future' is insufficiently specific to have value as a list. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list can be divided into category-sections and explained in each of them, or rearranged in any other way. New information such as the genre or theme of the films can also be added. I don't believe deletion is the best idea, especially in a list like this one, which exists since many years and so many users contributed to. - Alumnum (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the value of that article may not be evident at first glance: e.g. it could also be called a "List of films set in the future with known year of setting". It's not intended to be a useless pile of films that play in the future but an index of past filmic visions of the future with provided date and content (not directly as of right now) of said and the date of production. I also agree with User:Alumnum. --Fixuture (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLT. I was initially predisposed to !vote delete. The nominator is right in that a list like this will never be complete. But such a list enjoys several advantages over a category, as outlined in WP:AOAL. The category is never going to allow you, at a single glance, to view and sort these films by year of release or setting. I actually think this is a great idea! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shawn's reasoning, above. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Films set in the future. Also qualifies per WP:LISTPURP as a useful information source and navigational aid, as evidenced in part by the 7,961 page views the page has received in the last thirty days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:PURPLIST. Obviously this list is never going to be a finished one, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted, it just means it should be expanded. This list is also useful because it allows for sorting whereas a category wouldn't. Omni Flames (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 08:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still nothing to suggest the needed independent notability as the longest work and, major frankly, was only 12 episodes of a TV series for about 1 year; the others are simply a few appearances as a TV character; my searches have found nothing so far to suggest he has any independent notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 15:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 15:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like he played one of the lead roles in at least two films, both of which gained enough coverage to pass NFILM. It's taking a while to dig for these since they're not coming up as easily under his name (I have to search for each film individually), which might be due to others having similar names for various other projects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took a lot of digging since I had to go film by film (I didn't bother checking the TV series unless the role was for more than 1-2 episodes), but it looks like he's played major roles in quite a few films, enough to show notability. It also looks like he voiced a major character for the first 12 episodes of the Spawn series on HBO, until he was replaced in season 3 by a different actor. He's not really a huge actor (although apparently not for lack of trying), but it seems like he's notable enough to pass NFILM. SwisterTwister, what say you? I can see where you wouldn't have found this otherwise - I think it took me about 1-2 hours to find these sources since I had to look in at least 4-5 websites for coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's improved and it's something but I'm not entirely confidently convinced thus I'll wait for others to examine and comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article, after seeing him in the movie Heaven Is a Playground and noticed that he is the only major character who does not have an own WP page. Though he is surely not Marlon Brando, he seems to have enough contribution; which apparently includes an Independent Spirit Award best male lead nomination (now added to the article). Btw. the previously deleted article with the same title was not about him, but some jazz band member of the same name, who was not considered to be notable on his own. Gruen (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per now (and more obviously) meeting the letter and intent of WP:NACTOR. Understanding the nominator rarely practicing WP:BEFORE, I have grateful thanks to Tokyogirl79 for she actually having done so. THAT'S how we build an encyclopedia. It's time to close this discussion per WP:OUTCOMES as now moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give Swister a pass on this one. When I first searched I used Love's name and found pretty much nothing. Searching for his film credits produced far more, although even then I had to look in specific sites/areas in order to find some of these. The reviews weren't really forthcoming without a little extra digging since they didn't seem to want to be discovered initially. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the first point of WP:ENT. Playing the lead roles in multiple, notable films is enough to establish notability. Omni Flames (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Friedman[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing of his own independent notability because the best listed sources are (1) repeated and (2) The Business Insider is simply his own authored page where as the Forbes is actually only an interview; my own searches mirrored this also, finding nothing actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not enough sources to show that he is the foremost expert in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article deleted as copyright infringement under G11. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM 22:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Elijah J. Rasheed[edit]

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

I would've frankly PRODed too, the article overall is still not convincing of independent notability and my own searches have not found better. Note this was speedied before only a few weeks ago. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rasheed is an international officer of a denomination with 6 million members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete because 1.) his bishopric is Presiding Youth Bishop, but because position is not listed among the bishoprics on the Church of God in Christ, it may not be notable. 2.) He is the "youth pastor," not the Pastor of Showers of Blessings Church Of God In Christ in Sacramento, California [18]. 3.) Sacramento's Showers of Blessings Church Of God In Christ lacks a WP page, and does not show up well in a google news search [19] 4.) "Elijah J. Rasheed" gets no hits on a google news search [20], "Elijah Rasheed" gets none; and the sole hit on "Bishop Rasheed" [21] is for someone else. May be a simple matter of WP:TOOSOON; youth pastors are often quite young.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kawasaki Ninja. (non-admin closure) ^[SSTflyer] 14:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kawasaki Ninja ZX-150RR[edit]

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

No coverage in any sources. This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2012, so it fails WP:PRODUCT, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" per WP:NRV. Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kawasaki Ninja. Nordic Dragon 13:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kawasaki Ninja. WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, deletion not necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajeed Akbar[edit]

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

Non-notable minor politican/activist. Only source is just quoting him, and apart from the 1993 event there isn't even a claim of anything else Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subsequent to the nomination, two more references were added. As with that discussed in the nomination rationale, these mention the subject in respect of the "Modern Youth Association" rather than specifically being about him. Nor am I seeing anything better to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a coat rack on a coat rack, it is no where near on Sajeeb Akbar, and there is even less to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Matti[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with just a handful of minor credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: one notable role, not enough for WP:NACTOR, no coverage found to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Harris (detective)[edit]

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

Non notable fictional character. references provided are not about the character and only provide mentions rather than non-trivial coverage. While Barney Miller was a popular show, references about this character specifically are not forthcoming. Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't any sources to establish notability, so an article is not necessary. TTN (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Improperly titled, first of all, for a TV character. Still, a Google search of "Ron Harris Barney Miller" doesn't yield much to do a stand-alone article justice, not even for "a policeman, baby!" — Wylie pedia 13:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^[SSTflyer] 14:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Movsum Agha[edit]

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

Delete. No references cited and unable to find anything in google search. Claim of notability is very vague and might fail GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now referenced from an Azerbaijani news website that says that the President and First Lady of Azerbaijan are regular visitors to this guy's shrine [22], and a guide book to Azerbaijian that lists the shrine as a place to visit [23]. Given this, it passes WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did I read that correctly that a person is notable because First Lady & President of a country visit his shrine regularly?? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person who was so notable that his resting place is an important enough shrine that the President of the country makes regular trips? Sounds like notability to me. There's a fair amount of coverage of this person from travel guides to Azerbaijan ([24], [25], [26], [27]) and from sources in Azerbaijiani which go more in-depth [28], [29]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the "regular visitors" claim is still not convincing, there's frankly nothing else aside from that to suggest a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^[SSTflyer] 14:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aliki Theofilopoulos Grafft[edit]

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

As it stands, there is not really much in this article, unless it can be expanded and more references added to establish notability. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Her roles in animation as animator, writer, voice actor, producer and director seem to be enough to pass NACTOR. I added some referenced roles to the page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead and Draft afterwards as I could've accepted the Daytime Emmy, but there's still nothing else particularly confidently convincing, thus delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Voice actors can be just as notable as those who appear in person on film. This number of credits and awards passes NACTOR. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will allow this another relist to see if a clearer consensus can form. KaisaL (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dig Your Roots[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUMS, no secondary sourcing found. Deprodded to suggest merging, but I would rather this be deleted to make way for the upcoming Florida Georgia Line album of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I deprodded it because it shouldn't be deleted. I suggested merging as a "worst case scenario". If you'd waited a minute, I added to the talk page two reviews in relevant publications, and references to one of the issues in the series charting in CMJ. This series is notable in a Canadian campus & community radio context if nothing else. I also like that you're basing your deletion choice on a completely different topic. - BalthCat (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you've shown are likely. I couldn't find any more sources on my own. Even if this is kept, I still think the FGL album should get the title per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as someone searching for "Dig Your Roots" is far more likely to be looking for a major-label album by an A-list act with several #1 hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also found these: [30], [31], [32], [33]. A merge to National Campus and Community Radio Association would be difficult without losing a lot of the content or giving this undue weight in that article. A discussion on primary topic can take place when the other album exists. --Michig (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article may have the sources to pass notability now, and once the Florida Georgia Line album is released, should be either disambiguated or speedy deleted per CSD G6 (to make way for move). Hx7 17:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this was created at a very different time in Wikipedia's history — a decade ago, sources did not need to be cited anywhere as extensively as they do now, and in fact a thing's own primary source website about itself was considered acceptable sourcing in and of itself. Those rules have changed, as well they should have — but in addition to the improved sources already pointed out by the above commenters, I've also found numerous usable sources in a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search, which means that the sourcing needed to get this back up to contemporary requirements does exist. I've already reffed it up and located the track listing for the jazz album which never had that added. Certainly this should be moved to a disambiguated title — a band as famous as Florida Georgia Line obviously trumps this for primary topic rights, but that's a reason to move this to a dabbed title so FGL can have the plain one, not a reason to delete this outright. Keep, and move to a disambiguated title so that Dig Your Roots (album), clearly the more notable topic, can be moved to the plain title. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move, redirect or hatnote - Keep, move to "Dig Your Roots (National Campus and Community Radio Association album)", "Dig Your Roots (compilation album)", redirect to National Campus and Community Radio Association, or move the FGL album to this title and create a hatnote. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 08:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Tennessee Bible Institute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not meeting WP:ORG. Previously deleted via deletion discussion, the only changes that have occurred since are that

it has claimed accreditation through Association of Independent Christian Colleges and Seminaries (AICCS), a claim that could neither be confirmed nor disproven through the AICCS website.... and in any case, the AICCS is on our list of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations.
Its website is currently gone
Another school has appeared, the Florida Bible Institute and Seminary, claiming to be the same school, just moved and renamed. I do not find sources establishing this school's notability (do not confuse with the earlier Florida Bible Institute), nor independent sources confirming the relationship of the two schools. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a school that demonstrably existed and granted degrees - albeit it was not accredited. I will try to return and do a little more sourcing, but it does appear to have been a real, if small, post-secondary college. Many hits in my searches are to profiles about alumni of this small college, (like this McClatchey news service profile of a pastor who is works with therapeudic horses and may himself merit an article, "Tent revival organizers invite community to worship," [34], this "New church is Detroit pastor's best-ever birthday present: The Rev. Darryl Ford plans to meet human needs of community," Detroit News, [35], or this news story about a political activist in the Dallas Morning News [36]) I get more like that when I run searches going back a decade or 2. Wikipedia is useful as a place where, when you read that someone went to a small college, you can look it up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I am not sure that the Florida thing should stay - unless it can be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly to give E.M.Gregory time to do his sourcing research. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I did a little more sourcing. Founding date; sale of the Institute's Tennessee property; news article about the kind of programs the Institue ran and the certificates it granted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Institutions of higher education that exist or have existed get articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory and John Pack Lambert. St Anselm (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As far as I am converned, this is a poster case of WP:ONEEVENT, but a large fraction of voters in good standing disagree and cite WP:GNG, so that I am obliged to close this as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of David Douglas[edit]

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

NN criminal, notability not asserted, WP:TOOSOON as an event article, WP:BIO1E (because it is still very much a BIO article masquerading as something else, and WP:NOTNEWS at this point as well. The fact that the subject's entire criminal history (which is also the majority of the content of this article) is sourced primarily to one article written after his death does not meet the BIO requirement of establishing notability prior to death. I assume this is why it was created as an EVENT article, and yet all we have is "the event happened." At the very least this is a footnote in the gangland feud article, but as no actual connection has been established, this should not be redirected there based on supposition, and the article needs to be weighed on its merits as a standalone article. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the deceased, nor the circumstances of his death, are notable. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and WWGB. Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable for several reasons: 1. Former member of Provisional IRA (and possibly expelled for involvement with illegal drugs), 2. Conviction for shooting a police officer with indent to kill, 3. Conviction for posession of 8kg of cocaine (sentenced to 10 years with 5 suspended), 4. Surviving a previous assassination attempt in 2015. This means that WP:BIO1E does not apply, as the deceased was notable for more than one event, particularly reasons 1, 2 and 4. Regarding sourcing, I will endeavour to add more WP:RS to support the article in the next few days. The question of links to the feud in question is a line of enquiry, as related by the Irish Times source in the article. Autarch (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak keep - The fact that he is/was a member of the IRA IS notable and mostly because I am siding with the comments of Autarch, but the article needs a REWRITE to SHOW notability. The article as it is written deserves a speedy delete, because all it really says is a good Irish boy went bad, became a criminal, sold drugs, shot a police officer and finally was shot at and finally killed. Tippytim304 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been expanded to cover more of his early 1980s criminal activities, as well as providing WP:RS for links to Kinehan gang. Will add more as I find them. Autarch (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is non-notable, so no idea why his death would warrant an article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He is an infamous Irish criminal, and one that was IRA. Al Capone, Brian Nichols, John Gotti, etc.... are notable for their criminal activity. And I believe if he is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia about Ireland/Irish topics, he is notable here, even if his name isn't worth much to an American. Tippytim304 (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Clearly good sourcing, noted case.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Autarch:: Even with the addition of sources, there is still a problem, because you are now asserting notability for the individual via an an article on an event. This a common conflation - notability for an event is not notability of a person. If the event doesn't meet WP:EVENT, then the event is not notable, and it largely doesn't matter who was involved in it, because WP:NOTINHERITED applies. If instead. you want to indicate that the victim is notable, then we need to address WP:CRIME and WP:BIO, which is a different discussion entirely. At this point, we are concerned with an article that says "a career criminal was possibly shot due to his criminal career," and I don't particularly think that's notable in any country. Moreover, the coverage has to be greater than WP:NOTNEWS - the people you cited as famous criminals are famous because they killed dozens of people and oversaw illegal empires that raked in millions. Shooting a cop and drug possession and almost getting killed once are, honestly, parr for the course. Being PIRA? If there were six folks in it, sure, but there were a lot more than six folks in it, and they don't all get articles for that, again per WP:NOTINHERITED. So just be aware of all that. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @MSJapan: Granted, the article has become a biography rather than an article on the event of his death, which is probably due to the information that has become available as well as the apparent lack of any developments linking it to the Kinehan-Hutch feud. Regarding WP:CRIME, he took part in four raids in 1982, three of which he claimed were carried out on behalf of the PIRA, a claim accepted by the Gardaí, meaning he was acting on IRA orders. Given that the PIRA was a proscribed organisation in the Republic of Ireland, these, as well as attempting to shoot a Garda with intent to kill, go from being average criminal acts to being ones of subversion. (Also, membership in the PIRA was itself a crime in the Republic of Ireland.) His subsequent criminal career in illicit drugs is evidence of continuing criminal activity - combined with WP:BIO, the article is referenced with multiple reliable sources, meeting WP:BASIC and WP:CRIME. Autarch (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Autarch: So what you're telling me is a) the shooting was apparently not related to the event that caused this article in the first place, and b) that the subject is a notable criminal because he claimed to have worked for the IRA and tried to shoot a Garda 35 years ago? Sounds pretty run-of-the-mill as far as a criminal goes, but maybe I'm just cynical and don't find it surprising that an armed criminal tried to kill a police officer. I don't want to use an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but a lot of the articles in Category:Irish criminals (and particularly the "Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism" subcat) have shown heavy coverage (often upwards of 20 sources) of the events and trials surrounding the individuals, even if they were just on trial for raids. So it seems that there is a fairly high bar in place for notability strictly on IRA grounds, and I'm not sure why we can't find which raids Douglas allegedly participated in.

One of the problems that occurs is that certain people get no coverage until they die. WP:BIO also indicates that we have to show notability prior to death, and thus far, the whole of his "criminal past" has appeared to have come out in post-death material (a case of WP:RECENTISM. I don't really put too much stock in a claim the IRA never substantiated, especially when it was more convenient for the Gardai to believe him. I'm not sure how easy it is to do, because I've had no luck, but you're going to need to find earlier coverage, during his life, aside from an arrest report. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the place where WP:BIO "indicates that we have to show notability prior to death." It is not unusual for an individual to show notability only after his death, Jane Austen and Henry Darger are in that category. In this case, we have a major newspaper bio/profile of Douglas written after his death, (Latest feud victim was long-time member of Provisional IRA, Cusack, Jim. Sunday Independent [Dublin] 03 July 2016: 6. [37]).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no need to intricately untangle the separate notability of the event and the individual. Taken together there is adequate coverage. It actually makes very good sense to describe together an individual and the circumstances of his death. We do not insist that the coverage of a person must have been written before they died. We very often use obituaries both as an indicator of notability and as a source of biographical information. Thincat (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage was international, at least, British papers as well as Irish ones. But IMO the thing that makes it a keeper is not only the fact that there were 2 attempts to kill this gangster, it is the angle in this headline "IRA and INLA at war on capital's streets: Aligning of the INLA with Kinahans and IRA with the Hutches stokes fears of further violence, writes Jim Cusack" (Sunday Independent [Dublin] 10 July 2016) [38] This lifts it in to the realm of WP:GNG and out of the realm of a routine "gangland feud." It can be usefully linked from a number of articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is correct in pointing out that this is essentially a bio, but then the subject does appear to meet GNG. I don't believe BLP1E applies here, because there is some coverage from before the shooting [39] and some from after the shooting that nonetheless discusses his previous activities in detail [40]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I acknowledge the Keep votes and what they say, but I'm still seeing questionability about the overall solidity here, and how it can be futurely maintained; there's nothing else to suggest any other better information and sources, suggesting this is better deleted. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I appreciate the concerns and constructive criticism as to how the article should be improved, to the central point it looks to me that multiple reliable sources identify Douglas as a dangerous criminal of notoriety, report his shooting as a shocking event, and also find that there are broader implications to the attack in terms of inter-criminal conflicts. This seems, well, part and parcel of what many other related articles talk about. Should the page be revamped, maybe drastically? I could agree with that. I don't feel that deletion is the right move. This is no matter about some random hoodlum off the streets. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the last point does not appear to be the case; it was speculative at the time, and does not seem to have been borne out. The initial notability here was presumed on that relationship. Barring that, I don't see what makes him notable - he's not the only PIRA member, he's not the only Irish drug dealer, etc., and I suppose what I find to be the biggest problem is that the only person who said he was PIRA was the subject. Now, that may be the norm, but it's a legitimate concern, I think. None of those things presumes GNG, as there aren't articles on every drug dealer or PIRA member. Maybe I'm just not impressed through some Clockwork Orange-style lack of "superviolence" here, but I just don't see how this is anything more than an article on a run-of-the-mill criminal whose notability (because this was written as events unfolded instead of a "lagging indicator" as it should have been) was predicated on something that wasn't proven. MSJapan (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Coverage does not, to me, seem to exceed what can be expected for any run-of-the-mill violent crime story. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E, that's not what we're here for. Can be recreated if coverage persists over a longer period of time. Sandstein 07:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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