Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 May 2 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Obvious consensus supporting keeping the article. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Football League Trophy[edit]

2016–17 Football League Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an upcoming sports competition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. The article is mostly a copy paste of the previous season. - MrX 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, new to this, but the last football season has finished, this tournament will take place. Re the copy paste - if you go back over previous tournaments, they all follow the same format. This is merely a continuation of this. Deleting now only means someone else will have to recreate it in the coming weeks Juanjo3333 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - tournament will obviously take place and be notable when it does, and the draw for the first round will take place in just 9 weeks. Pointless bureaucracy to delete it now only to re-create in two months' time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable and a schedule is already available, therefore not really a case for WP:TOOSOON. Calistemon (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CLearly notable long running national competition, no realistic possibility of it not occurring, no valid reason for TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" GiantSnowman 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also as I nearly closed myself, can be kept as a happening event. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current NASCAR races[edit]

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

Article is redundant and only a few other articles link to it. The races are covered in-depth on each series article, and there is no need to combine them into one article. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 16:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2007 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of 2008 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of 2009 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of 2010 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as there's basically nothing since 2014, nothing at all to suggest this has actual current information. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment why do you want the edit history delted from those pages. The information used on those pages has been merged or will be merged when this finally closes and deletion of the edit history would violate Wikipedia's Licensing. So please reconsider the deletion. Also the stuff on the other pages are sourced with the exception of Current NASCAR Races list which is out of date and I want to redirect without losing the edit history. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 01:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus on what to do with this article has not yet been established. — Music1201 talk 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to the main articles. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Simmons[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC; almost no coverage in any reliable sources, except websites advocating his innocence. Fails WP:ANYBIO; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:PERP. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The fact that Vincent Simmons was one of six prisoners focused on in a documentary that is notable in its own right does suggest notability. I would have suggested that it be merged with the documentary page, except that as the subject of a documentary, readers may wish to find additional information about the prisoner not included in the documentary, or details of events that happened after the documentary was finished. I will say that the page, as currently written, has TERRIBLE prose and is written with potential POV problems, but these are not causes for deletion. Cleanup is a better place for this. Fieari (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Farm: Angola, USA. The documentary aired in 1999 and generated both coverage as a documentary and substantive revisiting of crime by newspapers in Louisiana. There was a second round of revisiting of the crime by newspapers on the 10-year anniversary of the documentary in 2009. These were in-depth articles in multiple Louisiana newspapers, all easily available in news archive searches (I used Proquest.) This topic could probably support an article, but it probably makes sense to condense and fold it into the The Farm: Angola, USA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has been the focus of a tv-docu and has received plenty of media coverage. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add some links to this plentiful media coverage? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG seems adequate, if not terribly good.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as he could have had his own article, but it seems best tied to the film itself, so redirect there as best connected. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus to keep has been established, although whether or not to merge or just leave as is has not established consensus yet. — Music1201 talk 23:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. Terrible article, but a quick Google News search suggests this person is in fact independently notable. (Nominator, "has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is a bit off the mark.) Someone please improve the article. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Making a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is one of the two criteria of WP:ANYBIO, and Simmons hasn't. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Drmies (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which was why I added two more criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx Moonshine[edit]

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

Non notable locally-distributed product with almost entirely local references (except for ref 6, which is Bloomberg) . The paid contributor notice on the article talk page said that the company making the whisky paid for the article to be written, so at least the intent was promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "The official spirit of the 2012 grammy awards" is a sufficient notability claim for me. I do see that there were possible advertising concerns at first, but it appears that other editors have stepped in and corrected the matter. Fieari (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently a somewhat newly started alcoholic item, the information and sources are only expected and nothing else outstanding. Delete at best for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that additional sources have been presented below in this discussion. North America1000 22:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company was written about in April Time Magazine [1], NBC [2], as well as other publications in relation to a marketing event where a bottle of liquor was to be launched into space via a weather balloon. Previously, in 2012, there was a full length article in the New York Times [3] about the company. This reference was previously included in the article. I wrote the original article and was a paid contributor Fbell74 (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DGG makes an important point with "the intent was promotional": this was created by a paid editor in order to publicise the company and/or product. It is thus an advertisement, and Wikipedia does not allow advertisements, of any kind, anywhere. That I've subsequently hacked at it to make it look a little more like an encyclopaedic article doesn't change that. Paid editing of articles is very strongly discouraged; in practice, about the only form of discouragement we have is to undo or delete those unwelcome edits. Delete this, without prejudice to re-creation of a real Wikipedia article by a non-involved editor if the stuff turns out to be notable (which, personally, I doubt it will). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of note is that the article is presently written in an entirely neutral point of view, with no promotionalism present. North America1000 22:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The intent may have initially been promotional (and, formatting wise, not very well done, no offense to Fbell74), but the revision as of this message seems acceptable enough and serves to adequately describe a somewhat popular (and therefore notable) beverage in a neutral manner. There are articles with a far more obscure nature than a bottle of booze used by the Grammys. TangoFett (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passing mentions of promotional activities, and a minor write-up in the NYT--no, that's not notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out WP:NEXIST; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. North America1000 22:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Primarily local coverage, plus the one NYT article mentioned by Drmies. In 2015, one of the founders wrote a book about the experience. Still insufficient reliable sources to support WP:GNG or WP:ORG. It's just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Geoff | Who, me? 20:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep striking my former delete !vote in light of the recent changes and additional sources located. I now see the article as meeting WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I might vote weak keep, but I can't access the CT Public Radio site, I'm not sure how much depth the content provides. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the link was broken or incorrect. I've amended this now ([4]) Fbell74 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. The article does not have a promotional tone at this time. Also of note is that brand topics do not need to have received coverage in regional, statewide or national news sources, although this topic has indeed received such coverage (e.g. Time, Connecticut Public Radio), because WP:AUD only pertains to companies, per being on the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page. Information on the page about products is located at WP:PRODUCT. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 21:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Keep - this Carrie Nation disciple thinks the topic meets GNG, per times (not a trivial mention) and the CPR. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Club (brand)[edit]

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

seems to fail WP:GNG, also can't find any secondary sources for this Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: In the Dutch Wikipedia this is just a redirect to the (reference-free) Vrumona article, where this brand gets a passing mention. Neither there nor in searches am I seeing anything amounting to substantial coverage that would amount to notability. AllyD (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality of Dutch Wikipedia articles should not matter in the deletion process here. – Editør (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is one of the biggest selling mixer brands in Holland (exact figures are hard to source online but the few I've found indicate a third-place overall market share in the Netherlands soft drinks sector?), and a staple product of any online shop selling Dutch goods. There aren't many good-quality secondary sources but the brand is featured quite a bit on Dutch food and drink blogs [5]. Not sure if anyone can find better sources to verify, but this is a big Dutch brand and definitely notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as I have found no particularly better sources and this is likely going to have archived and non-English sources, so Draft or restore if needed later, but there's nothing suggesting of obvious improvements at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is indeed a well-known brand, and I spent a few minutes finding and adding a few sources. The brand has been around for decades, and the lack of sourcing is a bit dismaying. Still, I think I found enough to at least indicate that this is a notable brand. I still remember the slogans from the radio ads, for instance. The Banner, do you have anything for us? Drmies (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known brand, I have added an incident with reliable third party source. The Banner talk 10:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mix met Royal Club, geen gewone club! Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few points: [1.] Notability, verifiability, etc, are not an issue here so deleting should be off the table. [2.] It would have been better if the parent Vrumona had an en.wiki article before Royal Club, or if, at the very least, Vrumona and Royal Club would be mentioned in the Heineken articles. [3] I looked into renaming Royal Club into Vrumona but the information here really is about the Royal Club brand. Bottomline: it is what it is and it is notable so keep. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus against delete, but towards a merge in the future (non-admin closure) —  crh 23  (Talk) 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now: The Hits of Autumn 2011[edit]

Now: The Hits of Autumn 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Peaked at No. 4 on ARIA Compilations chart – was in top 10 for nine weeks. Passes WP:NALBUM#2.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs sources - chart indicates plausible notability, but we have literally nothing in the way of third-party sources. Did any third parties actually talk about the record at all? - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was a charting record - justifies notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Australia. Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources does. This and very few of the individual NOW releases receive this type of coverage. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this is the sort of thing where mere charting doesn't necessarily convey individual article notability (because it is extremely unlikely there will ever be good third-party sources like there would for a single-artist hit single or album) and it should be redirected - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not because I think the album is individually notable. There are 34 Australian Now! albums that have their own articles and there is little purpose in knocking that number down to 33. Or, to say it in a more policy-oriented fashion, there appears to be a community consensus that these articles should exist. But if these 34 articles were bundled into a single nomination, I'd opt for deleting them all in favor of a single list article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of them can simply be redirected. Note that no new articles have been created since these 2011 versions in the Australian series because they were never any more than a track list and perhaps a chart position, but never any indication that they received any coverage in other sources. Part of the issue was that attempts to redirect these older versions were reverted by IPs not due to any consensus to keep them. I had successfully redirected many of the other NOW articles that were created similarly for releases in France, Germany, and Hungary. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely something to redirect to an article for the series. Is there any RS coverage talking about any of them? - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable, Starcheer. But saying that something can be redirected is not quite the same as saying that they will be. Are you proposing to treat this nomination as a test case for every album in the series, so that if the result here is "redirect" then that's what you'll do with all of them? If so, you'll get no objection from me. But before throwing in my support, I'd like to hear what the nominator and the other participants think about it.
By the way, that redirect target is awfully unwieldy. There are close to 600(!) in-article external links, in addition to some forty actual references. How about splitting out each series into a separate article, starting with Australia. I'm thinking of something with the title Now (series of Australian compilation albums). The information in that list article could appear in the form of a table, which would allow convenient placement of charting information, catalog numbers, year of release, etc. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no reason not to break it up by country - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references for other countries series just use Amazon or other online retailer as a "source". Not sure if releases in Hungary, for example, are even worth noting if no further info can be found in more reliable sources. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: NewYorkActuary, David Gerard – there already exists a list article similar to that you describe, Now That's What I Call Music! discography, except it includes every Now! album released around the world, rather than a separate article for each country's albums. I think a country-specific list article as you suggest would be enough, with release date, chart placing and sales figures where known. I have a lot of sympathy with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' argument here, it seems ridiculous to have approaching 100 articles for the UK series that consist of little more than a track listing. If there are references it's usually to the chart placing on the UK Compilations Chart, but this is near pointless as virtually every edition reaches number one – I read somewhere in Music Week that the three annual Now! compilations now account for more than 80% of all compilations sold every year in the UK, which is quite likely since the arrival of MP3s and Spotify have rendered the compilation album obsolete since around 2008 – the Now! albums survive because (a) they contain new material, and (b) I think there's still something of a cachet in having a "complete" Now! collection. Richard3120 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus to keep has been established, although whether or not to merge, move, or simply leave as is has not established consensus yet. — Music1201 talk 23:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Malta. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Medical Students' Association[edit]

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

not notable, just a student organization. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge to University of Malta. – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 20:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: I have no prejudice against the article being merged to University of Malta). North America1000 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: changed !vote to merge here. Technically qualifies for an article, but a merge would also be functional, particularly since the merge target presently has no mention of the topic.) North America1000 23:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete... the refs above seem to show it has a presence demonstrated by multiple independent sources. However a few of the refs read like press relesses written by the MMSA, and overall there is no genuine reporting on what the MMSA itself is. the refs centre around the MMSA's objection to another medical school, which is one event. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @HappyValleyEditor: I'm not finding any evidence that these are press releases. For example, open the news articles I posted, perform a google search using the headlines, and notice how there are few results other than the publications that published them. Also, there are no results for the Malta Medical Students' Association as having been involved in these articles whatsoever. Some websites may have the news articles copied onto them (likely without permission), but this does not deem a reliable source as unreliable per actions the news sources have no control over. North America1000 22:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
North America, it was the quote "In conclusion, the MMSA would like to thank Mr Fearne and all those involved in this negotiation process and looks forward to future collaborations with the Maltese government and the relevant authorities in addressing the issue at hand." at the end of this reference.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, missed that. However, this is only in one of the sources, and I still don't see any evidence that these are press releases otherwise. North America1000 23:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete god Malta is like the town i grew up in, but a country. "Mrs. Whipple Wins Pecan Pie Bake off". If we used my small town newspaper for GNG purposes my dog would be notable for having chewed up all the gardens in the neighborhood every year. You can't write a WP article based on those articles, Northamerica. WTF is all I have to say. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Times of Malta is "the oldest daily newspaper still in circulation in Malta"; certainly not a "small town newspaper". It's unclear why you would think it is as such. The other sources also do not appear to be small town newspapers. Of note is that I have changed my !vote above a merge. North America1000 23:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What an absolutely ridiculous and condescending comment, Jytdog. AusLondonder (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the sources brought by NorthAmerica. Read them and read other articles in those papers. Hyperlocal, like a small town newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - not big enough for its own start article, but certainly well-sourced enough for inclusion in the main article. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2016)[edit]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure listcruft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fire of Zamani. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Dat (Ice Prince song)[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fire of Zamani. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More (Ice Prince song)[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect would have been an option but apparently there is no natural target for it. MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Get This Party Started (song)[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You say speedy keep and then say borderline notable. Borderline notable is not the same as notable. What criteria of WP:NSONG does this song meet?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage suggests song may meet GNG. Note that at least one other editor has independently converted similar speedy nominations by you to redirects. This is just wasting editors' time; the appropriate outcome is evident. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep using words like "probable" and "may". The song is either notable or not notable. There is no middle ground here.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not be so, but you're assertin and repeating it isn't conclusive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue here is a conceptual one. Versace's understanding of WP:NSONG is that if the only significant coverage(s) to a song is in reviews then it shouldn't have its own article. But Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's is of the opinion that for a song to have so many reviews from reliable sources+it's artists being very notable then it probably already passed WP:GNG. For my sake, I hope I was able to break it down well. I am not as experienced as both of you in terms of the guidelines for inclusion of songs on Wikipedia, so I will just pass on this one.Darreg (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Darreg: This particular article will get deleted. The articles for most of the songs from Drake's Views album will be redirected to their parent article despite them charting. The problem with Drake's songs and this one is that none of them have been discussed in significant detail. Contrary to what you just said, reviews are the driving force that determines a song's notability. If this song has received reviews in reliable sources, it will meet the requirements of WP:NSONG.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as there's enough to likely keep an article, but nothing particularly outstanding to actually suggests its own currently acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A source already in the article identifies this as an important record in Nigeria. As Hullaballoo points out, there is no natural single redirect target for this collaboration. Whatever the recent general trend around here may be as to more redirecting of singles, in this case the best result is to keep it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the song has no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meets WP:G7. The article is borderline notable, the author requests deletion, and the author is the only editor who has added substantial content to the article. SSTflyer 10:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D'Kings Men. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Example (Kay Switch song)[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D'Kings Men. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Caro[edit]

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC but does meet WP:GNG. MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lin[edit]

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

Non-notable astronomy undergraduate based on the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. His award is distinctly different than the type WP:PROF#C2 would count as notable. As yet WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojimmy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 May 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 May 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as other winners of the Intel award, which do not mention other achievements have pages, e.g., co-winner Eesha_Khare and Ionuț_Budișteanu
  • Keep as has had significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Boston Globe article, smithsonian, time magazine (all in the article) and therefore passes WP:GNG which overrides WP:ACADEMIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure the Time or NYT article argues in the direction you suggest. Quote from Knutson and pentultimate paragraph suggest that the idea of the paper should be credited to Loeb. Time article focuses on Loeb and only mentions Lin in passing. NYT article briefly mentions this work while discussing plans for other telescopes, this work is not the focus of that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojimmy (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Off to a good start, but does not yet meet WP:Prof; WP:Too soon. Not enough in-depth independent sources for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Does not have the coverage for GNG, and does not have the publications/influential work for WP:PROF. Might have, fairly soon; can be recreated then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing particular at all for solid independent notability, sourced....but not notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if article does not meet WP:PROF criteria, it probably meets the WP:GNG criteria. There appears to be significant reliable coverage not included in the article: e.g., a second article from the Boston Globe that prominently features lin Boston Globe. Gizmodo has also features him twice Gizmodo 1 Gizmodo 2. As for Astrojimmy's concern an arXiv search lists him as 1st author for 6 publications including all the ones that have gotten media attention, suggesting that the academia gods give him the credit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.224.4 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with SwisterTwister, not notable. A few papers, but not enough to stand out and very few non-self-citations in a very highly cited field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.61 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable by either GNG or PROF standards. The standard for notability from the "academia gods" is much higher than a few papers. Poster above with the Harvard IP address should check out WP:Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.61 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.61.188 (talk) [reply]

    • Struck second delete vote from same IP Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, was trying to comment and add to discussion since it was relisted! Didn't realize that would count as a second vote :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.203.227 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator and IP 67.134.204.61 are both single purpose accounts, all of their edits except one have been on this AFD and the prod of the article.There is enough significant coverage such as the Boston Globe and Time and NYT for WP:GNG to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC at the moment. Blythwood (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He doesn't pass WP:PROF, and the 30-under-30 coverage of him specifically is very weak, but we have nontrivial stories about multiple pieces of research he did (alien pollution and panspermia, to name two) that have made a splash in the popular media. I think that may be enough to pass WP:GNG and to be safe from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if they win awards that are known and the sources say so then what else do you need? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Study Sparkz[edit]

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

I came across this via a speedy deletion for A7, however the Washington Post article is just enough to where it would potentially pass the low bar of speedy criteria. In any case, a search showed that the WP article is pretty much the only coverage this company has received since its founding in 2007. (It also doesn't help that the article is borderline promotional.)

This could probably be speedied, but at least this way the AfD would prevent future recreation before the company gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link to the page in order to increase the known significance. I'd disagree that the article is promotional since the material on the page is fact.

Wiseowl1111 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Wiseowl1111: You linked to a press release, which is seen as a WP:PRIMARY source, since those are written by the company or someone they paid to write the release. As far as the promotional tones go, the article is only borderline. However I also need to point out that something can be factual but still be promotional. In this case what makes it promotional is that you list out every single place that the service is offered and you also list every single topic that they offer tutoring in. When writing an article it's usually better to summarize a business's offerings and locations rather than list every single location and offering, as that makes it look like a directory or business listing - neither of which is what a Wikipedia article should be. However at the same time this wasn't so over the top that I'd delete on that basis alone and the main reason for deletion is notability. I also have to ask: what is your relation to the company? If you are someone who works for the company then you'll need to disclose this somewhere per WP:COI. I've left more information on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would've still pursued A7 and G11 but at least we have abilities for G4 now if it's restarted, nothing at all convincing for solid independent notability regardless of an apparent Washington Post article. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether the name is used by one artist or two, consensus is that neither is notable. MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WRENN[edit]

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

As it stands, this looks like a WP:TOOSOON case that's pretty clear-cut. I'm sympathetic to indie type artists trying to break through, but the only notable thing done by this musician so far appears to be a collaboration with an American DJ, appearing on a certain EP. That's about it. A bit of searching generates tangential commentary from blogs and the like, nothing appearing to pass WP:GNG standards. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with CoffeeWithMarkets. Per WP:BAND, an artist needs to have at least one song (as a lead artist) in any of the national charts. The only article that talks extensively about the singer is the Fader one which is fine. However, one source is not adequate to satisfy WP:GNG, as mentioned above. Also, for a direct example - Olvia O'Brien, who collaborated with the said DJ (Gnash), and with same credentials as this singer, does not have a Wikipedia page. Association with a notable person does not evince notability. It is too soon for the singer to have a Wikipedia page. Maybe after she releases here EP and more establishments talk about her, then we can think about it. Check Moxie Raia for reference. Hence, delete. Best, Nairspecht Converse 09:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets that this is a pretty clear cut case of WP:TOOSOON, upon further investigation I found that there is another musical artist going by the same name. Even more so, it appears this other artist changed their name to "Wrenn" after the song "Fragile ft. Wrenn" was released. Normally I would vote a page like this for delation, yet seeing that there is public confusion as to who the artist on "Fragile" is, I vote to keep. It serves it's purpose, which is to clear up any confusion about the authenticity of this musician. : V.Putnam (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)— V.Putnam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
While I understand your concerns, that would still leave us with a page that's fundamentally flawed due to the massive lack of sourcing about Wrenn, the "Fragile"-related performer, and would seem to have very little reliable information. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a case I have not seen many times. Despite the fact CoffeeWithMarkets has stated what I believe to be a clear case of WP:TOOSOON, I have to agree with V.Putnam. Seeing as there is another individual going by the same name, and seemingly attempting to take credit of the creation of multiple works belonging to this musician, it is in best interest to keep this article up strictly for the clarification for the community. For this reason, keep. That being said, I do not believe any more information about the artist should be added until more notable works come into play. Cheers, VikramRaphii (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)— VikramRaphii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • How does that prove notability. Also, your account is new so I don't understand why you said "This is a case I have not seen many times". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find the arguments made by V.Putnam convincing. This looks like a useful place to invoke WP:IAR. A strict reading of our rules would state that we have to delete this article... and yet, our encyclopedia would become demonstrably weaker and less useful without this article-- not simply for lacking the information contained within the article, but in another article that is definitely worthy of inclusion. I call for us to acknowledge that this does not meet our notability standards, and yet we need to keep it anyway for necessary disambiguation. That is, unless someone has a better idea on how to clearly disambiguate? Fieari (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I didn't under stand the logic given by V.Putnam. I would at least like to see proof that another musician with the same name is attempting to take credit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have not written for Wikipedia before, and truthfully am not familiar with what the policies are, but I am familiar with this artist and the other musician who has tried to take credit for her work since the feature with Gnash. The other individual was a woman who went by the stage name "WrenPop", until "Fragile ft. Wrenn" was released. "WrenPop" then changed her name to "Wrenn" on all social platforms. A simple search of the name "WRENN" will prove this. The "Wrenn" that was featured on "Fragile" then stylized her name to "WRENN" so it wouldn't be as difficult to tell the difference, yet the following day "WrenPop" changed the stylization of her name to "WRENN" as well. As of two days ago, "WrenPop" also changed her profile photo on Spotify and Twitter to an image of the "WRENN" who was featured on "Fragile". I know this must be incredibly confusing, and I don't know how to go about this, but from someone who has seen, and been personally confused, by this blatant copying; I too believe this article should stay, at least until the other individual stops copying the "WRENN" for which this page is about. 76.91.50.9 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) — 76.91.50.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Are there any reliable sources discussing this? The information presented here amounts to original research which can't be included in the article, and it would not be appropriate to save the article in order to somehow strengthen the artist's claims to the name - that is not what Wikipedia is for, as Lemongirl points out below. --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per V.Putnam and Fieari above - a strange case where the subject currently seems to fall short of WP:NMUSIC in terms of having their own article, and yet the confusion between the two WRENNs over "Fragile" seems in itself notable. Perhaps the Fragile article could include a section on the controversy, whereupon this one could be deleted as WP:TOOSOON ? ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry to say this, but Wikipedia is not a place to solve disputes. None of the artists named "WRENN" are notable. The dispute over the names is not notable either - it has not been reported in any secondary sources and Wikipedia shouldn't do it either. (Please note that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as an advocacy forum). The dispute over the names should be fought on an alternate platforms - not on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: 3 SPAs have come and !voted keep. This is a clear case where contrary to policy, Wikipedia is being used for the promotion of a non-notable artist. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article has been improved during discussion, causing the nominator to lean towards keep. Another of the delete !voters could accept a keep, leaving only one firm delete !vote, so consensus appears to be keep. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrates Royale[edit]

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

Existing references are trivial mentions. No indication that the group meets WP:BAND nor WP:GNG - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original editor has added several additional sources. The majority of these are again trivial mentions just listing the band name in passing on a list of acts, or list of their songs (no actual coverage), list of winner of a non-notable award, etc. One of the sources gives some coverage to one of the members, but notability isn't inherited. There are two sources of possible worth. Capital Gazette has an article; but it reads as a press release advertising an event so I don't believe it would help in meeting the threshold. The second by Rambles provides okay coverage, but WP:BAND specifically requires subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works (emphasis added), so I don't believe this is enough as yet. As a result, I believe the article is at best still a weak delete. I would say "not yet", but the band aparently disbanded earlier this year (except for potential reunion gigs) so additional coverage is likely to be minimal if existant at all. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that GazetteNet and Traditions, a radio program covering folk music would make multiple sources. But I would also argue that the multiple "trivial" references indicate that this group was a well-known and therefore notable part of the folk music community, at least in the Maryland and Washington, D.C. area. Some of those references are ads for businesses hoping to capitalize on the group's popularity. Another is for a weekly, pirate-themed radio show that credits the group as inspiring the interest that led to the eventual premise of the program. There were also other reviews from rambles.net, regarding other albums.
Cybotik (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the link that has been provided to WP:BAND. If you disagree with the notability guideline as currently written, the place to try to get it changed is on the talk page for that guideline at WT:BAND (or at one of the related WikiProject pages listed on that talk page), not in this deletion discussion.
Most of the added refs are trivial mentions that serve no purpose in meeting that guideline, nor in directly supporting text in the article, so should just be removed to eliminate the clutter. However, as I said, the Rambles article appears to provide okay coverage, and now the addition of the GazetteNet article would also be good coverage - so meeting the guideline of "multiple, non-trivial, published works" appears it now may be met.
This AfD should be allowed to run its course; but given those two sources, I believe it has a good chance of being closed as a keep or at least a weak keep. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I was able an interview in the Baltimore Sun with the group's violinist ([7]), and I found an article in CMJ which has a passing mention of them ([8]). The Cecil News has a mention of them in an article as well ([9]). There's some stuff out there but it is really, really trivial. I'd have to say weak delete on the face of it, but I could see where someone would vote keep instead. Nomader (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is my article. While the subject of this article may be light on media coverage, this entire genre of music and the performers of this genre will always suffer that fate. It is my opinion that Wikipedia should be a comprehensive font of information, rather than simply a listing of what's popular. Especially when regarding any form of art, the criteria for determining notability should not be based on the number of critics who chose to write about it. I have no connection to this group, nor have I ever even met them. But I have noticed that Wikipedia has little information on forms and styles of music that do not receive a lot of attention. If anyone should go looking for these forms of music, Wikipedia fails them. This particular group had thirty years of musical success. They have fans all over the country. Surely, press coverage is not the only measure of notability. Cybotik (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's particularly nothing convincing especially from the sources and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mookie Barker[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has only minor roles. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quite noticeably suggestive of nothing at all regarding solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As a hoax.  Sandstein  21:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namik (dessert)[edit]

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

This article was initially tagged by Eldarion for speedy deletion as a hoax, but was declined due to the large number of contributions in the edit history. As stated in User talk:Passengerpigeon#Info, @Eldarion: said that this dessert was a hoax made up by a Turkish internet troll community and propagated across several websites with the intention of getting Android to name their latest operating system after it. Perhaps other editors will now be able to evaluate whether this dessert is real or not. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The image in the article is likely a copyvio as it appears multiple times in a google image search, usually described as Sütlü irmik tatlısı, a milk semolina dessert, e.g. here and here.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this (dated 25 May): Since 5 days ago there was no sweet thing named NAMIK, but we are Turkish and we produced a new dessert and named it NAMIK. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are references in the article and rich Google search results in Turkish, Youtube videos, popular recipe sites (like Nefisyemektarifleri.com) and blogs etc... I think the article should stay but I don't ethically vote to keep, because I'm one of the contributors. I don't know the Android related things but if they are notable, we also can write them in the article. --Logom (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as an admitted hoax. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's difficult to believe that we actually need to debate this. Consider this quote from the article's History section -- The dessert's history goes as far as Suleiman the Magnificent. One of his praise words mention about Namik was the following: "Pearlicious!" (Sweet as a pearl). That wasn't added by a vandal; it was in there from its creation. Of course this thing is a hoax. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NewyorkActuary --Eldarion (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've still been watching this and there's still been nothing confirmably better to suggest a better article, thus delete until someone can make better available. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There's unanimous consensus that this isn't appropriate as a stand-alone article, and those proposing a merge elsewhere seem unable to suggest an appropriate location for this content to be moved; since there seems to be broad agreement even among those supporting a merge that this would only warrant a line elsewhere, there seems no need to keep this article in the meantime. If anyone can identify an appropriate target to which this can be merged, I have no problem undeleting this so the history can be merged, but I feel it's unlikely. The only realistic merge target anyone has suggested appears to be Schrödinger's cat in popular culture (merging to the other suggestion, rape culture, would give hugely undue weight to this relatively obscure concept), but the Schrödinger's cat in popular culture article is an appallingly bad article which almost certainly wouldn't survive a deletion discussion itself. ‑ Iridescent 13:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's Rapist[edit]

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

Frivolous joke of an article with sub-standard sources. Imagine an article called "Schrödinger's Cougar." How long would that have lasted? Anyone? Let's see: "Schrödinger's Cougar is a term meant to describe the experience of being a man in a culture in which rape is common. It posits that all women, to men, are Schrödinger's Cougar, because the man can't know for sure whether a woman may intend to smile at him with the intent to eventually trap him in her hungry vagina, until she does."

This article is shite. May common sense prevail. DracoE 21:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draco goes, as usual, a little too deep for me, but I have the nagging feeling that that's probably because she's smarter than I am. Still, delete--this is a formerly minorly hip term whose notability has gone, if it was ever there. A couple of hits in a couple of trendy publications don't make for notability by our admittedly high encyclopedic standards. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NEO: Neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone wants to copy (merge) the content to rape culture, I'm open-minded about that. Apologies to anyone offended by my quote-box; it's not intended to be a personal attack. wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Schrödinger’s Deletionist is a term..." - No, I won't continue - we already have two too many heavy-handed parodies of the nominated article in this discussion, and a nomination in which only about three words are devoted to giving a valid deletion reason (parodiability is not a deletion reason) and of which over half is in blatant breach of WP:NPA. Turning to the article itself, the subject is a meme which I have seen quite a few times - but I accept that the article does not have quite the quality of sources we require for notability and I have not identified better ones on a quick search. But that is no reason for gratuitously irrelevant attacks on the article and its creator. PWilkinson (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Merge (keep) and generalise into as per AtHomeIn神戸 below. I suggest there should be a generalised article along the lines of Claytons#In popular culture. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aoziwe, I'm not sure how you can make this article about the term "Schrödinger's Rapist" more generalized. Are you suggesting it be merged into Schrödinger's cat in popular culture? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. Yes. Just as a claytons is what you are having when you are not having it, I can quite easily see myself and others seeing a schrodingers when it could be one thing or the opposite until you test it out. Aoziwe (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it's a notable topic, it's a notable topic; if it's not, it's not. The identity or behavior (outside editing) of editors who contributed to the article should play no part in a deletion discussion. Nor, for that matter, should one's personal point of view about the phrase. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wbm1058. There is not enough evidence of common usage to justify an article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a term promoted on one blog with no evidence of it being widely used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I believe that many of the deletion rationale's given in this thread are totally invalid. The fact that an article on the phrase "Schrodinger's cougar" is irrelevant, as that is a made-up phrase that as far as my google-fu can tell has never been used in the history of the internet; thus, it would be deletable under WP:V, WP:N, and WP:HOAX. On the other hand, the existence of the concept of Schrodinger's rapist is trivially verifiable. Nor is the identity of the creator of the article relevant to whether the article should be deleted. Nor is the article being "shite": AfD is not Cleanup. However, the article is about the term "Schrodinger's rapist", and as far as I can tell, the term is not notable. Any discussion of the term seems to come from blogs which don't meet our standards for reliable sources, though the term is mentioned by some reliable sources. If the article could be turned into a discussion of the Schrodinger's rapist phenomenon (i.e. that women are expected to take responsibility for not being raped, but have no way of knowing whether or not someone is a rapist, and so have to treat all men as potential rapists), and if evidence that this is notable is found (possible, though I'm not sure of the best way of searching for it) then this might be keepable (or, at least, mergable into rape culture). So long as this continues to be an article about the term, however, I think it is deletable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches have found nothing noticeably better and the article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial reaction was to !vote Keep per WP:POINT, given the almost entirely irrelevant nomination rationale, including a personal attack on the article creator that has nothing to do with the article. Seriously? Unless the creator is a paid editor, sock puppet, or otherwise blocked for reasons relevant to the creation of the article, that shouldn't be part of it (not that I'm under the impression that DE intended to do anything but take a shot). Actually looking at the subject, however, it doesn't look like it merits a stand-alone article, but given the context of the sources available and the meaning of the term, there's enough for a Merge to Rape culture. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be kept, a neologism needs not merely to be "used in" periodicals, there need to be serious, in-depth discussions in RS not merely of of etymology and of the meaning of the term, the reasons for its generation, what it symbolizes, its impact on the culture, and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rape culture. Not independently notable, but a widely cited exploration of the latter topic.--Carwil (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete tosh. Muffled Pocketed 14:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. BMK (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to rape culture, where I think it merits a sentence, nothing more. I suspect this may be a case where Google shows different users very different results: I get several pages of blog hits, many lengthy, but nothing to offset the reliable sources problem. It doesn't merit an article but it's a valid search term and should be easy to fit into rape culture. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry, I don´t see anything "saveable" here, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish that this phrase is notable. Blogs, yes, as Yngvadottir has already pointed out, but reliable sources? Not that I can find. This appears to have been, as wbm1058 says, a neologism, but one that never acquired usage widespread enough to garner much coverage in the sort of outlets we look to in order to establish notability. I was originally going to !vote "delete", but re-reading the merge rationales above, I find them persuasive. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to rape culture. As Ynhvadottir points out above, the term does get some hits on Google, though most of them aren't reliable sources. A sentence or two on the rape culture page should suffice, per the other merge !votes above. JudgeRM 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete' - I don't understand the calls to "merge" - you are going to just stick a one-liner somewhere in an already existing article whether it fits or not? (it doesn't fit nicely - it would just be something stuck in somewhere) oy. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this point about it not fitting. The concept of women being scared is briefly addressed at the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Effects" section, although the article seems to limit the fear to previous victims and not women in general. Tacking on a sentence along the lines of "A few bloggers call this fear the 'Schrödinger's Rapist' phenomenon, but the term has not gained widespread use." would look very out of place. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Bayesian probability or Schrödinger's cat in popular culture. I'm honestly surprised that the article on Bayesian probability lacks a section on stereotypes and racial profiling (since a lot of sociological literature discuses the relation in-depth), but if it existed the concept of Schrodinger's rapist would fit perfectly. However, as no section exists, I'd recommend Schrödinger's cat in popular culture instead. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guff. fish&karate 08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1st choice) or merge to rape culture (2nd choice) - As per Yngvadottir, Jytdog, and David in DC. This is a neologism without much usage or substantial coverage. However, I would grudgingly support a merge, although - as noted above - little would be merge-able, and it might not even fit in well with the rest of the article. GABgab 12:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 15:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkk tv[edit]

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

This is some sort of vanity article that should have been wiped out via COI months ago. It has no sources outside itself, and thus no assertion of notability or encyclopedic value. It's probably speediable under A7, but I'm never sure of the vagaries of CSD. MSJapan (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is about an actual company, a online TV Network that launched a few years ago. The sources are legitimate and other online TV Networks like Indieflix exist here on Wikipedia, which is also a webseries Network online. Sparkk TV is no different than any other company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.77.178 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — 70.187.77.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Well. A7 isn't all that vague, and there is a certain claim of importance made, so it would probably be turned down by most admins. It is a very poorly sourced article, and I don't see much of a claim of importance. Besides--and the IP editor misses the point--there is no secondary sourcing that proves this is notable via WP:GNG, or instance. Thus, yeah it's much different from many other companies, who are notable and have been written about and pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I see only a minor web outfit and some promotional verbiage, thus delete. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the categories that have all other online TV Network companies that are probably just as small under Wikipedia categories for Internet Television & Video On Demand Services. That's not right to judge companies based on prestige. This entry belongs in both categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.134 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — 172.56.28.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • It's not "prestige"--it's coverage in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Why not create a new section for online media or video on demand and include smaller companies like Sparkk tv, Indieflix & other smaller companies found in the Internet Television & Video On demand categories. There are so many companies listed and they should all be included. If more information is needed about the companies, then please tell what is needed so it can be added. Online TV is a new genre and not everyone is a Netflix or Hulu. But it doesn't mean you don't generate the web traffic or aren't popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbctv (talk • contribs) — Vbctv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Only thing that matters is whether the subject is covered in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find any substantial coverage in independent sources so WP:CORP and WP:NWEB are not met. SmartSE (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet relevant notability policy. Citobun (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have articles that could serve as refrences and show cause to keep the article. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.77.178 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://hwdmediashare.co.uk/blog/759-site-of-the-week-sparkk-online-television-network
  2. ^ https://slightlydramatic.com/2015/11/09/slightly-dramatic-on-sparkk-tv/
  3. ^ http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/26760915/article-Scary-good--Horror-webseries-grows-beyond-Weehawken-teens--wildest-nightmares-
  4. ^ https://eddiesaint-jean.com/2014/09/26/web-series-xistence-selected-for-autumn-season-on-sparkk-tv/
  5. ^ http://snobbyrobot.com/2014/07/08/the-wig-people-its-all-in-the-family/
  6. ^ http://www.killthecablebill.com/tv-channels/
  7. ^ http://www.russellnauman.net/news/archives/03-2014
  • To serve as references, they need to be reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except I think the IP has no idea what that means, so let's break it down. Hwdmediashare is a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. Any site talking about a TV show is not going to be sufficient coverage for the network it's on, so that's basically everything else except for the last two sources. Killthecablebill is nothing but an indiscriminate list of providers, so that's no good, and russellnauman is paid PR, so that's no good. As another aside, I went through the article, and discovered that the refs given as citations don't support what they're tied to, so I stripped them out. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A site that's over a decade old and still has no significant coverage in major reliable sources simply is not encyclopedicly notable enough. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches clearly found nothing better at all, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schaefer[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG: WP:BASIC plus WP:BLP. Lack of reliable sources to confirm notability and bio details. Delta13C (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This social media marketeer has not made enough impact for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a promotion site for people seeking to jumpstart promotional careers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing better and there's nothing else convincing from the information. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The above says it all. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. Person not notable and the article appears to be an advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wright (physician)[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG: severe paucity of reliable sources covering the doctor. Delta13C (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable physician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as by far nothing actually convincing even considering the events which overall conclude there's nothing for applicable notability here. Notifying DGG for his subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most discussed YouTube videos[edit]

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

The article lacks the notability required to create a separate page, unlike List of most liked YouTube videos and List of most disliked YouTube videos Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Arbitrary measurement. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The number of YouTube comments is an inane yardstick. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Though I do think that occasionally it is vaguely interesting and/or notable what videos prompt the most comments/discussion, the vast majority of the time it's completely meaningless (particularly due to spam comments), and so I do agree with the consensus that a list of the top 30 is too arbitrary and non-notable to have an article on. Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Debating, posting objectionable comments and being spammed at does not make a video any means special. Donnie Park (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought "discussed" meant in the general sense, like in media or by academics. But no, it is a total of YouTube comments, which can also by as much as "lol" or "dis sux". Moreover, it is unsourced, making it WP:SYNTH on our part to look at "most comments" and listing them here. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as there's still nothing here to actually suggest how it can be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAB International[edit]

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

Almost enentirely promotional , and no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Lithuanian football[edit]

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

Only a navbox Magioladitis (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin-Do[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art. The only sources that directly talk about this art are primary - the rest are essentially piggy backing. The art itself is not particularly widespread and (according to forums) is more notorious than notable. Search is difficult since this is not the more famous Shaolin. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no significant coverage in independent sources and nothing to show it meets any criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's still nothing here at all for any applicable notability, there are sources but still nothing actually suggesting solid independent notability as a school. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real claim of notability and no significant independent coverage. Also fails WP:MANOTE. Existing is not the same as notable.Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. Let's get this over with, folks. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1, no attempt to advance a policy-based rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World 1-1[edit]

World 1-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How is this level special?? Did its creator want to create individual articles for all 32 levels of Super Mario Bros?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think there's any intent to create an article for each level of SMB, but there is clear sourcing that shows how studied the design of World 1-1 was and its legacy for video games. At worst, this could be merged to Super Mario Bros.. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first level of the first game of a long-running video game series often sees plenty of coverage from third party sources. See Green Hill Zone as well. I'd probably support deletion of your average, run of the mill level, but these first off ones get special attention it seems. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most known video game levels from the game that saved the industry. Easily passes GNG in my opinion Seasider91 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. This level is basically legendary at this point. It has left a lasting impression on the video game industry as a whole, which the article clearly communicates. ~Mable (chat) 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep It's not only one of the most iconic levels in gaming, but the sources provided already are enough to be notable. GamerPro64 22:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep One of the most well known levels, very notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A well-known level. With sufficient coverage from third party sources, I think World 1-1 should be suited as a stand-alone article. -- Hounder4 00:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This has sufficient information to justify a separate article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Agbo[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined. The underlying notability concerns remain the same. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only additional claim for notability is that the subject played in the OFC Champions League. As he wasn't playing for a fully professional club I don't believe this passes WP:NFOOTY. I don't see much evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG either. Hut 8.5 22:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharinna Allan[edit]

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

Notability, no credible sources, don't think it pass WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Fitindia (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is hillarious in how non-notable she is. She was the lead in a production at Barry University. She appeared in a "Got Mile" add with her family. She has appeared in ads for TiVo and Huggies. She may have made appearances in two television episodes. Wikipedia is not a mass directory of everyone who has ever been shown anywhere in television, nor a directory of university theater role holders, so this is a very clear delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all insinuating any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SanAnMan (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Rose Fulbright[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "that's a pretty big law firm". Being "pretty large" is not a criteria for notability, and I don't see anything like required coverage to help it pass it (a few passing mentions, of course, but no in-depth coverage of the firm significance, etc.). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That's a pretty delayed reaction. I deprodded it in February 2015! But I maintain my position that it's pure common sense that a law firm that employs nearly 4,000 lawyers in fifty offices in every continent is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fail of WP:GNG and WP:CORP, specifically WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable...If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." The lack of independent sources on this fail the criteria. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changing vote due to sources being proven. Article can still use a solid rewrite to include said sources. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is now one of the largest law firms in the world and the 2013 merger that created this behemoth was covered in important sources like The New York Times [10], The Wall Street Journal[11][12], The Globe and Mail[13], the Financial Times[14], and many others. Before this article was butchered in some recent edits it contained substantial evidence of the historical notability of the English predecessor firm Norton Rose [15] and the Houston based Fulbright & Jaworski firm has been notable for a century. If there is a problem here it is questionable editing by possibly interested parties, which can be remedied by other means. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 3 links provided by Arxiloxos above (the WSJ link is actually the NYTs link, repeated) and what one finds via the news links atop this Afd show more than enough to meet WP:ORG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies and thank you for pointing out the erroneous WSJ link, which I've now fixed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, now it's even more of a slam-dunk keep. Not sure how, with so much coverage readily available online, how we have colleagues here claiming that "no or very little notice from independent sources" applies. Odd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As noted above, this company has been covered in major publications, such as the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. THis is an established and notable law firm and I see no reason for deletion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination. Through one of the sources is a blog, they are all pretty reliable, and the coverage is satisfactory. If the deprod pointed to one of those sources rather than arguing "keep because it is big", we wouldn't be here. Thanks to User:Arxiloxos for the good finds. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civis[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikitionary already has an article for wikt:civis, and there's nothing in this article worth moving over there, in my estimation (e.g. the article here contains patent nonsense such as "However, it also implied a Roman Citizen, as contrasted to a military person", suggesting that Roman soldiers were never citizens). The article could be used to discuss Roman citizenship in general, but we already have an article at Roman citizenship for that. I am open to being persuaded that the article should either be redirected there or to wikt:civis instead of deletion, but I don't see any real benefit in doing either. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, turn it into a disambiguation page with short definition and link to Wiktionary, as well as those potentially ambiguous links. Civis media prize can be included as 'See also'. Cnilep (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Solano[edit]

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

This was deleted 2 years ago for failing WP:BIO, but recreated a while back by User:Earflaps, who argued on talk page that this coverage by Forbes makes him notable. Well, this coverage amounts to one paragraph - a glorified caption to a photo. I don't think i changes anything, namely this article was created as part of the CEO-vanity bio promos for people related to Life in Color; they have all been deleted by now. Let's keep a lid on such spam, please. PS. Pinging the sole other contributor to the last AfD, User:Kudpung. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another case where I started working on pages assuming there would be awesome coverage, and there wasn't. Solano was the sole exception of the Life in Color people, mainly because he was the focus on some of the features. I still think tht counts, though. More recently, I'd argue he's notable because of that major promotion to SFX Entertainment. For folks not in the know, SFX (while undergoing bankrupcy) is still the largest EDM festival company in the world (LiveNation is all genres). And yay! billboard coverage of it! He was also named 30 under 30 in music, a big list by Forbes. To me, these big articles combined with all the other more minor (or less reputable) coverage makes a very strong argument for notability. Also, it's a bit insulting to call other editors' work "vanity pieces," just because the coverge wasn't great. If a page isn't notable, that's it, no need to smear its neutrality. Earflaps (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it is just that too many similar articles are created by paid PR SPAs. I didn't realize you were the original author, I thought you just restored and slightly updated an article created by someone else. I missed the billboard article, but it is an interview, and I still cannot decide to what degree they count as in-depth coverage of the subject. Let's see what others aay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. As a side note, if the consensus does veer towards delete, as creator I would like to request it instead be redirected to Committee Entertainment#Sebastian Solano, where the bulk of the info is still relevant, and so the research is still accessible. Some of the other SFX references I could also reuse on the SFX page, a topic which could use a head start on cleanup anyways. Earflaps (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: cannot escape the feeling that this belongs on LinkedIn, not on Wikipedia. A surprising number of article creators seem to confuse the two. Quis separabit? 20:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means, nothing at all to suggest the actual necessary solid independent notability, quite detailed information but still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RockAlone2k[edit]

AfDs for this article:
RockAlone2k (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The AfD last year (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remigiusz Maciaszek) ended with no consensus since nobody bothered to vote. Let me repeat: The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." The refs include the subject's tweeter, youtube, homepage and and an intereview in the minor Polish portal NaTemat.pl. I hope this time someone else with comment... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks the sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's of course going to be expected coverage but I'm still not finding anything actually convincing here to suggest minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Policy, University of Salford[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by WP:SPA creator User:Bokjihak. The article still contains no references that show notability of this department. University departments are rarely notable, and this one despite many footnotes contains refs only to its own website, and other refs are just exernal links to faculty publications or off topic sources about teaching and social work in general. Oh, and don't forget pasted-from-homepage sections like "Student Profiles" or "Careers", and language like "Our graduates use their Social Policy degree...". Who wants to bet this was written by the department secretary or temporary student assistant to one? Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Just a course guide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Conboy[edit]

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

Low-level minor league player who fails to meet both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The only references on the page are WP:ROUTINE contract signing notices and the like. DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, who pretty much said it all. Ravenswing 13:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He falls just short of NHOCKEY and after a quick search about him only one story from his career is from a notable source. Deadman137 (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question Since Conboy played ten games in the EIHL in the UK, which "is the highest level of ice hockey competition in the United Kingdom," does he pass NHOCKEY per the first criterion (namely, participation in a "top professional league")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbillings (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage and fails NHOCKEY.Mdtemp (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "comment" at the end is from a blocked sock. MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rider[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable film maker. Part of an attempt to use Wikipedia for him and his films. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Devils (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever Tomorrow and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Love Somebody (2014 British film) for his films. Article has lots of sources but none are independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about Rider. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He also seems to be credited as "Benjamin Rider" sometimes. "ben rider" OR "benjamin rider" director doesn't turn up significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are database entries, not independent, or not reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Award mentions at Indiefest Film awards and Maverick Movie Awards have been returned to page. Both institutions are fairly well established as reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happybunny58592 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafomoyo Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school with no evidence of any special notability. Whereas Senior schools usually are assumed to have some notability, the same does not apply here.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:ORGSIG.- MrX 11:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any notability guidelines, is cited with no reliable sources, and a search indicates none likely exist. —Prhartcom♥ 12:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, a Google search doesn't return anything of value -- samtar talk or stalk 13:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary schools need to have something to make them stand out to meet WP:GNG. This school clearly does not, as there aren't any sources or anything to show how the school meets it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ready PAC. Merge also, if editors want to.  Sandstein  21:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Bus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. If need-be should be covered in articles relating to Clinton's presidential campaign. No need for yet another article. PROD tag endorsed by Bearian and Muboshgu and removed by creator AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not everything that has mainstream news coverage deserves an article. WP:NOTNEWS. Anything relevant from this article can be shifted to Ready PAC. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, I endorsed the proposed deletion as non-controversial. It is only vaguely related to the campaign, and gives undue weight to one type of event. Four of the sources are decent, but the others are social media. If truly needed, merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it passes the general notability guideline. Articles about the bus, specifically, or its tours have been published in the Washington Post [16], ABC News [17], The Weekly Standard [18], CBS DC [19], Mother Jones [20], New York Daily News [21], Centre Daily Times [22], Dallas Voice [23], etc. These are just articles in which the bus is the primary topic, literally likely hundreds exist where the bus is mentioned. It may be unorthodox, but there really isn't a question that the bus is independently notable here. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also -- there were multiple Politico Pro articles about it... but my subscription has currently lapsed so I can't pull them. Maybe someone else has? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to United States presidential election, 2016. I don't deny the topic is notable, but it's notable as a part of something else that's notable, and not really distinct from it. It doesn't look like this article will ever support enough information to justify a solo article, so just merge it with a redirect. Fieari (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'll grant that this is a notable aspect of a larger topic — but it's not independently notable in its own right as a standalone topic. This just needs a brief subsection of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 or Ready PAC, not a full standalone article as a separate thing. Merge and redirect. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as best connected to that, unlikely convincing for own article. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not everything in the world needs an article and this bus is one of them!, Could be merged I suppose but personally I think it's better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 22:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect over the article on the Ready PAC as these bus tours were one of that group's main efforts to promote their brand, and Clinton herself, and is best explained in that context. That other page also could use some work, and more well-sourced content would be a major help. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Wirak[edit]

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

Mayor of a 74,820 city, too minuscule. Geschichte (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74K isn't beyond the pale for a mayor to be considered notable; if proper reliable sourcing were there to support it, then 74K would be more than enough. What is definitive here, rather, is the total and utter lack of any real substance besides "is mayor, has kids, served on a committee", or any sources besides the city's own website about itself — but no mayor, even the mayor of a city in the millions, gets to have an article that's written this fluffily and sourced this minimally. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Minuscule is a relative term. I would argue that 74,820 is not minuscule for Norway. Plus, regardless of the size of the city you lead, it is what you accomplish while mayor, not the size of the city. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my general rule of thumb is anything below 100,000 is not going to be big enough to get the mayor notability, and either way, we need good sources to get it, much better than are here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would've also considered PROD as there's nothing at all close to minimal notability and nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prabodhanam[edit]

Advanced search for: 
"Prabodhanam"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Prabodhanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Anthony Bradbury who seems to have deleted the article per WP:A7 and WP:G11. I'm finding it difficult to see the applicability of these criteria. The promotional content was removed from the article a few days ago, and what was left still made a credible claim of notability. Uanfala (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 22, which overturned a speedy deletion.  Sandstein  16:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete Quoting what I said at DRV: The one on-line reference in the article is to a blog, and the piece isn't even signed (submitted by admin3). My searching didn't find anything better, even on the Times of India website. But, I would also expect that there might be material in languages other than English, and even English sources might use a different spelling of the name. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added four reliable sources. One should search in Google Scholar and Google Books for references of old repositories. This news report, for example, covers the magazine's antecedents quite significantly. Xender Lourdes (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:INDAFD search here. North America1000 23:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After looking at the recently added citations to the current version of this page as well as this article's counterpart on Malayalam Wikipedia (plus searching a bit through Google Books), I'm inclined to agree that the publication is notable. It's just a matter citing things properly being difficult given the language barriers. The page probably needs a bunch of improvements, not deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very unconvincing keep arguments J04n(talk page) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afton McKeith[edit]

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

ProD was removed thus the next step => Another child actress failing our basic criteria for Notability, barely any real sources and the article looks like a resume as well, no awards nominations and is not really notable in any sense of the word..I get less than 700 hits on Google as well.. Stemoc 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She has appeared on a few non-notable programs and has a column for "Notes" that is filled with non-notable information, like where she filmed and what the popularity in a certain country was, etc. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 11:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page should NOT be deleted. It should be KEPT. Afton McKeith is a high profile teenage actor, singer and dancer. She is the daughter of a celebrity TV presenter and has also presented herself. She has appeared on multiple notable hit Television Shows, as well as theatre shows. She has worked in modelling for the likes of notable Getty. Afton has also been written about in multiple notable newspaper and magazine articles. She has also been photographed by paparazzi on countless occasions at high profile events such as movie premieres, as well as just as she was out and about at restaurants. Afton McKeith is on the list of the Top 10 Celebrity teenagers under 18 years of age on 'The Red Pages'/'Celebrity Intelligence' website; she was Number One in the under 18 celebrities for six months in a row. Afton McKeith is a well-known figure and should therefore not be removed from Wikipedia in any way. This is an objection to the proposed deletion of this article. Sm2016 talk•cont 16:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a daughter of a celeb does not make one notable, she has not appeared on any notable TV shows. There are basically no real source or news on her from any major or known media sources and also, creating another account to update her wikipedia page will not make her any more notable..The article looks more like a personal resume or an Autobiography than anything else--Stemoc 01:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think this article should be kept. I have seen Afton McKeith in various Television programmes, which I know have broadcast worldwide. The notability of these shows are high, having been broadcast on networks like ITV and BBC AMERICA. Also, if you type her name on Google, there are a lot of newspaper articles from notable sources such as 'Daily Mail', 'Evening Standard', and 'TV3 Lithuania'. This article should definitely be kept. RachelSmit talk•cont 08:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the references say it all. A single word mention of a name in a Daily Mail piece and other similar claims to notability. No, this is not notability, this is vanity.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The figure in the article is clearly involved in notable work and is written about in notable newspapers. I also know the TV programmes that the person has been in, and they are very notable shows. I have seen the person in the article in some very good roles, as well as pictured at high profile events. NatIs123 talk•cont 15:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Another example of an article that needs work (and proper inline citations) but given that she's worked not only in the UK but also Poland, Denmark and France, we have a pretty good set of credits for a teen actor here. Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep When you search 'Afton McKeith' on Google, there are a lot of results, thousands. The credits are international and highly notable. Even the referenced articles come from good sources, as well as from notable sources in different countries. Dontinoi talk•cont 12:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out 3 votes from Sm2016 using sock accounts...--Stemoc 12:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This actress is on many notable television shows that are broadcast around the world. I live in the UK and definitely know who she is. I do not see why she should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londongirl100 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- Certainly fits practically every measure of notability required for a child actor per Wiki standards. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the references on the article say delete Samat lib (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where do they say this? 23:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and I likely would've explored deletion had I caught this for review (someone else clicked review in March), but my searches have found nothing better and this is not giving anything else better for actual independent notability for her own article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as international credits, particularly leading theatre roles, foreign press coverage, passesWP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This actress has credits both in the UK and internationally. I even saw her on Polish television a few times. Her credits are notable and credible. As far as wikipedia standards are concerned, she fits the criteria and should be permitted to remain on wikipedia. 18:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:51DA:4F00:4811:7CAA:8A3B:8697 (talk)

Delete. Half of her TV appearances look to be promotions for whatever she was doing at the time. The sources do not pass Wiki-standards. — Wyliepedia 18:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kai (Canadian singer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC, and no reliable source coverage to support it. All of her releases to date have been as the "feat." performer on other artists' singles -- but that's not an NMUSIC pass for an artist who has no releases as the lead performer -- or as the songwriter of songs which other artists recorded as album tracks, but did not release as singles -- which is not a WP:COMPOSER pass. And the sourcing here is entirely to blogs and discographies and chart listings, with no evidence of coverage in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any musician is entitled to have an article the moment she's been a guest performer on one other musician's recording -- it's an encyclopedia, on which reliable source coverage that verifies an NMUSIC pass is required for a musician to earn inclusion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Bearcat is probably right that she isn't Wiki-notable yet, but this is likely just a case of WP:TOOSOON. I came across a rave concert review from a November 2015 Exclaim! that more or less says as much: "Kai's got it. She's may not be quite ready for arenas yet, but she's bigger than the stage she played last night, and if the set was any indication, it won't be long before she's ready for the big time." [24] For what it's worth—not much—I also found a House and Home magazine profile.[25] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As soon as there is sufficient coverage of this individual in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article was created in 2012, and she has sufficient credits to meet GNG. While in any of the individual categories (lead singer, composer, etc.) she may be a bit short individually, as a composite, she meets general GNG for reliable, third-party notability. Indie performers do not, in general, have the same level of media coverage as mainsteam pop music, but she's worked with some relatively big names. Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is met by the quality and volume of referencing present in the article, not by unsourced or poorly sourced claims of notability that aren't supported by proper sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources in the article, and measurables (vocalist of chart topping single) seem to be sufficient for an article. --Jayron32 02:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources in the article? Where? It's all blogs and primary sources, with zero evidence of media coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a biography of her. I'm pretty sure they are generally pretty reliable. Also, the article doesn't need to cite any sources to be kept. The sources just need to exist somewhere in the world. Here's an interview in a reliable publication. Here's a TV show episode exploring her home. I have never heard of this singer in my life, but 30 seconds with Google turns up enough to indicate to me that there's enough out there to support an article. --Jayron32 14:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC is generally pretty reliable, yes — but the "Artists" section of CBC Music falls outside of the "generally", as it's a section of their website where any artist who has chosen to upload music for streaming on the site gets to upload their own self-penned marketing bio to accompany it. So that page doesn't represent coverage being conferred on her by the CBC — it's a part of the CBC's website where she's allowed to redistribute her own self-published EPK content about herself. If she were getting covered in CBC Music's main front-page newsfeed, then that would count toward notability, but her self-penned and self-uploaded bio being present in the "Artists" section of the service does not. Aesthetic Magazine also counts for nothing; it's not a real, established publication, but a WordPress blog. And House & Home isn't helping, either: a musician gets an article when media are covering her in the context of her music, not when media are covering her in the context of her taste in furniture: the owner of a hot dog stand could get a videoclip on that magazine's website if his taste in home decor were interesting to them, so it doesn't bolster notability as such. So no, you haven't shown any sources that help at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I am not convinced that the sources brought up in this AfD amount to sufficient coverage for GNG. Her discography entirely consists of songs where she was not the lead singer, so the chart positions are unable to establish notability. SSTflyer 10:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice for or against a merge discussion on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 00:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information-theoretic death[edit]

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

There are insufficient independent reliable sources with which to construct a Wikipedia article on this topic. It is a FRINGE hypothetical notion held by advocates for cryonics based on unscientific analogies that the brain is like a computer and can be powered up again after it has been powered down. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (strike this; it is distracting people from the NOTABILITY argument Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

As a coherent scientific notion that stands on its own, this article needs to stay. This term is not limited to cryonics, but applies to other forms of biostasis (of the brain) as well, such as chemical fixation.
The analogy to a computer is scientifically valid enough for the purposes of this term, as it does not depend on whether the information is stored digitally or by some other method, the only assumption is that it is stored physically, and it stands in contrast to widespread fringe ideas of the mind as something nonphysical. Please don't stand in the way of progress by removing this article.
Your language about "powering up" a cryopreserved brain is indeed scientifically laughable, and substantially misrepresents cryonics, perhaps as an attempt at humor. Obviously extremely advanced technology would be needed to infer the original state prior to death/cryopreservation. Having inferred that state, the technology would need to exist to reconstruct it physically or within a computational framework (both of which are plausibly easier than inferring the original state, something that depends on the degree of damage which can be avoided). Strike, since the text it was responding to was struck. Lsparrish (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A chemically fixed brain cannot function and is very, very dead. That is just bizarre. But we are not here to discuss how FRINGEY this is; the AfD is about a lack of independent sources with which to build an article. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the topic, "information theoretic death". Not "biological death". Nobody said a chemically fixed brain could function, nor that a brain could simply be "powered on" -- that's your own bias at work. And if you didn't want to discuss how "fringe" it is, you shouldn't have brought it up in this AFD. For crying out loud. Lsparrish (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue the FRINGE thing here; I understand the notion is something you hold dear. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That, to me, seems to be enough to establish that the term is used in the sense in which it was coined in mainstream journals. I think it satisfies WP:GNG, but the article should probably be given a once over and these sources added, as it currently relies almost entirely upon the individual who coined the term. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:MjolnirPants please note that the nomination discusses a lack of WP:INDY sources that will allow us to create an NPOV article; you are going to find sources from the cryonics crowd; you will not find this discussed outside that circle. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The middle link isn't about cryonics (though it does use cryonics as an example in the abstract, along with a Monty Python quote to my delight), but even though the other two do, cryonics is a fringe subject with a lot of people writing about it. I'm pretty sure one can publish on cryonics while remaining independent of one particular big name in the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
look and look. What i mean is that the only people you are going to find using this term are cryonics advocates; it is not part of mainstream discourse and we are not going to be able to create a neutral article. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The publications linked there are Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Critical Care, and Bioethics. Those are WP:independent sources. "Independent" means something like "the New York Academy of Sciences doesn't get any extra money or other tangible benefits from promoting a particular POV about this". It doesn't mean "an author is employed in this field". Unless you seriously think you can demonstrate that NYAS is going to benefit from holding a POV on this subject, then I think we're going to have to agree that this subject is getting attention in independent publications – just like Time Cube got some attention in independent sources (mostly to say what garbage it was). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear that WAID but we also read INDY as I described it - we need sources with a range of views on X, not just one choir singing. A few months ago I went digging and I found just a few sources on this topic (the same ones cited above plus a couple others) and not a single one of them was by a mainstream neurologist. Not a single one. You try - I would love to see you write a neutral article on this topic. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but a cryonics article that makes it through peer review and into a mainstream publication is still just that. I don't think the article requires expansion, and I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect to a subsection in Death or something like that (hence the weak keep !vote). I just don't see this as useless information, the way many similar terms can often be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of neutral is one that accurately reflects the extant sources – not one that reflects POVs that editors wish existed. When there's truly only "one choir singing" on a subject (which is unlikely in this case, as there's quite a lot written on the general subject of cryonics), then a neutral article should give a summary of what that choir is singing. The rules for neutrality are the same regardless of whether that subject is "let's pretend I won't have to die" or "children should be taught how to read" or "addition is commutative". We need to follow the sources that we have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:WhatamIdoing as I noted above I challenge you to write a an article on this that actually complies with WP:NPOV including WP:PSCI. You will not be able to. We do not create articles when we have insufficient independent sources on things that would just replicate a bubble universe. There is nothing encyclopedic about that. This is where judgement comes in. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cryonics is actively marketed as a "medical procedure", so WP:MEDRS applies. Single studies aren't sufficient. I note your non-cryonicist study merely mentions the term quoting a cryonicist (in a non-reviewed paper) - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure MEDRS should apply to cryonics, as the potential for harm is negligible ("Oh dear, I broke his arm off!" "Bah, by the time they can fix the massive tissue damage caused by freezing, growing back an arm will be no problem. In fact, I'm just gonna borrow his foot as a paperweight..."). But if it has been decided it does, then I'd have to admit that none of the sources I provided would pass. None of them are even studies, just peer-reviewed discourses; sort of a high-brow 'letter to the editor'. Again, I only offer them as evidence of notability. The fringe-iness of declaring a formal name for something that already has a million names (oblivion, nirvana, brain death, death, the great beyond, pushing daisies, getting gacked/fragged/kakked/geeked, kicking the bucket, and every other euphemism that isn't a direct reference to an afterlife) is pretty strong. If anyone else agrees, I'll happily change my !vote to "make it a subsection or a paragraph in Death." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must agree with Jytdog. WP does not lead, we follow. This is a fringe theory at best, and at least until mainstream reliable sources pick it up, an article here is premature. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we really unable to write an encyclopedia article that describes this idea? It seems to me that we have managed to do so in much more complicated cases before, so I don't really see why it would be impossible here, and it might be an important service to people who want to learn what this science-y sound stuff is about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a niche topic, not a fringe theory. Debate has been refocused to notability. The Seung reference supports that this is an idea that is at least talked about among some neuroscientists, although it technically fits more under physics and computer science, and has strong philosophical implications as well. The interdisciplinary nature explains the relative lack of attention in neuroscience journals. In my experience, this page has great practical value for clarifying what the arguments for (for example) cryonics are, and has utility in countering supernatural claims about death by presenting multiple rational alternatives. I dislike pointing people to cryonics advocacy sites for the purpose of simply clarifying the meaning of a term, and the literature references contain too many digressions to be very useful for this purpose. The Wikipedia page seems to me a good place for a succinct, neutral presentation of this abstract concept. I think moving it to another Death or Cryonics related page would make it less convenient for this purpose. If it must be moved, then perhaps it belongs on Ralph Merkle, since it boils down to a clever quote from him that has gained a bit of currency (certainly within the cryonics community). Lsparrish (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Lsparrish is a WP:SPA for cyronics topics, per its contribs. I had placed the spa tag here but it was removed by Lparrrish here. hence this larger and more obtrusive note. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the SPA after reading it. I don't see the point of a large and obtrusive note here. Lsparrish (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was for the closer, not for you.Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that was the intent, and I'm not sure of its importance in any case. I've made non-cryonics-related contributions to other topics like George Dvorsky, but I was actually surprised at the relative lack of non-transhumanism related edits in my history; it isn't intentional, and I have no intent to compromise the neutrality of Wikipedia. I have contributed to other Wikimedia projects under the same username, in case there are any doubts. In any case, I'm removing another attempt to add this tag on me by another user, since the above note from Jytdog makes it redundant. Lsparrish (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is mainly a definition of a concept. As such it is not transgressing the scope of medical claims. It may well be entirely mistaken that there is a physical mind-state that is even theoretically restorable, but that has not been proven either way to the best of my knowledge. If someone wants to know what Information-theoretic death means, let them be informed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • dalete per DoctorJoeE rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two of the sources are non-peer-reviewed Merkle papers (a couple of papers that advocates have been putting into a number of places on Wikipedia as if they're real sources) and the third doesn't mention the term at all. If this neologism is worth noting, then it needs independent sourcing from non-fringe sources. WP:MEDRS fully applies, as cryonics is actively marketed as a "medical procedure", so single studies aren't sufficient either. Failing that: redirect to Cryonics as a cryonics jargon term. If there are RSes they can go in that article. Cryobiologist is actually working on a properly-sourced text on information-theoretic death, which could be a good section in Cryonics or a standalone. Redirect until then - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I agree with Lsparrish that this is not a fringe theory. I also agree with Peter that it is a definition of a concept and not transgressing the scope of medical claims. I don't like the ridicule towards the article content that I detect in this AfD. For me it comes down to the sources and Google Scholar confirms my impression of the article sources that we have enough to meet WP:GNG. DeVerm (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not !voting based on NOTABILITY. I have struck the statement about FRINGE as it distracting from the NOTABILITY argument. A hand-wavy claim about what you found on google is not sufficient; you have to bring actual sources to make the claim that there are sufficient indepedent reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that you are somehow changing your nomination halfway this AfD. Your mention of FRINGE was not just a distracting argument but rather a core part of your nomination. I was about to modify my arguments above but noticed other changes and reading what is below here, I am getting the impression you are on some sort of crusade against this or related subjects. This may explain your unfounded accusations about "hand-wavy claims" at me but I do not engage in your wars and strike my !vote and leave you at it. It is not me who must come with detailed references but rather you who needs to be clear in your nomination and list the exact reasons for deletion, i.e. which sources are not good and why not. To be plain: what a mess this AfD is. DeVerm (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is as I said. The core of the nomination is based on the policy WP:NOTABILITY as all AfD discussions must be. My reason is clear and well defined - there are insufficient independent reliable sources on this topic with to create a neutral article. The FRINGE discussion was the reason why I believe there are insufficient independent sources. That is a distraction from the core reason. This is a mess because cryonics advocates are here making non-policy based arguments to keep; I own responsibilty for some of that due to my giving my reason why I think there are insufficient sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / merge to Death#Diagnosis I guess the question is there enough sources to go at the section listed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The waters have by now been thoroughly muddied. It is no longer clear whether the objections to the existance of the article are based on Fringe, Notability, MEDRS or a combination of two or more of these. In my opinion, Fringe was clutching at straws, MEDRS is scope-creep, and sooner or later scope-creep is going to end in backlash. For a non MED subject, MEDRS does not apply. A single mention of cryonics, even if misspelled, does not make the article MED. This is a philosophical subject, a biological subject, an information theory subject. Only peripherally medical. So quoting MED notability criteria is unjustified. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The objection was always per the first sentence. The second sentence was my opinion as to why there are not independent sources about this. You will find literally nothing critical of this blatantly absurd and FRINGE notion in the mainstream neuroscience literature because is is an untestable hypothesis based on the analogy of the brain as hardware/software and driven by the hope of waking up people who are dead with their personalities intact. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is neuroscience the only field in which things can be notable? Are subjects discussed in the field of bioethics inherently non-notable? Many of them involve untestable hypotheses, analogies, and hopes for the future.
    One of the sources listed above is Bioethics (journal), which looks pretty mainstream to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
bioethics are ethics of biology, not the ethics of science fiction. Yes this bioethicist had drunk the cryonics "a brain =hardware and software" koolaid. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the peer reviewed articles above, there is about a page on the topic in the book Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are, a book on neuroscience. While the notion of an information theoretic death may have initially been discussed in the context of cryonics, Seung points out in his book that information theoretic death is really an aspect of the topic of mind uploading. I think there are enough RS in enough depth to marginally pass notability thresholds per WP:GNG guidelines. If the consensus disagrees, merging to mind uploading may be a good target for this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again that is not a serious mainstream science source. It is in the bubble of cryonics people who analogize the brain to hardware and software which is lovely in sci-fi but has almost nothing to do with the RW of neuroscience. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be false. Sebastian Seung is a neuroscientist who studies the connectome and memory. Lsparrish (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is actually a physicist turned neuroscientist who treats the brain like a computer, and mainstream neuroscientists take issue with his approach. See for example Christof Koch's review of his book in Nature. (paywalled) Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the paywalled article at the moment, but it seems pretty absurd to say human brains are not "computers" in the sense relevant to this term, i.e. physical processors and stores of information -- unless one were to adopt a blatantly supernaturalist point of view. I would be very surprised if that is a mainstream view in neuroscience, even among critics of Seung's connectomist position. Lsparrish (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sure on a very high level the analogy is somewhat useful. on a high level, as an analogy. the subject of this article takes the analogy as reality and tries to apply it in detail. it science fiction. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really an analogy. The brain is a Computer. Most physical systems are. It is only loosely analogous to the digital computers we are familiar with. For ITD to be inapplicable you would need to show where the analogy breaks down, but as I've said it is a physical processor of and storage mechanism for information. I do think this is slightly past the realm of neuroscience as commonly understood, and (as the name implies) more in the realm of thermodynamics and computer science. Lsparrish (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In a Wikipedia deletion discussion: if you're at the point of arguing the actual details of a topic from first principles, rather than just bringing the high-quality sources that demonstrate notability, then you're probably conceding - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I'm not conceding; moreover this point had bearing on the reliability of the Seung source, and Jytdog is the one who brought up the issue of whether it follows from first principles. Lsparrish (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. I was a computational neuroscientist and at one point worked with Sebastian Seung on modeling oculomotor dynamics of smooth pursuit, a mainstream computational neuroscience topic. I've also worked with Christof Koch on his comp neuro book. Both men are mainstream scientists who are unafraid to engage speculative or philosophical topics in neuroscience; Christof himself is well known for some out-there ideas on consciousness. The Human Connectome Project is sponsored by NIH and is very mainstream. Seung's connectome book is right in there giving an account of topic, including discussion of now mainstream topics like mind upload and, yes, information theoretic death. Ken Miller, another mainstream computational neuroscientist, had an op/ed in the New York Times discussing, from a skeptical POV, mind upload, cryogenics, and reconstruction of a mind from a connectome and associated brain tissue. Like it or not, this topic has entered the mainstream. The connectome book is thus a reliable independent source, and I'd argue, as Miller is an acknowledged expert, the Miller article has bearing on the topic too. I stand by my keep recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so glad you are separating actual neuroscience from "speculative or philosophical topics in neuroscience". happy. yes, science fiction is very mainstream. I agree with that. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to Delete. After extensive further searching, I can find no use of this term absent any reference to cryonics, which makes it jargon, and as such, unsuitable for an article title. This is compounded by the fact that it is a jargon term for exactly the same concept as Death. I think mention of this term can be made at the death article, but no more is warranted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly the same. Currently the lede on Death states that "Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism." Information-theoretic criteria relates to reversibility of this cessation, making it more specific. Furthermore, the majority of the human population believes in an afterlife, implying a further distinction from information-theoretic death (which is not compatible with an afterlife). Lsparrish (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you define a difference between being dead and being information-theoretic dead without glossing over the fact that Resuscitation requires continued biological functions or making reference to Billy Crystal's greatest role? Wait, forget the second clause. I'm always open to those sorts of references.
I'll answer for you: No. There's no functional distinction. This term may be more specific, but it's only useful when discussing cryonics. Hence why I referred to it as jargon and suggested mentioning it in the death article. For the vast majority of uses, the two terms are completely synonymous. The notability of the term is thus non-existent. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction you are denying is one that shows up quite vividly as soon as we include the capabilities of advanced future technologies that obey the laws of physics as we know them. It is a futuristic topic, but not one that lacks grounding in material physics, putting it in sharp contrast to non-materialistic handlings of Death. It is also distinct from the pragmatic compromises surrounding Legal and Medical death criteria -- which also don't invoke futuristic technological revival as a possibility. Rather than glossing over the biological requirements of resurrection, it questions them as absolutes that will necessarily hold under all technological conditions. Lsparrish (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of these capabilities? No, and neither does anyone else. They're entirely speculative. In fact, we have very good reasons to believe (not even suspect, but straight up accept and believe) that once necrosis sets in to a given tissue, that tissue is not able to be resuscitated by any means. These reasons run from theoretical to to experimental to oh-come-on-seriously?-common-damn-sensical. So even with your highly speculative appeal to what we might be able to do in the future, you have to ignore the fact that resuscitation requires continued biological functions. So, do you want to try again? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continued biological function (goalpost) is not the same thing as avoiding necrosis (different goalpost). Necrosis is the process of cellular degradation. It isn't a sudden event, but a process. Tardigrades, C. elegans, and many other organisms, survive dessication and cryopreservation directly, with no speculative technology involved. Clearly they aren't undergoing necrosis, because biological function isn't strictly a matter of not undergoing necrosis. Cryonics tries to avoid necrosis, as does mainstream Histology and Cryobiology. Even if all you want is to get a good picture of the cells with no intention of returning them to life, necrosis is bad because it causes artifacts. And there are obviously varying degrees to which these artifacts can be avoided.
As to the capabilities of science within the known laws of physics, there is nothing especially speculative about saying some processes can be modeled in reverse with finite/realistic computational power whereas others run into hyperexponential complexity and noise issues. Where reversing the damage of cryonics is concerned, there are definite physical questions which can be researched (and are being, primarily by people within the cryonics niche/"bubble"). One of the primary considerations is how redundantly the data of the brain is stored. If it is highly redundant, particularly if something relatively durable is involved, a computationally feasible extrapolation of a complete (or nearly complete) set of the person's memories becomes more likely. Therefore there is grounds for informed speculation on this topic.
I also doubt that your plausibility argument matters. Even if we knew for a fact that the brain turned to a homogeneous goo at the moment the heart stops (or the brainwave flatlines, or whatever), we should still be able to engage in discussions about counterfactual forms of death where that is not the case. Lsparrish (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Necrosis begins to set in once biological functions cease except in purely sterile environments, which only exist in theory. Nice try, though. It's funny: I love the idea of cryonics. I support research into cryonics. But I'm ashamed to admit it, because arguments like yours usually take the forefront in the public eye. You are engaging in twists of logic to avoid conceding a point; shifting goalposts while accusing me of doing exactly that, based on the semantic fact that I didn't mention a key detail (though I know damn well you're aware of it). Also, my "plausibility argument" is that you rely on speculation to make your case, which absolutely matters. In order to make the case that there is a meaningful distinction (which you've gotten way away from, thanks to the mote in my eye you can spot through the log in yours) between death and information-theoretic death, once must speculate about the abilities of medicine in the future. One must speculate that the damage done by necrosis is reversible. Kudos on managing to so smoothly shift from "There's a distinction between X and X'" to "I'm allowed to talk about X'", however. It was skillfully done, even if you didn't gain any traction with me by doing so. Finally, I'm going to quote you to make sure you know exactly what I'm responding to below:
there is nothing especially speculative about saying some processes can be modeled in reverse with finite/realistic computational power No, there isn't. But modeling something and doing it are two completely different things. For example, we can model the Alcubierre metric with tons of precision and confidence. But we can't build a warp drive. In this particular case, there is a real physical principle which says we can't recover a mind from a necrotic brain, and might not even be able to recover a mind from a functioning brain. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are using what is either wrong or imprecise language to describe this, and I'm having a hard time figuring out where you are really coming from as a result. It probably seems like nitpicking, but the misunderstandings you seem to have are central to the point in question: Is there a plausible situation (such as, but not limited to, cryonics) in the current world where ITD does not apply where more common definitions of death (specifically, legal and medical) do apply? For one thing, necrosis (as well as apoptosis) refers to the process of cellular degradation, not bacterial decay. It does still happen in a sterile environment! What it doesn't happen in (as quickly) is cold environments. See the Arrhenius equation. It also does not happen to fixed tissues, which are also sterile because fixatives halt all biological activity including that of microbes. The idea of chemical fixation as a cryonics substitute was suggested by Drexler in Engines of Creation, and appears to have occurred to Benjamin Franklin at one point as well. Cooling also effectively stops biological activity when you get to cryogenic temperatures, but this effect is reversible (so germs survive, for example, and necrosis resumes), and can cause damage (inevitably causes considerable damage in large scale mammalian tissues). This cryopreservation damage is for the most part not itself "necrosis" as the term normally would be applied, but it does result in necrosis after thawing occurs -- under normal (non-futuristic) circumstances.
You also apparently missed the point that ITD concerns itself directly with the second law of thermodynamics. If you are saying patients who experience clinical death always reach the point where the second law renders the damage computationally irreversible, you are simply saying that ITD always occurs. Which is still a claim about ITD which is usefully distinct from other definitions of death because it's fundamentally stronger and more detailed.
As for the distinction between being able to model it in reverse (to infer original state) and being able instantiate it physically, I think this distinction is thinner than you realize. From my perspective, the bulk of the probability of cryonics not working has to do with inferrability of information, not ability to make use of the information. If a given death were only contingent on inability to manipulate matter on the nanoscale and/or simulate human personalities based on their memories, that would be a major advance over having to speculate about inferrability to begin with (something no cryonicist really wants to have to do), and the case for cryonics would be much stronger as a result. Lsparrish (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about a lot of things there, and I was going to respond point by point, but I realized that this was either your tactic to begin with, or that we'd both be missing the point if I did. The problem is, it takes a wall of text for you to make a case (a case which has numerous problems, but still) that there is a distinction. If it takes a wall of text to explain the distinction between ITD and death, then it's blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't invested in the keeping of this article that the distinction isn't enough to warrant a new article for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction should be fairly obvious from the Merkle quote. ITD is where the information in the brain which defines memories is too thermodynamically scrambled to be accessed by any future technology. Death is nowhere near as specific. Lsparrish (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITD is where the information in the brain which defines memories is too thermodynamically scrambled to be accessed by any future technology. In other words, ITD is all dead. As opposed to mostly dead. That's fine for cult-favorite romantic-comedy fantasies, but in the real world (which Wikipedia is in) the distinction has no real meaning. Even if it did, it certainly doesn't require more explanation than a single sentence. Maybe a paragraph, if you want to mention cryonics. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Overdone comedic references aside) I think the distinction between "mostly" and "thermodynamically" is pretty important. Vague "mostly" or "completely" talk isn't helpful for forming an opinion on whether future technology can eventually solve a problem, whereas if I'm pointed to information theory (and thermodynamics, etc.) and do a little research I find out about combinatorial explosions and so on. There is an important concept at play where an initially solvable problem (death?) can become hugely more complex (death!) over a short time, to the point of having no reasonable solution (DEATH!!!), if permitted to do so. You should be able to see the pedagogic value of this even if you are convinced (despite my walls of text) that no real example of a dead person not meeting ITD criteria exists. Lsparrish (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
here we go again, arguing minutiae instead of admitting there's no practical difference. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a practical difference. It is useful when talking about cryonics. It is useful for understanding information science. It is useful for lots of things. I don't care if these topics are boring to some people. This isn't fiction, it isn't metaphor, it isn't unimportant, and it isn't stupid. Please stop pretending it is. Lsparrish (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if you insist upon the same disputed claim enough times, you'll convince someone. It won't be me, but I'm sure there's someone out there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We will soon need to scrap the brain death standard in favor of a much more tentative, probabilistic, information-theoretic understanding of death as the loss of identity-critical information."

— Brain Death and Disorders of Consciousness (pg. 86)
Finally, the topic was extensively reviewed by Princeton neuroscientist Sebastian Seung in his 2012 book Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are. Since this is closely related to but distinct from integrated information theory, it should have its own page. Keep. RoseL2P (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And User:A1candidate is back again - I am making this disclosure for you, since you to continue to fail to disclose this on the User page of your new account. Yes those are from inside the bubble, very much so. Seung's book was already discussed above and I provided the mainstream neuroscience perspective on those chapters. There are no sources - zero - that treat this concept critically in the way that actual scientific subjects are treated. None. Mainstream neuroscientists don't use it Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and mainstream reliable sources about the efficacy of most surgical procedures are from "inside the bubble" of surgeons. That doesn't mean that reliable sources aren't talking about the subject. Notability doesn't require that a subject get attention from opponents, and it doesn't require that a subject be treated like real science. It only requires that multiple sources talk about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid comparison, and a scary one. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points of order first, as it seems necessary.
  1. That information-theoretic death (ITD) is a weird concept, pseudoscience, plain stupid etc. is irrelevant. If the topic is notable, we should cover it. Both sides: please stopdiscussing cryogenics except when it is directly linked to the subject at hand and necessary to the understanding of a notability argument. See WP:NOTFORUM.
  2. More generally, stay on topic - this is not an RfC about banning all cryogenics or mind uploads from Wikipedia, this is about ITD and ITD alone.
  3. Even if one understands "independent" in the restricted meaning of "does not directly receive money or fame" it works in tandem with "reliable". A Bernie Sanders supporting group will not get direct benefits (except the joy of "winning") if Sanders ends up in the White House, but it is either not independent or not reliable when it comes to reporting on the Democratic primaries, no matter how serious its press releases look like. One cannot argue that researchers supportive of cryogenics are independent because their paycheck does not depend on their views and reliable because they have a lab position; if they have strong personal views about the subject their are either not independent or not reliable.
  4. That the nominator switched deletion rationale through the AfD is inconvenient but it is not relevant to the outcome (and certainly does not warrant a premature close). See Argument from fallacy.
I think WP:MEDRS does not really apply, but of course WP:N does, and the difference is not huge - though one could argue that MEDRS is more restrictive just as WP:BLP because of the potential for harm (even with the "no medical advice" disclaimer). In any case we need independent reliable sources addressing the subject to a reasonable level of detail.
Onto the notability: I could see two claims of notability, one as a minority viewpoint in the scientific community, and one as a notable fringe subject ("fringe" as in "not validated", not as in "utter bollocks").
It seems clear to me that the scientific community at large rejected the idea or even did not care. Moreover, "theoretically retrievable information" is a very dubious concept; I guess the idea behind it is that you could have a soulmeter scan the 10^14 neuronal connections to retrieve the "mind" of the subject (or its memories, or...), but thermodynamics postulates that such a machine will never exist for reasons more fundamental that "it is hard to make" (see Maxwell's demon), and so WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. If someone does not see how Maxwell's demon is relevant, I can discuss it, but WP:NOTFORUM so I will not type ten paragraphs if it is not absolutely necessary.
As a notable pop science subject, there is Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are, assuming it does discuss ITD (not merely cryonics attempts to preserve the brain in general); note that it is irrelevant that the author is not-RS, if crowds bought the book and believed it, it is a notable topic just as Creationism is. But as far as sources go, that is about it. For instance, the NYT opinion piece does not discuss ITD, but only "copying the mind"; it does not suggest to use the feasibility of such a process as a criterion for death.
As a consequence, I say to merge and redirect to Ralph Merkle - though I have no strong objection to outright deletion. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The points of order above are spot-on. There is nothing about the subject specific to humans, in fact the firsts will likely be found in something like PMID 25750233. We already have biomimetic artificial neural networks, it is only a matter of time until they reach the complexity of c. elegans. Even before that, it will be possible to replace the function of a worm's individual neurons in a Ship of Theseus, or kill them off one cell at a time to experimentally determine the threshold for their ITD. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect over to Ralph Merkle as this bit of jargon is an outgrowth of his arguments and his beliefs while not having legs in broader science. If that can't/won't happen, then just delete this as something without the necessary sourcing for a stand-alone page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not the concept has scientific merit is irrelevent, ditto points of order above, simply if there can be some reliable secondary references used then keep as a stub. It is a much stronger article than many many stubs around the place. If the time and effort into arguments about ITD above (note not about the article about ITD) had gone into the article with references we would have a GA article by now. Aoziwe (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep now that it has been WP:HEYed; even perhaps now a SNOW keep ! Aoziwe (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • New article version published Note that all previous discussion has concerned a much shorter poorly-referenced article. Cryobiologist (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of reliable secondary sources, even if they're dismissing it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cryobiologist's new version ... it's still pretty darn fringey, but this is much better - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the new version yesterday a few times and pondering it, I have moved almost all of it to the talk page. There was an enormous amount of WP:SYN and outright WP:OR there, not to mention handling of refs in a way that there were a ton of duplicates. Not to mention padding with all kinds of background and tangential content. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As documented in my long version of this article from yesterday, information-theoretic death credited to Merkle appears in five papers about death in peer-reviewed medical journals, and two scholarly (not popular) books about death in medicine, whereas the term occurs in only three papers about cryonics in peer-reviewed journals. I think there's a bit of a "fruit of a poisonous tree" problem here. Mainstream venues that consider the information-theoretic concept of death worthy of mention, discussion, or utilization (e.g. such as considering extent of information-theoretic survival of recipients of stem cell therapy for severe neurodegenerative disease), and that reference cryonics for originating the concept, seem to taint the idea as "just about cryonics." In my defense re repeated references, every repeated reference in the long version of the article was necessary to support statements that would otherwise have been challenged, usually with unique quoted text from the reference to support the statement citing it. I have no simple defense against the claim of WP:SYN in my long version because while I may be a subject matter expert, Jytdog is a Wikipedia expert. Time permitting, I'll engage Jytdog on the Talk page sometime to sort all that out. As far as WP:OR is concerned, the background I gave on information-theoretic death, and how it's a refinement of preexisting debates about brain structure and brain death, relied heavily on secondary sources (books and review articles). I believe I could rewrite that section to cite such secondary sources exclusively. That's something else I'll have to sort out with Jytdog when I have time. In the meantime, I'm glad that Jytdog was able to salvage at least some useful material from all that work. Cryobiologist (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The version as it stands now just incorporates the sources discussed above. In my view this should still be merged to Merkle. It remains a FRINGE notion that is not widely used in the ~25 years since it was proposed; I view this standalone article as just advocacy for cryonics. It was a believer who kicked all this off by undoing the redirect that we had previously agreed on and as you acknowledge, Cryobologist you too are one of the faithful. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the references of the article and the news articles etc that can be found via a Google search this is clearly notable enough. (I'm also opposing a merge with Ralph Merkle as that's not needed and the it being better kept as a separate article.) --Fixuture (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 18:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle.gs[edit]

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

Obvious advertising. All the sources are not verifiable and seem very opinionated. On top of that, article not suitable for Wikipedia. The huge community of the Minecraft game has much more important topics, and they are not covered here for obvious reasons. Cewlt (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability. I agree it appears to be a clear advertising gambit. And on an unrelated note, calling something the "x of y" is just...ughZettaComposer (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nom. I ran a google news search on: triangle.gs game hosting [30] Found nothing. Nothing at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bartley[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Nothing more than passing mentions. czar 09:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article is poorly sourced, with links to unreliable sources IMDb and the encyclopedia portion of ANN. ANN does show she voices in anime, but no lead roles in any notable anime shows. Also she did not win an award; the show she was on did, and it's unclear whether that award is notable. No entries in AnimeCons which means she is not a regular on the anime convention circuit. [31] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've removed the ANN encyclopedia sources given that area of the site is not reliable. I don't know how big the credited roles are (15 episodes on one show but how big is the actual part?) but based on the list given she would seem to be yet another actor local to Texas who gets given random bit part roles when Funimation need someone to say a few lines here and there. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this article was nominated for deletion and since the previous comments on this talk page, it was announced that she would be voicing two leading roles in the English dub of Charlotte[1]. I have updated this page to reflect that announcement with reliable sources. It does not appear that she is a local Texas hire as the above user has suggested since the shows she has been on are Bang Zoom shows, not Funimation shows, and since the Amazon show she is on is about Los Angeles and films in Los Angeles. The show just started on Amazon and perhaps someone should create a page for the series. This actress is one of the leads. NepGirl (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — NepGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That announcement still gives us no substantial coverage with which to write an article. Her role can be adequately covered in the dub's section of the anime's respective page/section. czar 16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through my statement about Funimation as you are quite correct. Clearly I made that remark based on her place of birth rather than researching her roles (an easy and honest assumption considering). As for the update It's still only one major role, and it's still a very short list of roles. Is there any information for this other show? It's a bit difficult to consider it if there is nothing being said about it. How significant is it and is there any discussion of her role?SephyTheThird (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep I don't agree with IMDB not being a reliable source. That's almost like saying Wikipedia is an unreliable source.https://www.amazon.co.uk/L-A-Macabre/dp/B01G7K2X38 Here is a link to Amazon.uk.com which shows it's aquisition on LA Macabre the webseries she is on. Amazon should be a credible source, no? Even if it's not making headlines yet or being talked about, it is still factual. She apparently plays a lead role as a girl name Jamie who gets kidnapped. EDIT: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/06/l-a-macabre-web-series-investigates-what-happens-when-you-confront-a-cult-61145/ I don't know how credible of a source indie wire is, but here is another link to LA Macabre and all who are involved are included, including the previous history of crew members as well as Ryan. Some involved were involved with shows such as Futurama and the movie Megamind.the Along with this she credited in her 2008 film with Nikki Blonsky as well as her supporting roles in Love Live and the recent Your Lie in April animes , I think these are noteworthy and given her recent role in Charlotte it would seem she may be fairly new? If there are future unannounced projects it may keep you all from having to remake this page. Also Supahero52 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Supahero52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I agree that there should be no bias against IMdB on Wikipedia. I have never found anything inaccurate. If I thought something is not right with IMdb, I would not use that particular material. Hot Furnace (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which also explains our stance on Amazon and IMDB in articles. czar 16:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her roles in Your Lie and Fate/stay night Unlimited Blade Works are way down there in the Additional voices section. LA Macabre is a web series but lacks notability. It was literally at Kickstarter level and doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Love Live she has a supporting role. That leaves the very recently announced Charlotte as her sole lead ensemble role. I still stand with WP:TOOSOON; if you want to move the article to draft or userify then you can see whether she will eventually become notable, but not right now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no knowledge of this actress, but she seems to qualify as do nearly all actresses. Am unable to evaluate the references. Hot Furnace (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; clearly non-notable. If you hold that imdb is a reliable source in this case (against Wikipedia practise, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb) then I'm afraid this encyclopaedia is not a suitable place for you. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Limited roles and most sources found or already in the article don't seem notable. Esw01407 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've been watching the activity here also, nothing close at all to any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-06-04/aniplex-offers-2015-charlotte-anime-on-english-dubbed-blu-ray/.102869
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic hero syndrome[edit]

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

seems to be exactly the same thing as Hero syndrome. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very few Google hits, which are mostly just stuff like TV Tropes. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, especially the kind that we'd need to satisfy WP:MEDRS as an actual psychological condition. This could have been imported from TV Tropes by someone who doesn't understand the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I meant to comment t st this earlier and since no one else has, there's nothing here to suggest making it better an article including as it's own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megumi Tano[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. About 46 roles in VADB but nothing that really stands out as starring. Chibi Maruko-chan and Inazuma Eleven roles are supporting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I believed I had planned to comment before the relist, nothing nearly actually noticeable for any confirmed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Georgian War in Abkhazia[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK created by a seemingly well-meaning pro-Georgian user. It seems that the term "Russo-Georgian War in Abkhazia" started to be used in Georgia to refer to War in Abkhazia (1992–93) or the Abkhaz–Georgian conflict in general (although it is far from being a common name for the conflict) and the user wants a separate article presenting the Georgian view of the conflict. There is already a section on Russian intervention in War in Abkhazia (1992–93) and I believe this name should redirect there, or to the Abkhaz–Georgian conflict article for broader scope. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it Before considering deletion please read the explanation: War in Abkhazia was internationalized due to Russia's heavy participation against Georgia. As you know Abkhazia had no planes or navy, bombing of Abkhazian towns and villages were conducted by Russia from their military bases and from the sea. See references in original article. By definition international war is when military attack is conducted outside of its territory.
Second: Georgian officials blamed Russia in conducting war against Georgia in Abkhazia.
Third and most important: The situation is simmilar to War in Tskhinvali region - see article Russo-Georgian War (2008).
In both situation separatists supported by Russia were demanding independence from Georgia. In both situation conflict started between local inhabitants and developed to war between Russia and Georgia. Now we have wikipeia article on Russo-Georgian War in 2008, and it's logical to have similar article describng Russo-Georgian War in 1991-93.
P.S. I think mentioning pro-Georgian is not correct in this case, since the author (me) is Georgian.
Please provide arguments before considering deletion. Otherwise others may call you Pro-Russian in the same way.
We talk about importance of existing of Russo-Georgian War article. Even pro-russian authors agree that war was between Georgia and Russia. In Russian press and social networks such definition is commonly used [32]. see also Russian TV program explaining that Ukrainians were fighting in Abkhazia against Russia, supporting Georgia. [video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZ9cKe_mOs]
I have found even youtube Channel called Russo-Georgian War in Abkhazia.
Let's discuss definition of Wars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.169.46.141 (talk) 11:51, 2016 June 3‎--188.169.46.141 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your response misses the point of the nomination. I am not arguing with you on the role Russia played in the conflict. I am not even arguing that the conflict is sometimes referred to as Russo-Georgian War. However, it is still the exact same conflict (or one aspect of the conflict) as War in Abkhazia (1992–93) and there should only be one article on the conflict. If you want to include information about Russian participation, that is where you should do it. If you think that "War in Abkhazia" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, you should propose a move in the article War in Abkhazia (1992–93). We don't have a separate article for each name any given conflict is referred to. For example American Rebellion does not present American Revolution from the British point of view, instead it redirects to the latter article. Similarly Great Patriotic War redirects to the Eastern Front (World War II), despite being a super popular term in Russia. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your reference to the Russo-Georgian War in 2008 just proves the point - there is only one article on the conflict (and it's named using the most common name). There is no Georgian–Ossetian War (2008), despite the fact that Ossetians played a role in it. Instead, the role of the Ossentians is covered in the text of that one article.No longer a penguin (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My intention is not to separate all episodes. And of source not to mess everything.
There are two articles relating to War in Abkhazia. 1- War in Abkhazia and Second - Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict. The second article (title) points to two parties of the conflict, fading the War with Russia.
If we follow your logic, Georgian-Abkhaz conflict must be included in War in Abkhazia, along with Russo-Georgian conflict in Abkhazia. But since these articles are published separately, I proposed dedicated article for Russo-Georgian War in Abkhazia.
My second argument is that in case of War in South Ossetia, we have both articles: Russo-Georgian War and Georgian-Ossetian Conflict. Both relate to one place and one conflict. But they are separated. Why not to use same model with the war in Abkhazia? (Russo-Georgian War in Abkhazia and Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict).
The difference is that Georgia failed to promote this definition in 90s. Maybe lack of Wikipedia played the role:)
And finally, for which reason wiki should avoid naming the fact by it's own name? If that was the war between Russia and Georgia, let's name it so. If that was not a war - close the issue.
Hope my arguments are clear.
Zviad Pochkhua --188.169.46.141 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point relating to Great Patriotic War and Eastern Front. They present different titles and relate to one event. Though the later title was popular in Germany not in Russia, where it was called Вели́кая Оте́чественная война́. (I just sow that there is another article "Great Patriotic War (term)" which is separated and does not redirect to Eastern Front. According to your logic it must be included in Eastern Front article. Otherwise it points to double standards of Wiki editors, especially when it concerns Russia)
But the main difference is that here in case of Abkhazia, existence of articles (Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict and War In Abkhazia) and absence of Russo-Georgian War in Abkhazia defends Russian point of view - that there was only Abkhaz-Georgian ethnic conflict.
As you mentioned, Georgian point of view is that War in Abkhazia was Russo-Georgian, and the rest were sub-conflicts.
If the aim of wiki is to keep everything in one article, than you need to have one WAR in ABKHAZIA with subtitles (Russo-Georgian Conflict in Abkhazia, Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict etc)
Zviad Pochkhua--188.169.46.141 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - this is a duplicate of existing articles, and doesn't seem to be a likely search term Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it I think an author has provided enough arguments. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except the author did not answer any of the points of the nomination. Is it about the same event as War in Abkhazia (1992–93)? YES. Is it presenting it from a different point of view? YES. Then it's a WP:POVFORK and should be deleted.
The author provided a lot of arguments for (1) what role Russia played in the conflict and (2) why the War in Abkhazia turned out as the WP:COMMONNAME. However, the (1) should be included in the already existing article (and, in fact, is included extensively) and (2) is irrelevant, since Wikipedia policies make no distinction of "why" any given name is the common name, only that it "is" the common name. Finally, the author draws incomplete parallels with the situation in Ossetia: we have two articles, because they are on two different stages of the conflict: Georgian-Ossetian Conflict (which covers everything from 1980s onwards) and Russo-Georgian War (which was the escalation in 2008). The reason why the second stage is called Russo-Georgian War is because it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Similarly for Abkhazia, we have two articles already: Georgian-Ossetian Conflict about the conflict since the 1980s, and the War in Abkhazia (1992-93), which was the escalation in 1992-1993. The difference is that the WP:COMMONNAME for that conflict is NOT "Russo-Georgian War in Abkhazia", so the author created a third article that duplicates the two existing ones, but from a Georgian POV. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Australian High Commissioners to Trinidad and Tobago. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian High Commissioners to Barbados[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all the sources are primary except the Canberra times articles which are routine announcements and barely mention Barbados. in fact 2 of the 4 Canberra times articles do not even mention Barbados. notability is not temporary is irrelevant here as I'd argue there is insignificant coverage to establish notability even when there was a resident ambassador. let's see if the usual suspect turns up with a WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:ADHOM or "as per another editor's reasoning" weak arguments. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references are what you would call reliable, being from the government. Just because the High Commissioners work for the government that published the references, does not stop this from being a suitable list to have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of references are primary sources. The Canberra Times are small few lines routine announcements in fact 2 of the cited times articles do not even say anything about Barbados. Please show actual third party coverage discussing the ambassador to Barbados in depth. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
please read WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable". LibStar (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedied by Mike V as a G5. Favonian (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacist support for Donald Trump[edit]

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

Well, this is a tough one to say the least. And I feel like the oncoming discussion is also likely to be a minefield. I understand that the article is neither badly written nor unsourced, and the quality of the specific citations are fine (though a maybe a few may need to be trimmed). However, I don't think that this subject is something that particularly deserves its own independent page per se. All of this information seems best described as a part of the articles that we already have on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign as well as his other things about him such as his positions. It's not just that he's said, done, and advocated things eaten up by the "alt-right" movement, but it's the overall context of who they are as well as how Trump has been blasted for his association with them; the whole picture and not just part of it.

I also hate to make an issue out of this separate matter but I feel like I kind of have to: the title may be problematic. A lot of U.S. religious conservatives say that being "white nationalist", "white separatism", "proud to be white", "alt-right", etc is not the same thing as being "white supremacist" since they claim that being gun-ho about themselves and their own heritage, against mixing it and diluting it, is different than wanting domination and to oppress others. Yes, I know that's guff, total nonsense, but that's what something like a fifth of Americans believe, sadly, and hence why, say, that one ad for Old Navy with an interracial couple got Trump supporters so outraged. They saw it specifically as an attack on them for wanting to be separate, and that perspective should have some kind of representation though only a grain. It's due some weight even if its very little, and so maybe this is better called "White nationalist support for Donald Trump" instead of what it's titled now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to note here that there, analogously, is a Republican support for Barack Obama article? It seems reasonable to have an article about one of Trump's notable constitutencies, especially one which has garnered such an abundance of notable media coverage. One need only feast one's eyes on the paper each morning to find a new mention of the ever-expanding web of links between Trump and his white nationalist supporters; thus, this article has ample room to grow, an important consideration in my view. As for the naming issue, I have no opinion on whether we should call them "supremacists" or "nationalists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by He Comes In Peace (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Australian Ambassadors to Zimbabwe. MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian High Commissioners to Zambia[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all the sources except 1 are primarily about other ambassador roles. 6 of the 10 sources are titled appointment of ambassador to Zimbabwe. notability is not temporary is irrelevant here as I'd argue there is insignificant coverage to establish notability even when there was a resident ambassador. let's see if the usual suspect turns up with a WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:ADHOM or "as per another editor's reasoning" weak arguments. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, this info could easily be placed on the List of Australian Ambassadors to Zimbabwe page, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little. Simply put, an 8 year old posting with little coverage independent of government sources is not enough to warrant its own page.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been done.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I withdraw. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SRK UNIVERSITY BHOPAL[edit]

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

I could not find any independent reliable sources that indicate this passes the general notability guideline. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Does not satisfy WP:GNG. An inspection report as a source does not prove anything. Clear case of non-notability. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 12:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It doesn't have to meet GNG, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Google search does reveal that this exists as a degree-granting university/college, and if so, is inherently notable, whatever its flaws as an article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a degree-granting institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Rename of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep degree granting colleges and universities are notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.-- shivam (t) 17:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. but there is promotional content that should be removed--I have just done it. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Kumar[edit]

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

Notability, poorly sourced, has been deleted previously [33] Fitindia (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have already checked the content, its genuine and he got the award from President of India for his movie "Mithila Makahan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.jehanabad (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the previous deletion should count against it, since it was deleted as "patent nonsense", which the current article is clearly not. The subject has some weight based on this very recent source in the article. However, I don't think that is enough to pass the WP:GNG, considering that there seems to be no other coverage in secondary sources at all, and this source is based on an interview. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - That source above is a good one. Also, there is a text about one of his films winning an award. If a source can support that (I'm sure there will be one), it will be enough to support WP:BIO. However, he does not satisfy WP:FILMMAKER. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 12:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry, but there has been NO mention of the subject in any Singaporean media. The newsgram link seems to be kind of OK but not enough to pass WP:GNG --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW. Although such early closes should be done cautiously, the emerging consensus is clear and I think it's not optimal for the thousands of people likely to read this article this week to first encounter the AfD notice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David A. French[edit]

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

The subject of this article has not done anything noteworthy to justify a Wikipedia biography. Dethslayer666 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page edit summary note from 86.163.94.120: Relevant national figure who has held prominent positions in several organizations - 31 May 2016

One of the references for this page refers to the subject as a "random dude off the street". I don't think that Mr. French's life story needs to be preserved in Wikipedia at this time. Dethslayer666 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of an independent run for president is pretty noteworthy, if he runs. 99.108.45.119 (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's a random dude on the street compared to more "establishment" figures in politics, perhaps. It is easy to argue he is not notable enough to be a Presidential nominee, but it is hard to argue that he is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Statesman 88 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can potentially run for President. At this point he is a hypothetical candidate for a hypothetical campaign. By this criteria he is no more noteworthy than any other natural born American citizen over the age of 35. Dethslayer666 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the primary question here is notability, here is a brief summary of Wikipedia's standards of notability for a person/biography: To have their own Wikipedia article, people need to have multiple published secondary sources that are:

  • Reliable
  • Intellectually independent from each other
  • Independent from the subject

As such, I've created a space for a list of sources that meet this standard below. Feel free to use it. Statesman 88 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Published Secondary Sources about David French
  • Sample Source
    • What makes this a secondary source?
    • Why is it reliable?
    • Is it intellectually independent from all other sources in this list?
    • Does the author have a vested interest in the topic?


Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's not just a potential candidate, he's being considered by someone who's known to be a leader in the never Trump movement. That's why hundreds of articles have already been written on him. Mitt Romney tweeted about him yesterday. Even if he doesn't run he'll be a footnote in this election, which makes him notable. --JFH (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may be premature at best to be considering this guy notable. If we're going to consider him notable just because someone notable floated his name as a potential candidate for an election, then that opens the door for problems down the road with deciding who's notable enough for their own Wikipedia page and who isn't. And what would stop, say, someone like me from paying off some talking head to float MY name? Then I get my own page? Preposterous! I'd advise waiting to see if he even runs first. Or seeing if he's got the book sales to make him notable in that regard, but from what I've been able to find so far isn't encouraging. Sidatio (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not just that someone mentioned his name, it's that he is now being discussed widely in the media. If you got some talking head to float your name for POTUS and then 30,000 articles were written about that I would say you are notable too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - VP of FIRE isn't a "random dude off the street". shoy (reactions) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable personal achievements by the subject to merit an entry. 175.156.26.40 (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He has been the subject of multiple major news media reports, from CNN, Fox News, Bloomberg, etc., as a potential candidate for President. That's enough. Not many "other natural born American citizens over the age of 35" (as one person wrote above) have been the subject of such speculation this year. Plus, Wikipedia can act as an educational tool for millions of Americans looking for more information about him if they are considering trying to help him get on the ballot. Awbeal (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very likely that this person is going to be talked about more while he mulls over the choice to run or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It might be a good idea to wait and see whether French decides to become the candidate for the "#NeverTrump" campaign before determining whether to 86 the page or not. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's being discussed widely in the news today. Google News Search on "David French" returns 34,000 results today with the top ones being NBC News, Heavy.com, ABC News, the Chicago Tribune, Slate and The Atlantic. It would seem a bizarre sort of Wikipedia passive-aggressive political action to remove him at this point. ZeroXero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had heard of him before yesterday's news, and am surprised he didn't already have a page. And I'm from Canada. He's a published author, writer for a well-known political magazine and high-profile lawyer. And obviously meets the criteria for multiple independent secondary sources. 130.15.34.151 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to pass Wikipedia:Notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now since if he's the independent candidate William Kristol has been hinting at for all these months, he could potentially be the biggest third-party person to run since Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. Although if, in the near future, it turns out he's not the guy, this discussion should be re-opened. (At which point I'd probably vote keep again per 130.15.34.151.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd suspect he's notable based on other aspects of his biography beyond the nomination speculation as well. Besides which, whether or not he decides to run, he is the person about whom Bill Kristol has been hinting for a while, and that adds another layer to it. I am willing to reconsider should he turn out not to be the nominee, but for now I think the article should remain. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he's good enough for Bill Kristol he's got to be good enough for us. That's how notability works, like it or not. 2600:1002:B12E:35E6:A93E:57E3:10E0:F164 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. French is getting a lot of publicity right now and large numbers of people are searching for information on him. Deleting the article would be actively and intentionally doing a disservice to the people trying to obtain unbiased information on his biography. His political detractors are calling him obscure and news articles point out that he doesn't/didn't have a wikipedia article. That is an objective reality as of yesterday, but continuing to deny him an article in spite of the many articles suddenly being written about him would mean that wikipedia is choosing to take a position in a political election, which is antithetical to our core values. Our readers are asking "is he notable" and then looking him up to make that decision on their own. Deciding that for them is inappropriate. As Wavy10Fan says above, we can discuss deleting the article later if he proves to be a footnote of a footnote in this election, but denying him an article right now introduces a server bias to our coverage of the election. I would argue that the mere presence of the AfD banner at this time of high interest introduces substantial bias and I encourage wrapping up this AfD as soon as possible to remove it. --Aranae (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Writer and presidential candidate. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've been a Trump supporter since last year, so I have every motivation to see this article deleted, but I can not, in good conscience, recommend that course. "Mister" French here may not be hugely notable, but he's sufficiently so, and I really don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhile, yes a lot of the coverage is because this is an on-going event with his possible candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, there is plenty of sources to cover his notability and he also already has had items to make him notable, such as his books and leading FIRE. This to me is a no-doubt keep. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He does seem broadly notable. And the article is right to begin with and focus on the broad aspects of his legal work than on his something he hasn't even agreed to do, so content-wise it's not failing WP:ONEEVENT. Blythwood (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Seman[edit]

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

She has one lead ensemble role as Takius in Sands of Destruction and the narrator in Mushishi, but I can't find any other major lead roles to meet WP:ENT. Are those two roles enough to keep her around? Also no sign of anime convention appearances. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this one article about her as a local musician but it doesn't mention her anime work. [34] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the 21st century - the Netherlands[edit]

Antisemitism in the 21st century - the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TNT. This article is a complete copy-paste of a chapter in History of the Jews in the Netherlands and there is absolutely no need to include exactly the same text twice in Wikipedia. Why delete and not merge? In order to merge something (name as redirect or some portion of the text) needs to be salvable. As I mentioned, the text is equal to the 1980s onward chapter into the article from where it has been copied. The only thing that is salvable are a few minor improvements made here by fellow editors upon the new scrutiny. I suggest copy paste instead of the original text in the original article so these will not get lost. The title is not salvageable as redirect because there is an error in the title. By WP standards the country name of the relevant country is Netherlands. Therefore the name of the article should have been Antisemitism in the 21st century - Netherlands OR Antisemitism in the 21st century in the Netherlands but NOT as created! Even the pic -copy paste from the article on Rabbi Arie Zeev Raskin- is not of Rabbi Benjamin Jacobs but of Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, the distinguished Chief Rabbi of IPOR Netherlands and not of the entire Netherlands. In short, there is nothing here except for copy paste work, and a little labor of colleagues, and the article should be entirely deleted even though under sharply different circumstances the topic and execution could have been defendable. gidonb (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have WP:A10 speedied it at first, but the article used to include a long list of (non-notable) anti-Semitic incidents. We are of course not a newspaper and what is left is just a content fork as nom has said already. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda, thank you for pointing all this out. I had researched the edit history but the nomination was already quite wordy as it was, so kept this out. Now, in WP:NOTNEWS I do not see that we cannot have a timeline of antisemitism in the Netherlands. For example, we do have it for antisemitism in general. Even a timeline for antisemitism in the Netherlands (or in general) in the 21st century could be justified IF the amount of content in a comprehensive timeline article hits major problems of recentism. But here the execution was so problematic that all this becomes irrelevant. It started from the end -as you note- probably to create a content fork. When justified, such articles evolve out of a need. gidonb (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you start with an article History of the Jews in the Netherlands. When the focus becomes too much that of antisemitism, one creates an article Antisemitism in the Netherlands (right now redirected to a section of Antisemitism in Europe). When the specific events overtake the discussion, an article Timeline of antisemitism in the Netherlands becomes justified. And only after that article concentrates unevenly on the 21st century a 21st century timeline of antisemitism in the Netherlands can be justified. gidonb (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters#Wrath. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Blaylock[edit]

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

He voices King Bradley in FMA/FMA Brotherhood, but when his description in the lead says that only 2 directors have cast him in other stuff, it is unclear whether he is notable enough to meet WP:ENT No anime convention appearances or starring role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be amenable to the redirect, as that is the single character he is identified with in the voice acting world. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect One major role with no sources to show notability. Support redirect. Esw01407 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sabellianism. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ the Father[edit]

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

Article is essentially entirely original research and based off of primary sources (direct references to biblical verses) and unreliable sources. No reliable secondary sources have been cited. Rather than discussing the theological concept, it reads like a Oneness Pentecostal religious tract. FyzixFighter (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to put it with Sabellianism, since it's an antitrinitarian concept in line with modalist doctrine? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sabellianism or related concept. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 01:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Sabellianism per StAnselm and Jclemens. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 02:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Augustsson[edit]

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

Not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a Google books search. A redirect to LPMud could be useful—he is mentioned there in greater length than in Haskell—but his other works are not independently notable so there isn't an obvious redirect target. czar 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. A GS h-index of 20 in the highly cited area computer science (with some high cited papers) may be WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I think 8 publications with >100 citations is enough for WP:PROF#C1, especially for someone who seems known better as an implementer than as an academic computer scientist. He is also prominently mentioned on Bluespec, LPMud, and Lazy ML, which are different enough from each other (and individually notable enough) that I don't think Wikipedia:Walled garden is relevant. This variety of contributions also makes the nominator's suggestion of a redirect a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well cited, known for other things. Basically, I find David's arguments compelling. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. —Ruud 11:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add more content to it. --Pachisu124 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet we still have no source that covers him in any significant detail czar 19:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_1&oldid=1142622158"