Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 February	2 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambican Biwako[edit]

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

Apparently a (quite detailed) hoax. No sources provided and I can't find anything mentioning this bird on the internet aside from a handful of Wikipedia mirrors. Note that the redirect Biwako was previously converted to an article on this supposed topic. Plantdrew (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems a hoax, particularly the part about losing the paper in the hard drive, will change vote if proof of its existence emerges.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy as a hoax. Completely unsourced and no independent search results.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambique is verifiably a country with severe flood risk. As such, significant damages occur to Mozambican homes and abodes. The one matter that casts doubt onto the idea that it is a hoax is that hoaxes generally only occur when an object of interest is manufactured (Fiji Mermaid, Cardiff Giant, Bigfoot, Piltdown Man, et al.), a criterion not met by this, as there is very little interest in birds of this specific type outside of ornithology. A hoax, above all else, is generally fantastical and noteworthy. A bird that lives in the mud does not really qualify for that. Kakeithewolf (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the usual deletion case, a failure of sources means that the subject is not notable. Here the failure calls into question the very existence of the thing. It seems the archetypal case for applying WP:Verifiability, not truth. (And that supposes that this in fact true.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were a source still available, evidence would be provided. Lack of sources also does not mean that a subject is not of note, considering the fact that many stubs are without sources, as well as the fact that many subjects are simply not high priority in study. However, though I provided the original text for the article, there appears to be two sites (neither of which I knew the existence of) that actually discuss the Biwako: http://abc-wordbook.com/word/Biwako and http://america.pink/biwako_678229.html . It appears to have an according MD5 checksum of 9ba65bac22d348f3b401369168613a7f, SHA1 hash of 97e88f4d0e1003c107f5b52900431aa8473c8f4c, and the T9 representation 249256 corresponds to Biwako. Other sources would be http://en.unionpedia.org/Biwako and http://www.gbif.org/species/102094577 (though Phragmacia is a poorly documented genus on GBIF). Kakeithewolf (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Seems like a hoax, with no coverage besides some Wikipedia mirrors. The GBIF source above says nothing about P. humufilius, although it mentions P. substriata. Complete lack of verifiability, and I can't seriously believe that "Sharpe is dead and in more obscured a grave than Jean-Valjean could aspire to." GAB^Hello! 20:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - indeed I was unable to find any reference anywhere (other than these few apparent mirrors) to crypto biologist Neil Sharpe or to the species "P. humufilius". JohnInDC (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced and potentially a hoax. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can get a verifiable source, but I need some time. The process of obtaining the sources and evidence will require combing through many hard drives completely, as well as full deeper web searches to get access to the files of the defunct site the sources are listed on. I can do this, but it will take me a little time, okay? Kakeithewolf (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. How about we delete this completely unsourced and implausible article and, when actual reliable sources are forthcoming, we consider reinstating it. Everyone wins. JohnInDC (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this just resurfaced as Biwako? Slapped it with a speedy template. Speedy delete as obvious hoax (I am sitting here in the premier institute of ornithology for southern Africa, and believe me we ain't heard none of that there chimaera...) -- Elmidae (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources can be found. Seems like it's probably not even in existence, let alone notable. — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no entry on Wikispecies for Phragmacia humufilius, which keeps with the recurring theme of "no sources" concerning this article. With all of this evidence piled against it, I say delete immediately. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iceni Academy (Colchester)[edit]

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

Article about a primary school that does not meet WP:ORG. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as primary schools are excluded from wikipedia due to long-standing consensus, except if something of unusual note happened there.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing special here. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Vipinhari || talk 11:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Smith (actress)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable former actress. Quis separabit? 23:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep prominent role in tv series For Love and Honour in the early 80s, and tv series The Associates, also a notable front page model passes WP:BasicAtlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Seems to have significant TV credit to warrant an article, although this article should be expanded. -O.R.^Comms 15:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucile Alice von Overstoltz[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Part of a user's attempt to create a family tree of non-notables here, and I do not believe a merge should be done for this reason- deletion is the appropriate course of action. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; adopt @Joseph2302's rationale. Quis separabit? 23:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: There are some references in the article about this person appearing in art, with both a painting and bust featured in some famous museum. If this is true, it might be enough to warrant an article. If, however, this article was written solely as part a family tree project, then that violates more Wikipedia rules than I can count and should not be allowed to stay on the site. -O.R.^Comms 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OberRanks: See here, it was created as a big family tree project by a COI editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Yes, this was part of a broad 'family tree' effort. It was her mother who was the model, though even that isn't enough to establish the mother's notability. But each bio had this sort of stuff copied into it. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete content here is unsourced or about other people. almost nothing about her per se. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Created by an editor doing a family geneaology per their disclosure and building that up in WP, including creating a category for their family. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#679699sof. That is not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippina Espenshied[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Part of a user's attempt to create a family tree of non-notables here, and I do not believe a merge should be done for this reason- deletion is the appropriate course of action. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Also, reading this "Mayor Henry von Overstolz was a member of the oldest living German family in the world" made a bit confused. I guess, Wittelsbachs, Hohenzollern's and Wettins should envy :). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I tagged this and prodded it originally, and began the conversation at COI noticeboard regarding the article's creator. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the article is cruft (and a lot of it copy/pasted too) but there are two things that bear a bit more examination, I think. She was, indeed, the model for the sculpture "Evening" (this is sourced); and she was listed in two different editions of a book entitled (at least in 1893), "A Woman of the Century: Fourteen Hundred-seventy Biographical Sketches Accompanied by Portraits of Leading American Women In All Walks of Life". Link here. She's also in the 1897 edition, here. Maybe these are buy-your-way-in publications, or vanity things like Who's Who - but maybe not. I think it bears further examination. To me it is at least plausible that this person is, was, sufficiently notable that a short article would not be inappropriate. I want to look a bit more. (Also I appreciate that this seems to flow from a single editor's genealogy project. In my view, the motive for their creation notwithstanding, these articles should be considered each on their own. Hence my "week keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Capet Clopton and "deletes" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucile Alice von Overstoltz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Espenschied.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, each article must be considered on its own merits. As for the two points you've raised, JohnInDC: I'm thinking that the 'Biographical Sketches' were, essentially, vanity publications, or perhaps a sort of society listing. I'd be happy to learn otherwise. As for the model thing, it's a thin claim. Not even Helga Testorf is granted her own bio here, but is folded into an article on Andrew Wyeth's paintings of her, and she was the most famous artist's model of the last forty years. Certainly in this case, the best Ms. Espenshied would merit is passing mention in Frederick Ruckstull's article, but even there it would be WP:UNDUE, unless her notability could be established independent of her work as a model. Actually, I think her best bet would be a mention in an article on the sculpture, as yet unwritten. 2601:188:0:ABE6:EDF0:DB5B:A9AE:26CF (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just had a fascinating afternoon looking at many bios in the 1892 Women of the Century. It's not purely a vanity publication, but its coverage is very varied. We could probably write articles for a great many of the people there, perhaps as many as one-quarter. The apparent goal was to include as many people as possible. As the preface says, "this book is not alone of book of famous names, but one which aims to show what women have done in the humbler as in the higher walks of life." And indeed, interpreting "famous" in a very broad sense to mean what we would call "notability", many of the people would not be considered notable by any reasonable encyclopedic standard. Even adopting the extraordinarily broader and imprecise standard, of women who would have been notable if they had had fairer opportunities, that might add another quarter, but still not all of them. (For example, it's a matter of pure guesswork whether the women who were active in local temperance societies would in the 21st century have been notable politicians) It seems more that she was a society figure who was a dilettante. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just went through Google, Google Books and Proquest looking for her under various spellings of her name. Although there are some mentions of her, almost everything refers to her only in terms of her being the wife of von Overstolz or the daughter of an old established wagon-maker. I would therefore agree with mentioning her as the model on the sculpture article, with maybe a line or two about who she was, and leave it at that. I also note the current article about her is 80 to 90 percent about her relations with very little about her personally. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben McClain[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Author claimed significance, so could not speedy, but was not able to find reputable, independent sources supporting his claim. ubiquity (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Makes no credible claim of significance: "youth pastor," "advocate of campus diversity," and unspecified "significant contribution." —teb728 t c 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional autobiography of a non-notable person. Google results don't turn up anything useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Unsourced promotion may even warrant an A7 speedy deletion. Weasel words hardly help this, and searches failed to turn up results besides "enjoys flirting" (and this is probably a different Ben McClain). GAB^Hello! 20:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, at present, he does not meet wikipedia entry requirements, not passing WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was probably written by Mr. McClain himself (or someone close to him), and it shows. Delete ASAP. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 11:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small arms[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF consisting of several cited (and un-cited) paragraphs explaining the definition. The remainder is a duplicate of Fire arm. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are dozens or hundreds of books on this topic, covering countless perspectives and centuries of history. That the article could possibly use some cleanup or improvement is a separate issue, though it's not too bad in its current state. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a reasonable subject to have an article about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Common phrase in firearms vocabulary with thousands of sources. -O.R.^Comms 15:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DICDEF is not a reason to delete – please read it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7, as twice before. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshy Joseph[edit]

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

Seemingly a minor figure in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. I do not see evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 21:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any mention in reliable sources. The 3 references cited in the article don't mention him at all. utcursch | talk 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The use of external links to organisation sites and blogs makes it awkward to see whether any actually mention the subject, but this is essentially an unsourced BLP on a recently-qualified lecturer / assistant parish priest. No evidence of attained biographical notability. The "Visions" section is a lump of advertising of views for which the subject is free to purchase webspace if he wishes. I see no reason why this should not be a CSD A7 again, as it has been twice before. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peters Township School District#Middle school. Most Middle/Sec schools are redirected per SO .–Davey2010^Talk 04:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peters Township Middle School[edit]

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

This middle school educates seventh and eighth grade students. It does not appear to satisfy the relevant notability guideline, WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peters_Township_School_District SCHOOLOUTCOME policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peters Township School District#Middle school — The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. There was a recent sexting incident that generated some local coverage, and a few routine local coverage of school events here and there, but there's not enough in-depth, non-routine reliable source coverage to meet the ORG bar, or to really make this school stand out among every other middle school in the world. The school district article can cover this school well. No encyclopedic need for a standalone article. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district listed above, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geetha Parameswaran[edit]

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

Seemingly NN academic with unremarkable list of published papers. This article was previously nominated for CSD/A7 and prod-ed twice for similar reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One reasonably well cited paper ("Corrosion inhibition of mild steel in hydrochloric acid solution by Schiff base furoin thiosemicarbazone") but it's not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in any third-party sources. utcursch | talk 18:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Designer 3D[edit]

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

Can't find any secondary sources about this product. Non-notable software. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any sources referring to this company or this product. The product also appears to be quite new, so it hasn't had time to become notable. Chris vLS (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this satisfies the software notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download sites, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - nothing special about it or the company NealeFamily (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Essentially the same as last AFD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sommer Nectarhoff[edit]

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

This article on a young guy lacks reliable sources, even he is a writer and it has been PROD many times before also. Most of the references are self promotional. Fail WP:GNG A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I restate my previous nomination for deletion: "Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. The subject has written a lot of books but I am not seeing any RS reviews or commentary outside of bookstore sites, reddit etc." Since this has been recreated without better sources it should be WP:SALTED so we do not end up here a third time before this person gets some significant RS coverage. Jbh ^Talk 19:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writerlier: There are now third-party, journalistic articles and radio shows. One show, the Writer 2.0 Podcast, is held by a professor of journalism at NYU. Another newspaper article is from the Tufts University Daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerlier (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the writing highlighted in the bio is all self-published. Blythwood (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Based on the books listings at Amazon they seem to all be self published eg The Death of Ydain - Publisher:CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Self published works are, per WP:NBOOK inherently non-notable as are the writers there of, no matter how prolific they are nor how much they may want a Wikipedia article. Jbh ^Talk 03:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols[edit]

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

This list was deleted in 2006, together with Category:Sex symbols as pointless. It was sneakily recreated in article "Sex symbol", obviously for want of encyclopedic text therein, and not it suddenly popped up after recent page moves. The list is completely subjective: for every starlet there is a promoter who declares her next grand supersex symbol in all possible media. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CWW -- material from the list article was copied/split to the new article at Sex symbol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so attribution history is problematic here. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it can be debated whether this is listcruft or an indiscriminate collection of info, but I don't see how it is subjective when the sources used are for talking about someone has been deemed sexy/a sex symbol. None of them as far as I know even suggest they are the "next grand supersex symbol in all possible media". Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Undecided. If kept, massive pruning would be needed. Just some random mention as a sex symbol shouldn't be enough. They should be considered among the most devastating hotties of all time. And therein lies the problem. Where's the boundary? Definitely this side of the Michael Jacksons, Steven Colberts and Lady Gagas, but how far over? Katherine Heigl's good looking, but is she a sex symbol? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The boundary is outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people: The person should be included if s/he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and if a reliable source establishes his/her membership in this group. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is a single personal opinion without any arguments beyond "look at her big boobs"? - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I personally think it's better suited to a category than a list – but in light of the overwhelming 2006 consensus to delete both, and the absence of any change in circumstances since that consensus, I defer to that case and simply leave it at delete. Aspirex (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People like Rudolph Valentino, Gina Lollobrigida, Marilyn Monroe or Johnny Weissmüller were of course sex symbols of their time, but Woody Allen? Kristen Wiig? Everyone can be named as a sex symbol based on some random article, but it doesn't mean anything. This list is subjective and uncontrollable, a random list of celebraties and I don't see how it could be improved. Besides, it's not much informational. --Ukas (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inclusion is too subjective and arguable, so without clear context WP:List is missed. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joe Biden as a sex symbol? This has POV/subjective written all over it. It was previously deleted and the same reasons then still holds true. Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made the split of the page Sex Symbol leaving the rump as List of sex symbols since any decent encyclopaedia should have an article covering the subject (history, different cultures, impact on teen-culture fashion etc.) but I think the list is useless. What worries me is that if the list is deleted the new topic page will be flooded with the latest subject of media gossip. Of course this doesn't warrant keeping the list but I'd welcome input on the subject page to prevent it dropping back into list form. Btljs (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "sex symbols" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Montgomery, James (2014-12-29). "25 Hottest Sex Symbols of 2014". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
2. Abrahams, Sam; Kenny-Cincotta, Raffaela; Montgomery, James; Morgan, Wallace; Shuham, Matt (2015-12-18). "25 Hottest Sex Symbols of 2015". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
3. Hakala, Kate (2012-10-17). "The 50 Greatest Female Sex Symbols in Film History". Nerve. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
4. "Sex symbols over 50". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
5. Gallagher, Pat (2015-03-23). "The 12 Ultimate Sex Symbols Of Yesteryear We'll Never Forget". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
6. Ianzito, Christina (2015). "AARP's 21 Sexiest Men Over 50". AARP. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
7. "The Brit List: 20 Sexiest British Celebs of Yesteryear". BBC America. June 2006. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
8. Lo, Ricky (2005-10-08). "More sex symbols who became good actresses". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
9. "The 100 Hottest Women of All Time". Men's Health. 2013-11-22. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
10. Synnott, Anthony (2002). The Body Social. New York: Routledge. pp. 150–151. ISBN 1134850255.
  The book notes:
  
  This list of blonde sex symbols is not exhaustive, but it must include Jean Harlow, Jayne Mansfield, Lana Turner, Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe (who once said, 'I like to feel blonde all over'), Brigitte Bardot, Doris Day, Goldie Hawn, Grace Kelly, Ursula Andress, Bo Derek, Dolly Parton and Madonna. Models have included Cheryl Tiegs, Christie Brinkley and Twiggy; actresses include Farrah Fawcett, Loni Anderson, Suzanne, Somers, Linda Evans, Morgan Fairchild, Cybill Shepherd, Cheryl Ladd, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kim Bassinger.
  ...
  Male sex symbols on the other hand have tended to be 'tall, dark, and handsome': Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, and perhaps Elvis Presley and Marcello Mastroianni in the sixties and seventies; and more recently Burt Reynolds, Erik Estrada, Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner and Keanau Reeves. The only blonde sex symbols that spring to mind are Robert Redford, Patrick Swayze and Nick Nolte, and perhaps Rod Stewart and Sting.
11. "The Greatest African-American Sex Symbols". Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. November 2005. pp. 152–156. ISSN 0012-9011.
  The magazine lists sex symbols from '40s to '00s:
  '40s: Billy Eckstine
  '50s: Harry Belafonte and Dorothy Dandridge
  '60s: Marvin Gaye and Lola Falana
  '70s: Jayne Kennedy, Billy Dee Williams, and Pam Grier
  '80s: Philip Michael Thomas and Janet Jackson
  '90s: Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, and LL Cool J
  '00s: Tyson Beckford and Beyoncé
12. "40 Years of Black Sex Symbols". Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. November 1985. pp. 89–94. ISSN 0012-9011.
  The magazine notes:
  
  On the following pages are 13 persons who have been viewed as sex symbols during Ebony's 40 years of publication. Only some of them consciously play up their sensuality: none of them plays it down.
  It lists as sex symbols: Billy Dee Williams, Diahann Carroll, Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Lena Horne, Herb Jeffries, Billy Eckstine, Eartha Kitt, Calvin Lockhart, Pam Grier, and Richard Roundtree.
13. Levine, Elana (2007). Wallowing in Sex: The New Sexual Culture of 1970s American Television. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. ISBN 0822339196.
  The book notes on page 18:
  Brief profiles of competitors often focused on their physical attractiveness and included such footage as sex symbols Suzanne Somers and Lynda Carter exercising in full-make up and striking attractive poses.
  The book notes on page 13:
  Starring the established sex symbols Teresa Graves (known for her bikini-clad role on NBC's Laugh-In) and Angie Dickinson (of Hollywood films), both shows put their policewoman heroines in weekly jeopardy as they went undercover to capture criminals.
  The book notes on page 120:
  In Howard's initial play for Jennifer's attention, he references popular female sex symbols, first Olivia Newton-John and then Farrah Fawcett-Majors.
14. Weinberg, Thomas S.; Newmahr, Staci, eds. (2014). Selves, Symbols, and Sexualities: An Interactionist Anthology: An Interactionist Anthology. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. p. xiv. ISBN 1483323897.
  The book notes:
  
  Men, as well as women, are seen as sex symbols. In the 1910s and 1920s, the actor Douglas Fairbanks, who played in what were called "swashbuckling" roles (i.e., in what we now call action films), was seen as the ideal man. In the 1920s, his status as a sex symbol was challenged by Rudolph Valentino, who was seen by women as the romantic ideal. Men, however, compared him negatively to Fairbanks, and there were those in the media who considered him effeminate because of his impeccable dress and slicked down hair (Ellenberger and Ballerini 2005).
  In the 1930s, movie stars were seen as sex symbols, such as Errol Flynn, who was another swashbuckler, Gary Cooper, and Clark Gable, were the epitome of masculinity. The 1940s found men with a more sophisticated persona like Cary Grant still masculine but more refined. The 1950s was the era of the "bad boy" image, personified by James Dean, who played a troubled teen in 1955's Rebel Without a Cause, and Marlon Brando, who played a motorcycle gang leader in the 1953 film The Wild Ones.
15. Rosen, David (2016). Sin, Sex & Subversion: How What Was Taboo in 1950s New York Became America's New Normal. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 102. ISBN 1631440454.
  The book notes:
  
  Marilyn Monroe introduced the era's iconic female image, the unthreatening, eroticized, dumb blonde, in two 1950 movies, John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle and Joseph Mankiewicz's All About Eve. Her on-screen celebrity led to being pictorially profiled in Playboy's legendary 1953 first issue. Other '50s female movie sex symbols included Bardot, Jayne Mansfield, in The Girl Can't Help It (1956), and Jean Simmons, in Guys and Dolls (1955). A new generation of male sex symbols included Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront (1954); Paul Newman in The Silver Chalice (1954); James Dean in Rebel without a Cause (1955); and Elvis Presley in Jailhouse Rock (1957). They reconceived masculine identity.
16. Kar, Law; Bren, Frank; Ho, Sam (2004). Hong Kong Cinema: A Cross-cultural View. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. p. 274. ISBN 0810849860.
  In a section titled "Sex Symbols", the book notes:
  During the 1930s and 1940s, cinemas in Shanghai and Hong Kong had their share of sex symbols, but because of censorship or social mores, the sexiness was never explicit and was conveyed mainly through swimming scenes or in domestic baths. The career horizon of a pinup girl was extremely short, so recognized sex symbols still appeared in more serious roles. Even the sexiest stars could not afford to make sex appeal a specialty à la Mamie van Doren or Diana Dors.
  ...
  Since the early 1960s, Run Run Shaw had openly recruited young women—mainly from Taiwan—for grooming in Hong Kong as sexy starlets. The likes of Chang Chung-wen, Lily Ho, and Mang Lei were followed by Shirley Huang, Angela Yu Chien, and others, who decorated various genres in or half out of contemporary dress or period costumes.
17. Gregg, Robert; McDonogh, Gary W.; Wong, Cindy H., eds. (2005). Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture. New York: Routledge. ISBN 1134719280.
  The book notes:
  
  Perhaps because of the importance of the Hollywood studio system, sex symbols in the 1940s and 1950s emerged from film. In the 1950s, women who moved from this realm onto the pages of magazines, newspapers, and posters, and into the popular imaginations of men, seemed to reflect the growing economy of the country. These women, such as Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, were buxom, breathy, blonde and, at first glance, seemed to exist for the sexual and visual pleasure of men. Sex symbols stood in contradistinction to the more appropriate standards of domesticated femininity that were being portrayed in television in the 1950s. These women stood outside traditional marriage and were more interested in seeking out fun than in keeping a good, clean home.
  Similarly, the male sex symbols that emerged out of the crumbling studio system, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman and Montgomery Clift, unlike the efficient corporate model of masculinity, were intense brooders who refused to fit into suburbanized America.
The list is not indiscriminate.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

The list is not subjective. The inclusion criteria is clear and compliant with the list guideline.
One editor wrote that "This list is subjective and uncontrollable" and another wrote that "inclusion is too subjective and arguable". I disagree that the list is subjective. From Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people:
A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:
- The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
- The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
The article complies with the guideline at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people by listing only notable people whose membership in the list is verified by reliable sources.

The 2006 AfD discussion should not hold much influence here.
An editor wrote above that there was an "overwhelming 2006 consensus to delete both" the category and the list. From the 2006 AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (2), an editor wrote:
*Delete, unless someone decides to take his/her time adding a reference for every name to show they are considered sex symbols by a third party and not just Wikipedia editors.
This indicates that the 2006 list was completely unsourced or mostly unsourced and that was the primary motivation for deletion. Because the 2016 list is sourced with third-party reliable sources and because Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, the 2006 AfD close should have much influence here.

The list might never be complete, which is fine.
It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time. Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:List notification templates. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.
For example, List of Italians likely never will be complete. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italians, where there is a strong consensus for retention.

The AfD close for List of unusual deaths
Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3:
The result was keep. I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically WP:TRIVIA just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the "want" for the information in perspective.
To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article "crap", and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter.
I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria.

General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging substantial contributors to the article: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs), Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), Zeitgeist51 (talk · contribs), Guy1890 (talk · contribs), and Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) based on a review of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sex_symbols&offset=&limit=1500&action=history. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already commented above. Personally on the fence if this should be kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would prefer it if this list was moved back into the main article. But I don't see a problem as long as every entry is reliably sourced. It is not an indiscriminate list, as not eveyrbody gets described as a sex symbol. I agree that it seems pretty trivial, but it is very well sourced and useful for people when browsing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I chipped in and added another entry (with a reliable source of course) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective, vague, general term, which today (as, paradoxically, the impressive argument in defense of the list shows) simply means a sex bomb celebrity, which is probably 50% of them today, as well as all pornstars. As meaningless as List of sex bombs, List of machos, List of femmes fatales, List of pinup girls, List of dumb blondes. - all of them may be based on references of the same kind. Famous people are called in reliable sources :-) by various epithets. Shall we collect various list of the kind List of geniuses, List of idiots, etc. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic list seems quite well sourced with hundreds of references, essentially agree with rationale by Dr. Blofeld, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into sex symbol? That seems to make more sense than keeping two separate articles, but if we decide to delete either of them, the other should go as well. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't actually delete this article the normal way, if we keep "sex symbol", since that article was split from this one and we need to keep the edit history. So, a delete of this list article means converting it into a history subpage for "sex symbol" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but create an inclusion guideline for entries in the list, to prevent too many trivial mentions from being added to the list. An example would be Talk:List of best-selling music artists.sst✈ 04:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is notable, through vigilance is needed to avoid promotion. There are likely unreliable sources to be pruned, through in this case the bar may be low. Promotional materials are of course bad, but frankly, this is a type of subject were a tabloid may be a good source :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desire (manga). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 11:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Kazumi[edit]

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

Author only notable for one major work, Desire (manga). ANN shows only this one. MADB also only shows that work. Recommend redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources for the artist themselves nor do they meet WP:ARTIST. (Note: not to be confused with "Kazumi Maki", supposedly an important physicist) Opencooper (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Desire (manga) per nom. Appears to have no notability outside of that manga. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Desire (manga) as a likely search term for those trying to find the notable manga series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as copyright violation. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HYDROELECTRICITY GENERATION BY THE RECYCLING OF WATER[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for essays or original thought. This appears to be a scientific research paper or student assignment, and doesn't have any encyclopedic content. IagoQnsi (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like this is indeed a direct copy of a scientific paper: http://stmjournals.com/tech/index.php?journal=JoWREM&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1205 I can't see anything besides the abstract due to the paywall, but I think it's pretty clear that it's the same paper. I tagged for speedy deletion due to copyvio. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Browne (barrister)[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - According to the biography at his chambers, he's clearly been involved with some pretty high-profile cases, as one would expect from a QC. But I don't see much evidence that he's notable in himself - I can't see any articles specifically discussing him as opposed to his work. Blythwood (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, if he is notable, there are no convincing signs of notability, simply seems to be a local lawyer. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jefferies[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable local lawyer, no signs of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stoner[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a local lawyer, no actual claims of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bloch[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as local lawyer, no actual claims of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Noll[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I argue that this young man, who is one of the top-rated college players in the nation, deserves to have his article kept as:

A) He is projected to be a high draft pick this upcoming year.

B) There is little point in deleting his article as, should he be drafted as high as his college success and experts suggest he will, he will likely merit, at the very least, a merge to his team's minor league page.

C) His accomplishments thus far in his collegiate career set the basis for a notability; his honors are unique and notable. Few persons are Freshman Players of the Year, for example. His achievements, not bestowed upon him by obscure sources but by nationally recognized publications, merit consideration. Alex (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - A) see WP:CRYSTAL, B) see WP:TOOSOON, C), see WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College baseball does not have the same media following of football and basketball. Also, unlike those sports, most draft picks spend many years in the minors before reaching the Majors, if ever. Therefore, I don't think being a highly rated prospect counts for much - might be different if he were say top-5, but he just makes the top 100, meaning about a projected 4th round draft pick. While he has some college achievements, nothing high enough to bring in WP:NCOLLATH far as I can see. With all that, no reason to presume sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG and therefore sources must be shown. I am not seeing the appropriate sources, so delete. RonSigPi (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Muboshgu and RonSigPi.--Yankees10 20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, not yet solidly satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent non-routine coverage required to meet WP:GNG and doesn't yet meet WP:NBASEBALL. At best article was created WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 principle argument from the delete camp was that the article is largely unsourced, and since WP:V is one of our main content policies, this is a strong policy based argument. The keep camp have argued that character lists are a normal WP:SPLIT for these kinds of articles. However, no evidence was offered that the list could eventually be sourced, except perhaps for one or two of the main characters, so this argument carries less weight. The decision is therefore to delete but with no restriction on recreation of a properly sourced page. SpinningSpark 15:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Killzone characters[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Killzone" characters – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG, sources listed are voice actor page at IGN, a gameguide, Killzone official website and a PlayStation Magazine preview as a source for another voice actor. A list of characters described from an in-universe point-of-view fails WP:VGSCOPE. Soetermans. T / C 09:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Soetermans: With no reliable sources dedicated to the cast, the list fails GNG. If an article for one of the main characters is possible, I'd be fine with that, but this list is entirely original research and nothing would be lost. ~Mable (chat) 09:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wanted to keep it, but without references and notability I can not defend it. Aoziwe (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's a valid WP:SPLIT from Killzone (series) article, if we base on existing character list precedent and rationale. There also definitely is content for characters, like [1]~~[2]~~, but none of it has been included yet and would likely not cover all the minor ones. At present the article is just WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:PLOT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused, what does "Sony was worried about a female protagonist in Killzone dev's new IP" say about Killzone characters? The article is about Guerrila Games' upcoming game Horizon: Zero Dawn. --Soetermans. T / C 16:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I wasn't very careful reading the hits, my point was that there are a bunch. Let's say I meant [3] or something ^^ — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Hellknowz in the entirety of his comment, but I'll go with a keep, since per WP:SPLIT/WP:LISTN this list seems notable. This is how we typically deal with a series-worth of fictional elements and (especially) characters. Recommend excising the minor characters in the list. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Izno's comment about article. It's (somewhat) notable as well!!! --:SGCommand (Talk to Me · contribs · 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- How is it notable? --Soetermans. T / C 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as typical game character list. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has four references: two for voice actors, a gameguide and the official Killzone website. List of The Last of Us characters or List of characters in the Metal Gear series have lots of independent, reliable sources. What exactly is a "typical game character list"? --Soetermans. T / C 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - For works of fiction spanning multiple works (not just video games) we are generally lenient on notable or well-sourced lists of characters that are common to those works, as long as it avoids going too much into fine details, treating the list as a summary-style split from the main series article. We would hope in time more sources can be added and the focus tuned towards secondary coverage about the characters, but that's something that will take time. There's definitely cleanup needed to make this more suitable given this purpose, but its basically akin to how the Pokemon lists were crafted. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, there's no deadline, but from the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I haven't seen any sources mentioning the characters in such a way that would merit its own article. The example Hellknowz brought up can easily be part of its respective article. --Soetermans. T / C 07:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't believe the notability of fictional characters should be inherited from the franchise they are from. Does it matter that there are multiple notable Killzone games if the characters never get discussed in detail by sources, outside of context-delivering plot synopses? ~Mable (chat) 15:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think Masem meant that character lists are valid WP:CFORKs when sufficient sources exists for the content. The list article is not necessarily independently notable, because it's an editorial decision to keep the list separate from the main article rather than based on a stand-alone topic. The downside is that many such lists end up way worse quality than the parent article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CSC criteria #2 would cover this list. Including it in the parent article would be a case of WP:TOOLONG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think we're suggesting a merge - I think we're suggesting a total deletion. This list would fall under the second category: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria," which would be fine, if most items in the list could at least be sourced to reliable sources, which doesn't seem to be possible here. ~Mable (chat) 21:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. WP:NOTPLOT: "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This article mentions character traits without sourcing and repeats their actions and motives, which are already described in the plot sections of the games' individual article. --Soetermans. T / C 21:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killzone (series). This would be a "valid split" if and when it overgrew the capacity to be summarized succinctly within its parent article. I certainly see a fair (but not overwhelming) amount of sources that address the characters of the series, but I'm not convinced that the topic needs its own page to sufficiently address the content of those sources. Summarize from secondary sources as necessary in the series article, and split out summary style if and when the content necessitates such a move. czar 14:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gamecruft better suited for specialist wikis. In technical terms, almost entirely unsourced (WP:V), and no indication that the topic as such (the characters from this game taken as a whole, not the game, and not individual characters) is notable as reflected in coverage of that topic in reliable sources. Sandstein 20:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a serious pruner and sourcer is found then this might be worth keeping as well. Currently it looks ugly but if it's concised to short descriptions with refs behind each one then it's very much earned its stay. Most of the plot needs to go. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is there to keep? I mean, I looked through WP:VG/RS for some sources, and I couldn't find any in-depth pieces. If we'd remove all the plot right now, the article would be empty. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kill zone (series) as there are no serious needs for deletion and this is obviously best connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting without merging it an article titled "List of Killzone characters" is utterly nonsense. Readers who search informations about the characters would be redirected to an article which barely mention a couple of them. Cavarrone 07:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep, lists of main characters of notable series are a common practice in WP and we are plenty of precedents for that. Actually the content is just a legitimate and reasonable split (because of its length) from its parent article, see WP:SPLIT. I am generally for merging this sort of articles, but even trimming the contents, in this case the parent article would be unreadable and overlong. See also Wikipedia:Summary style#Basic technique. Cavarrone 07:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's based upon WP:VGSCOPE No. 6, a recent development. In a nutshell, a lot of video game character lists just retell the story from the character's point of view, which makes it WP:INUNIVERSE, while the possible development and reception from a character would be more informative. See for instance List of The Last of Us characters, which details all that kind of information. I've looked through WP:VG/RS and I can't find any reliable source that mention the cultural impact of the Killzone characters or interviews or pieces on the creation of them. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Size isn't the sole reason to split. Right now we don't have sources to justify even a single sentence for each core character. That sort of plot summary would fit more than adequately in a section within the main series article. czar 08:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning provided in nomination. I do not think there is enough (appropriate) sources to salvage this article.ZettaComposer (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and has only two reliable independent sources, which clearly isn't enough to prove it's notable or establish a better, updated article. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BadVolf[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References either are in passing or do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Identified as the antagonist ("BadWolf") in three of the article's sources: [4], [5], [6] ~Kvng (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Dougan reddogsix (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBSOTalk reddogsix (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Just being in the story isn't significant coverage. The event is getting coverage, not the person. BLP1E may apply too. (Additionally, those 3 sources are 1 RS, 1 questionable source and one that clearly doesn't pass RS.) Niteshift36 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP One E; the sources are not enough to support a BLP DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I had planned to comment to sooner, none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability and this all seems to be part of one event for the hackings. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon E. Rasco[edit]

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

Founder of a law firm. Was a chairman of a small Florida bank from 2002-2013. I'm not seeing a good indicator of notability. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a local businessman and lawyer with no actual claims of notability and nearly even including significance, the list of his areas served are also unneeded. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP does not publish CVs. I don't see there's any chance of notability , so there's nothing worth rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable banker and lawyer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Rhodes (barrister)[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies any applicable solid notability, simply a local lawyer. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip King (barrister)[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests satisfying any applicable notability, simply a local lawyer. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sherrard (barrister)[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a local lawyer, none of this suggests satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bowsher[edit]

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

Not a full High Court judge. A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local judge, nothing to suggest satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suffers from WP:O; no reliable sources present to establish any notability of this person. The world can be a perfect happy place without this article. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Chinn[edit]

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

A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Uhooep (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and, as mentioned, none of this satisfies any notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Radway[edit]

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

I don't believe a District judge is de facto notable Uhooep (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Haworth[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-routine coverage in reliable sources, does not pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found some links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient consensus, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Turner (judge)[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local judge, searches only found a few links. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of non routine coverage, does not pass WP:Basic Atlantic306 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Hughes[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches only found a few expected mentions. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fowler (judge)[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Darling (judge)[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Owen (judge)[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Darlow[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Picton[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Field[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Kent[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing as delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dugdale[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these. Uhooep (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local judge, no signs of better notability apart from his local area. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meat industry[edit]

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

This is a content fork (WP:CFORK) of material already covered at Meat and the subarticles linked there, as well as sort of original research by (non-neutral) synthesis: it collects rather haphazardly a number of problems associated with the topic rather than first covering the factual basics of the topic such as what methods and processes the industry uses and what its history and commercial importance is. This also makes it a WP:POVFORK. In my view, this topic area should first be covered at meat and its existing subarticles, before a (more competently written and comprehensively scoped) subarticle might possibly be spun out with that material per WP:SS. Sandstein 15:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, it might currently have a tendency. I started it from even more ideological, though perfectly valid remains. The meat page, however, has so far never seen even cautious attempts at describing the reality of industrial meat production. Or do you thing that mere production technicalities provide a hint at what is going on on the world market? Just for fun: go back to a previous version of "meat" and try to find mentions of "industry". Your presumed "fork" is not backed by evidence. -- Kku 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. As discussed at the guideline linked by the nominator, WP:SPINOFFs are acceptable. AfD is not cleanup; while this strikes me as a reasonable spinoff title if there really isn't enough content to merit its own title then propose a merge. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is obviously notable – see this UN source, for example. The nomination's proposition is that this topic should be developed within the larger topic of meat but that page is 80K and, in any case, this is not an argument to delete anything. The opposite of fork/split is merger not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sydenham Arts[edit]

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

Author deprodded. Arts organization with no claim of notability. The article notes that some famous artists live in the region of Sydenham (and that's what most/all of the references seem to be about), but that doesn't make Sydenham Arts notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added six names of notable participants in the Sydenham Arts Fests and am just about to add more. Please be a little patient as it takes a moment. with thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallura (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cavrdg (I think you are a Geographer, is that correct?) have a look again on the Sydenham Arts page. I have added some facts and names of participants which are distinguished, by any standards. Gallura (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a press release. I would consider G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local organization, searches only found expected mentions at News and browsers, nothing else convincing of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This contributor just doesn't seem to get the idea of referencing. Deb (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb - Your Talk page makes for interesting reading. Please look at various arts festival Wiki pages, for instance the San Sebastian Film Festival, which is highly regarded in the international film making community. Have you deleted that page? There's a note about the lack of referencing at the top of the page. But, being Wikipedia, which is rather more democratic and reasonable than you seem to be, contributors are asked to add Referencing if they can. Why not allow the same for other Arts Festivals? Or are you, perhaps, biased? See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Sebastián_International_Film_Festival Do you think the Wiki page for the Edinburgh Film Festival is basically just a Press Release? Or is it trying to provide information about what the festival is, and how it started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_International_Film_Festival My guess is the latter, and I assure you, it's the same with the Sydenham Arts Festival page that I wrote. Gallura (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've stated you don't like me using your talk page, I'll explain here. The article on the San Sebastian Film Festival was created in 2006, before the requirement for references became part of the wikipedia guidelines; your article was created a few days ago, without references, by someone who is well aware of the guidelines. You have ignored all requests to bring it up to standard. What do you think makes you so special that you don't have to comply with the same guidelines as everyone else? Deb (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 00:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boism[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. Up until a few days ago, this article existed as a redirect to Marxism. I believe that redirect was a hoax, as it was based on the original article content claiming that Boism was a philosophy created by Bo Li (an unknown philosopher) in his book Boism, Marks, and the Modern-Day Decline of Capitalism (a book unknown to the major book search engines). Then, in recent days, a new user has come along to override the redirect and claim the creation of a new religion. I reverted the vandalism, and nominated the redirect for deletion (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 29), but the new user insists on having this new religion article. As neither the new religion, nor the original redirect, are valid articles, I nominate the page for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references and an obvious hoax. H.dryad (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keepplease keep my article, this is a new religion please stop oppressing me. BoistFeb (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious joke/hoax article. /wiae /tlk 15:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G3 and block the creator for persistent edit warring. This religion supposedly founded yesterday is an obvious hoax to the point of vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G3 Patent nonsense. I think that Leap year and February are interesting. Nevertheless, this is less credible than Scientology, writer is not L. Ron Hubbard, does not purport to have Tom Cruise as an adherent (but notability is not inheritable) and there is no evidence of WP:GNG, WP:Notability or WP:SIGCOV. By its terms this was a creation of four adherents who met (literally) yesterday. It all smacks of being a WP:Hoax. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious case of WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guy-wire. The upshot seems to be that "guy ropes" is not actually a name for this group of muscles. This results in a delete consensus, which I'm however implementing as a redirect to the actual meaning of the term, so as to allow access to the contents if somebody thinks they might serve some useful purpose. Sandstein 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy ropes[edit]

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

The title for the article is unacceptable because this is not a conventional anatomical term for this group of muscles. The primary topic for the title here is guy rope and we should not have a plural version pointing to a different place per WP:PLURAL. The guy rope concept is being used as an analogy here and there are other groups of muscles in the body which do this, such as those which stabilise the spine and trunk. As this is a medical topic, we should have more precise and accurate terminology, rather than informal and ambiguous language. See DYK for an earlier discussion. My view is that the page should be deleted and replaced by a redirect to guy rope. The text could be userfied if the author wants to rework it.

As an aside, I'm not even convinced that the nautical usage is correct. The term guy comes from the same root as guide and is a side rope used to guide a load into position, when it's hanging from a crane or the like. A standing set of lines used to stabilise a vertical structure such as a mast is more properly a stay – from a Germanic root, meaning to hold firm.

Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just move the article to a more suitable title. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a good alternative currently. There was an attempt to merge to Pes_anserinus_(leg) but there was no consensus for that. From my reading, this is not common medical language and, per WP:MEDRS this needs to go away until it's done properly, "For this reason, all biomedical information must .... accurately reflect current knowledge." Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which claims are incorrect? Which sources are invalid? I have never known an article to be deleted because someone objects to the title. My vote stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence which defines the title is incorrect. Such novel usages are commonly deleted as neologisms per WP:NEO. As for the sources, they do not support this usage. For example, Gray's Anatomy only seems to have it on page 747, where it is describing a different set of muscles, "The whole vertebral column is stabilized by the 'guy-rope' or staying effect of the long muscles...". That's talking about the spine, not the leg. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that reliable source backs up the title usage? If there are errors in the article, fix them. No need to delete. My vote stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that source does not support the usage because it's talking about the spine not the leg. Let's try pinging the other DYK reviewers, who looked at this before: @Ashorocetus, Edwardx, Justlettersandnumbers, Jolly Janner, Amberrock, Opabinia regalis, and Harrias:. Andrew D. (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And let's add Doc James, who may be the best person to settle this. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the rather clumsy and muddled nomination doesn't appear to have a clear indication of why or how the article fails policy such that it should be deleted, as opposed to simply moved. WP:RM is the best venue for that. My vote stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and rename to Guy ropes (anatomy) - I don't see how a "fresh start" can help. The reliable sources support the title of "guy ropes" specifically. The title is not "informal and ambiguous" since the sources precisely state "guy ropes". There is no other way to write this article and current form is not in violation of any policies. The only time use of "guy ropes" for this article can be voided is when we disregard the sources published by major academic publishers such as CBS publishers and Elsevier as unreliable or when we don't consider having articles about medical terminology that is being practiced in different regions of the world. Usage of a different and specific terminology in some particular part of the world is not a reason for deletion since the term is definately important for and used in certain parts of the world. It is clearly defined and explained in sources which are definitely considered reliable. The explanation of the term is not just a passing by mention either as "guy ropes" cover a whole page and is illustrated by pictures of those three muscles only. WP:NEO says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." - which the article clearly does. Obviously, as both the sources are detailed books about anatomy of lower limb and abdomen from reliable publishers. And as far as WP:MEDRS goes: "Major academic publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, and Informa) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas, usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews." - and if the materials published by CBS and Elsevier which clearly state, define, explain and illustrate "guy ropes" specifically are not reliable, then what is? Ya sh ! 15:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn´t a move to Guy ropes (anatomy) with Guy ropes redirecting to Guy-wire and a "for the anatomical term"-template on Guy-wire make every one happy as suggested above? I see no reason to talk about deletion JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would second that. Ya sh ! 15:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded as well. The article isn't perfect, but it's certainly not a WP:TNT case. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yash!: Did you see my comment on the DYK? At least one of your sources is using this term as an analogy, not as a name. I couldn't find any other source that did use this term as anything but an analogy. If this is used as a name elsewhere, it's not in general English usage, though it may be regionally common. Also, the merge discussion seems to have consisted of two people, Yash and a now-indeffed sock. I think this should be merged, with a stop in userspace along the way if more input from medicine/anatomy experts is needed first. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Yes, Opabinia regalis. BD Chaurasia says "sartorius, graciilis and semitendinosus form the guy ropes", which makes me lean towards keeping it. However, I am open to a move to my userspace where I can find more sources for the term, if any. Best, Ya sh ! 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment. It's been suggested, and appears likely on the face of it, that "guy ropes" is a regionalism or an informal or nick-name, or indeed both; if so, whether disambiguated or not, it's not an appropriate title for a medical topic. What we need to know, and what I've not to date been able to discover, is what these three muscles are called in mainstream anatomical terminology and texts. If that can be established we should just move the page to that title; if it can't, then I believe the content should be merged, ideally into our article on the Human muscular system (which, it seems, we unaccountably do not yet have). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guy ropes are these things [7] These muscles are "acting" like them.[8] They are not called "guy ropes"

Also there are a lot of groups of muscles that are "guy ropes"[9][10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Andrew Davidson and Opabinia regalis I would sincerely like to apologize for an error. This discussion made me look a bit further into the details. The book I have been using is the 2012 ed. and there has been a 2013 reprint version which I just checked at my library. The reprint version states: "sartorius, graciilis and semitendinosus form the guy ropes for the tent of pelvis" (an oversight in the 2012 one I assume) - that was the part because of which I had been arguing in favor of this article. As it isn't the case anymore, I wouldn't oppose a deletion. Again, I would say I am really sorry for this. Ya sh ! 17:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concept that groups of muscles form "guy ropes" would be useful either in the muscle article or as a subpage of that article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the article was built on an incorrect understanding and creator has withdrawn objections to deletion. Yash! if you think this content would be useful in appropriate articles, you can copy the content you created to your sandbox and then paste it in the relevant articles. Please don't do that with content that has been altered by others unless you attribute per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_within_Wikipedia -- Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Yash!, this seems to be a lapsus calami; it appears that "guy ropes" was, as Andrew D. said, intended as an analogy rather than a proper name for this group of muscles, and the passing use of the term, again as an analogy, for a different set of muscles in Gray's has no bearing on this. They are not treated as a group in the two anatomical atlases I have immediately to hand (McMinn's 6th ed. & Tillmann) and the term appears to be an idiosyncrasy of a single source. (My vote prepares a nice soft blanket to lie on in case anyone passes out in formation.) Choess (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a pat on the back for Yash!. For an article based upon a misunderstanding, Yash! has made quite an impressive lead out of it. But this comment by Opabinia regalis really says all we need to know about this topic. Relevant information could perhaps be merged into other articles, but for now we can probably conclude that this page was borne out of an unfortunate misunderstanding.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Jurries[edit]

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

Sources do not appear to convey notability per WP:GNG. The sources used are WP:ROUTINE in nature. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable accomplishments. Sources are routine. Spanneraol (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes GNG. Alex (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is that? The sources in the article certainly dont meet that threshold. Spanneraol (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent non-routine coverage required to meet WP:GNG and doesn't have the accomplishments yet to meet WP:NBASEBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GiveVaccines.org[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; only sources are a press release and a dead link. —swpb^T 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tried WP:GOOGLETEST, can't find any reliable sources to indicate notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Cristovão[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Article is mostly just a CV and list of papers. Papers on Google Scholar turn up papers with few citations. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline A7 speedy. Nothing here looks like a claim of notability, let alone anything that could pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The GScholar results, at first sight, look mediocre at best, but leave me somewhat worried about WP:BIAS. What we have is a professor from northern Portugal publishing research in Portuguese on the rural economy of northern Portugal. Once one takes that into account, together with the number of professors who, given the choice between using northern Portugal and (say) western Texas for a case study, would choose northern Portugal over western Texas (particularly if they did not speak Portuguese) - given the citation rates, the chance that he is the world's leading expert on the rural economy of northern Portugal is reasonably high. PWilkinson (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm dubious even of that limited claim. RePEc has academic rankings of about 600 economists in Portugal, among whom it lists the top 25% by rank [11]. Cristovão is not among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- with David's RePEc citation list, it's clear that there's not a citation case, and there's not much else here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Espenschied[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A family history project which fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The wagon company might be notable, but he isn't. Indeed in an article about "Louis Espenschied" there are hardly more than three sentences about the actual "Louis Espenschied". JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable, duplicates the other parts of the family history project. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Capet Clopton[edit]

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

Non-notable biography trying to claim inherited notability, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Comment~~ He was described by biographical collections [12] as a lawyer, a judge and a director of railroads and other major corporations.He was a noted collector of violins and his collection went to the US national museum in Washington [13], [14]. There is a slight claim to notability beyond any appeal to be related to notable people. He likely still falls a bit short of WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree that the sources, and notability, are thin here. That being said, I tend to be a bit more inclusive when it comes to subjects who lived in an age when third party coverage was not as comprehensive as what we are used to today - and for whom additional coverage is likely never to be forthcoming. Plus, you know, they're dead and long gone and it's not like there's a PR firm or shaky ego lurking somewhere behind this article, trying to pump up someone's notoriety (and thereby, income).— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnInDC (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC+9)‎

Comment Actually, JohnInDC, something like that is going on here. An account created and/or plumped up numerous articles in order to build their family tree on Wikipedia, a sort of public significance by inheritance. And for what it's worth, I'd err on the side of exclusion; granted that coverage then was not what it is now, but if we operate under that assumption, then we're closer to giving a free pass to anyone who died more than 100 years ago. If the sources aren't there, then the bio doesn't belong. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am not too worried about a crush of new articles about obscure people who are more than a century dead. In any article, there would need to be some kind of sourcing, and some kind of indication of notability. Which we have here. I mean, the guy appears in a book called "Notable New Yorkers"! It's not much, I agree, but it's not nothing either. And the implication of your argument – that the same standards of sourcing should apply to people from 100 or 300 years ago as we require for contemporary figures – builds a pretty substantial present day bias into the encyclopedia. I don't feel too strongly about this, hence the "weak" qualifier – but I'm still leaning in that direction, in this case. JohnInDC (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the prospect of chronological bias is unfortunate, but there is a certain inevitability about it, in much the same way that all things fade with time--I expect after we're long gone something will usurp the internet, and this will be a more evanescent form of storage than we can imagine now. But to stay on point, I don't think we have much choice but to adhere to a uniform standard. While the article was created as part of the family tree being constructed here, I haven't argued for its deletion; color me merely skeptical. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is some hyperbole here ("orator of mark" and "became an immediate success" that is unsourced; other than it is pedestrian biographical detail. WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Created by an editor doing a family geneaology per their disclosure and building that up in WP, including creating a category for their family. See articles listed at COIN. That is not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The material here is not reliable- he does not seem to have actually been a judge, and even if there were the sort of sources there are for people living in recent decades, his career as a lawyer would not have made him notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 11:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine et Compagnie[edit]

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

Article about a movie which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMOVIE. There does not seem to be anything significant about this movie to make it notable or worthy of inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub but appears to have been notable enough for inclusion on The New York Times website. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darn stubby and needs work, yes. But is it unsourcable? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

and multiple non-English releases indicate we should look for WP:NONENG sources, yes?

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

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

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

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

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

French Wikipedia

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added reviews from The New York Times, Time Out, and a characteristically restrained John Simon review for New York calling it "the most offensive dungheap masquerading as a movie to be seen in years, perhaps ever." The longer version of Simon's review is included in his book Something to Declare, unfortunately viewable on GBooks only in a snippet. [15] The New York theatrical release of this film was almost exactly 40 years ago, and the internet will give up its secrets about that ancient time only imperfectly, but other snippets of commentary can be seen at GBooks. Obviously not a great film, but clearly passes our usual standards for film notability, and if nothing else a notable part of the filmographies of both Jane Birkin and Catherine Breillat. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources such as The New York Times and New York have been added to the article I think WP:GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily sourcable via GBooks, where there are plenty of mentions about the film. While most are snippets, they show it was discussed/reviewed by Variety (as it is included in the 14th volume of Variety Film Reviews), Cahiers du cinéma ("issues 161-176"), L'Express ("issues 1747-1754") and more. It also has an entry in several encyclopedias, historical books and dictionaries of French cinema. Side note, putting myself in nominator's shoes, even if the article looked very bad [16] and if I would had not found anything, before nominating the film for deletion I would asked myself "how many chances there are a film involving Boisrond, Breillat, Birkin, Brialy, Dewaere, Caprioli, Aumont, Cosma, Garcin, Dora Doll fails GNG and NFILM?" and then I would tagged the article requiring a better sourcing, or even for notability. Cavarrone 08:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements bearing out my original thoughts. Y WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Altus Disputatio[edit]

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

Literally only one WP:Secondary Source about the event, that too reads like a press release. Definitely fails WP:GNG. Was rejected at AFC before being created by user anyways. (Should never have made it to mainspace, IMO) Soni (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: As per nominator. There are multiple mentions in a source called 'Live Law', whose reliability is highly questionable. I am sure this will get more mentions in newspapers, magazines in future. But till then, let us wait. :) Secret of success · talk 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). Merge salvageable content with National University of Advanced Legal Studies, maybe. utcursch | talk 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niketa Calame[edit]

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

Actress only notable for The Lion King, there's no independent coverage to be found. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 11:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete which is best because moving to The Lion King itself is subject to being restored again with likely no improvements, none of this better satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress who doesn't come close to meeting the criteria of WP:NACTOR. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one role of note. Actress fails WP:NACTOR. Cindlevet (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Westcott Clarke[edit]

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

Non-notable actor who only had minor film roles edtiorEهեইдအ😎 07:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search of Newspapers.com turned up nothing past the level of "Westcott Clarke is in this movie too". Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AppDynamics[edit]

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

I do not think anything here shows notability. It sems mainly as a excuse for mentioning the names of people in the field who they hired. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as it has been mainly covered in a Wall Street Journal that helps it kind of pass GNG. I think we might've come to a point were some users are taking this WP:CORPSPAM issue too seriously. Otherwise, a merge to a related article would also work. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by refs. Specifically: [17], [18], [19], [20]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain basically but I think I'll go with Draft & Userfy because my own searches found a few links at Books, News and browsers but noticeably quite a few press releases so this also affects my questionability, especially with the article not seem convincing enough to simply keep as is. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 16:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School (Mount Ephraim)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I agree with the original PROD statement: "Non-notable school - no indication that this passes WP:SCHOOLS, WP:CORP, or WP:GNG." Also there are no sources given in the article to aid in merging. FallingGravity (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden: This (and to a minor degree this) is sufficient sourcing for that but not to establish general notability. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Mount Ephraim, New Jersey The school isn't notable and listing any meaningful details about the school in the municipal article makes the most sense. Alansohn (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden per longstanding tradition expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Jacona (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT Store[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The GOAT Store

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

Promotion for non notable company bombarded with primary sources, passing mentions, non mentions and PR. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't appreciate you marking my hard work up for deletion. A Wikipedian should help improve articles rather than just delete stuff. A simple Google search will show you countless pages for GOAT Store. Also their upcoming games like SLaVE and Hypertension: Harmony of Darkness are pretty popular and have a ton of notable sources reporting on it. I just haven't had the time to create pages for them.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you do me a favor and create a page for SLaVE?

http://www.dreamcast-scene.com/news/slave-revealed-for-dreamcasts-15th-anniversary/

http://www.retrogamenetwork.com/2014/09/10/sega-dreamcast-homebrew-slave-currently-in-the-works-scheduled-for-an-april-2015-release/

http://retrogamingmagazine.com/2014/09/14/new-game-sega-dreamcast-to-receive-slave-in-2015/

http://www.retrocollect.com/News/new-dreamcast-indie-slave-gameplay-footage-released.html

http://www.seganerds.com/2014/09/09/isotope-softworks-announces-dreamcast-shooter-slave/

http://www.thedreamcastjunkyard.co.uk/2014/11/new-slave-trailer-shows-off-gameplay.html

http://www.nowgamer.com/dont-miss-this-amazing-new-dreamcast-game/

http://www.gamefaqs.com/dreamcast/111989-slave

http://www.thedreamcastjunkyard.co.uk/2015/07/developer-interview-isotope-softworks.html

http://segabits.com/blog/2015/04/09/goat-store-provides-an-update-and-cover-art-for-indie-dreamcast-game-slave/

http://segabits.com/blog/2014/09/09/slave-announced-for-sega-dreamcast/

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/01/17/upcoming-sega-dreamcast-games-in-2015/127848/

Here are some foreign ones as well just in case you can speak other languages:

http://romhacking.ru/news/reliz_gejmplejnogo_video_3dfps_slave_na_sega_dreamcast/2014-11-16-2851

http://www.gameinfo.com.br/noticia/448-slave-novo-fps-para-dreamcast

http://www.eurogamer.it/articles/2014-11-17-news-videogiochi-un-nuovo-gioco-per-dreamcast-in-uscita-nel-2015-slave --Cube b3 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't appreciate you marking my hard work up for deletion" Editors do not own articles. Period. --TL22 (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Countless Google search results may certainly be true, but just because that it exists is not a reason to have it. Not notable enough to have its own article. Sources provided mention the GOAT Store in passing, like where people can buy new Dreamcast games. That does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know enough about the gaming community to judge if this laundry-list of google hits conveys notability. I will say this, however: any company with a good marketing director can accomplish a similar amount of press coverage in industry and trade publications with persistent effort. Having worked in both marketing and publishing I've seen both sides of how this works, so I wouldn't assume importance or notability based on coverage on gamer websites or articles in industry publications. These entities are hungry for content. It's really not a great feat to accomplish coverage. I randomly selected 4 of these hits and they all read as if these websites are simply running either verbatim or re-wording of press releases passed on by GOAT store. I'm not claiming that is fact, just how it's coming across. My instinct is to vote delete but, again, I'm abstaining because my lack of a deep knowledge of gaming culture. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment I respect that you have abstained from voting. While my writing skills leave a lot to be desired, I don't create articles for companies that I feel are not notable. GS has been around for over a decade, they organize a trade show every year that is attended by thousands upon thousands of people. They are the pioneers of indie games on Dreamcast. They have also made dev kits for Atari Jaguar. I skimmed through the previous AFD and what I understood was that GSP had been out of media. That is not the case this time as I have stated earlier. Their latest game has been covered by dozens of websites. English and Foreign a like.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not meet the WP:GNG. It's hard to tell for sure with this massive list, but with what I've looked for, they're either first party, not reliable, don't mention the subject at all, or mention the subject in a very trivial, passing mention sort of way. Not a single source is third party, reliable, and discussing the subject in significant detail. Not a single third party source is dedicated to the actual GOAT store itself, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we've worked together in the past. How about you help me save this article?

All the information we need is out there and can be correlated with Google searches?--Cube b3 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Cube b3 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Note to closing admin: Cube b3 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cielo24[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable company bombarded with primary sources, passing mentions, non mentions and PR. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would state that searchable captions are notable. Video have only been searchable or indexed through the advancement in indexing and transcription technology that Cielo24 and companies like 3PlayMedia have helped create.

Also the passing references are enough as they are only used to show that notable organizations such as BrightCove, Courseera, Kaltura have used Cielo24.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, while doing research I found Vocapia Research to be the most similar organization to Cielo24. I confidently feel I wrote a page that is exponentially better.

If my writing is to advertising than I would request a more experienced Wikipedian to schedule a session with me and help me with my writing skills.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-meaning company in socially-conscious field is not notable yet. General references about the service area do not confer N to every company in that area. Press releases about funding do not confer notability; all companies need capital. WP:CORP A list of possibly notable partners does not show N because N is not inheirited. Furthermore, the partner's statements are not independent. Some of the statements are just passing mention: "Partners include cielo24, VoiceBase, Amara, 3Play Media and Dotsub, all available in the Kaltura Exchange marketplace." The article does not provide RSs that cover the company and show its significance. A google search turns up partners and APIs, but I didn't see any independent hits in the first fifty. Glrx (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated the passing references are only used to show that Cielo24 does in fact provide them their services. It is sufficient. They list Cielo24 as a 3rd party service provider. Further more the dedicated article by EdSurge validates all of those passing references in significant detail.

What agitates me the most is that inferior articles in the same field seem to be doing fine:

Vocapia Research
VoiceBox Technologies
Yap (company)

My article has more secondary references then all of these articles put together.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An IT start-up with less than 50 employees that has been trading for less than three years. For this to be notable, it would require a significant and substantial amount of coverage beyond industry publications. This is not the case. In fact, it pretty comprehensively fails WP:CORP. Analysis of references:

1. Doesn't mention the company at all

2. Article written by a company employee and hosted on company website

3. and 4. Company directory listings written by the company

5. Press release-based article about the company's latest round of venture capital funding, on EdSurge, an IT industry news website

6., 7., 8., 9. Company descriptions on the websites/press releases of two of their commercial partners

10. The company's own website

11. The website of another one of their customers: "Cielo24 has offered to give you 30 minutes of free transcription services to test out their platform"

12. A university site which lists the captioning services available to their students

13. The company's own website

14., 15. Two more university sites which list the captioning services available to their students

There is simply not enough for a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of this page are copied from various sources making it a copyright issue too. ~~[21]~~ [22] [23]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is some copy-pasting, particularly the first of your links from which a 50 word chunk has been taken. However, that site's content licensing is compatible with CC-BY-SA [24], so it isn't copyvio. In any case, even if there were some copyvio, it could be remedied by re-writing, and in itself isn't a reason to delete. Far more compelling, and what should be the focus here, is the comprehensive failure to meet the criteria at WP:CORP. Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good spotting on the first one, just lacking attribution. I missed that. The copying does in part explain why the article reads as so promotional. Copying is also becoming increasingly clear that it's the norm for the articles creator. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it accounts for why it is so overtly promotional, that and the effort required to make a non-notable company sound notable. But in my view, articles about companies without significant independent coverage are inherently promotional, no matter how "neutrally" they're written. Such articles are simply using Wikipedia to legitimize and circulate the company's website content and press releases and those of its commercial partners. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Miller (businessman)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A single local news piece does not establish notability, as articles require multiple independent reliable sources, a mention in a small local paper doesn't cover that. The Shorty Blog is not an independent source. Aoidh (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop false reporting, references and sources have been updated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreystance1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Jeffreystance1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources added don't fix the issues with the article. YouTube videos are not reliable sources and do not show notability per either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. - Aoidh (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. It's also worthwhile to point out that some of the article's paragraphs are verbatim copies from one of the sources (the Real Time Academy one). Also, the source for the Shorty Award says only that the subject will be on the jury for judging entries, not that the subject actually won the award ("false reporting", indeed). NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also echo what's said here, expected mentions and expected information but nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Moscow beheading[edit]

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

The article lacks any serious notability, it only received coverage outside Wikipedia due to its shock value. Catlemur (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable event only getting coverage for shock value. -IagoQnsi (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been speedy deleted -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very limited coverage and per WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per everyone else. Definitely goes against WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, while a sad and disturbing event, does not nearly have any notability outside of it's shock "appeal". RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 00:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ansh 666 00:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. --Stang 07:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single atrocious act does not necessarily make a person notable. Specifically, according to WP:PERP perpetrators of single acts are not notable unless "the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure... [or] the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic[emphasis mine] event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This event got lots of coverage because it was so shocking, but I do not believe anyone would call the victim renowned, or the act historic (in any case, it's too soon for the latter). ubiquity (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: Please also close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyulchehra Bobokulova, which was redirected here. ubiquity (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as a WP:BOLD redirect. ansh 666 00:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for WP:NOTNEWS, and for the fact that it has no importance today (nor will it in the future). Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kadri Bistrica[edit]

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

This person fails WP:GNG. Both Google Books search [25] and Google News search [26] return zero hits. The article cited one source which does not even mention Bistrica. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, but it sounds like the page has been written on the basis that there is a painting of this particular soldier rather than that he is a notable figure. But then maybe the problem is with the spelling of the name - we could be missing references if important accents are missing. I guess we basically need someone proficient in Albanian to call this one. JMWt (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Article created by blocked sock-master, article fails GNG and its POV, and it should be deleted. --Axiomus (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The subject was the leader of 4 men who fought a battle (though greatly outnumbered). This is a case of singular heroism, but I am nevertheless dubious as to his general (as opposed to local) notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based also on what Peterkingiron said, I think there is notability. As a Balli Kombetar member he was involved in WWII and my represent a more notable figure than other Kosovo Albanians or Serbians for whom we already have an article. I see there are schools named after him. [27] --Mondiad (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low notability. 23 editor (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The given source does not even mention Kadri Bistrica. (The same article has been deleted from sq-wiki.) --T*U (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, by Liz, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiti Jonathan Njeru[edit]

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

Article makes the claim that the subject has won awards internationally, so may not meet CSD guidelines. however Google searching for the subject turns up no hits, appears to be an autobiographical page as well.

Would not be opposed to a CSD deletion as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. The phrase "He has won several awards in East Africa and internationally." is way too vague to be credible. -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mordaunt-Short[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability despite the artcile having existed for more than a decade. Searchs produce nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search quickly found numerous detailed reviews of their products. I don't understand how the nominator could have missed them. The article is awful but they easily meet the GNG. This page and this one show reviews back to the 1980s. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the coverage sources are convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable speaker manufacturer with plenty of reviews in Hi-Fi magazines. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Fish of Isloa[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this particular aspect of the game Fish Tycoon to justify its own article. The Fish Tycoon article is not anywhere near too long. Recommend either deletion or redirect. Leaning towards the former, as I'm not really sure people looking for the game would search for it by this title. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge/Redirect ~~without redirect~~ The fish are already listed at Fish Tycoon#Magic Fish? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~In addition I don't think a redirect works because "Isola" was misspelled as Isloa.~~ (Was fixed.) --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to merge since more information was added. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources could prove a problem though, so I don't resist a plain ~~delete~~ redirect either... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge). These fish have no coverage or significance beyond the scope of Fish Tycoon; there is no need for a separate article. -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect if needed as this specifically for the game with none of it seeming convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stryker & MFT[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In case this matters, this article was created by an editor whose name matches the title of this article, and even admitted somewhere that the subject of the article and the editor were the same person/group. This AFD is here because the PROD I placed on the article was denied by that editor prior to them receiving an indefinite block due to their self-promotion. In all honesty, at this point, this article could probably be speedy deleted per criterion A7. Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best because none of this including the listed coverage is enough for the applicable music notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arc @ UNSW Limited[edit]

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

This group may have some history and significant membership in the past (well, it was free), but I do not see any in-depth discussion of this outfit to make it notable by our standards, either GNG or CORP. Newspaper mentions are one thing but don't make an organization notable.

The article was nominated in 2006, under its old name; that discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACN 121 239 674 Limited, ended in "keep" despite a complete lack of discussion of sources, and voters seemed to think that existence automatically meant notability. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability does not decrease over time, and "history and significant membership" is an absolute whopper of an understatement. This is a major and very notable student organisation dating back decades (with significant, high-level mainstream media coverage dating back decades). In 2006, the federal government changed the law in a way that made many organisations (UNSW included) have to reorganise their corporate structure (and the 2006 discussion was right in the middle of that, hence the keep with the weird name), but that doesn't magically eliminate their notability. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about student organisations today, but you've bizarrely gone and nominated two of the most (really obviously) well-covered campus organisations in the southern hemisphere. It took me about five minutes to track down plenty of sources, but I'm disinclined to have to go through libraries (yes, we're talking book-detail coverage, not passing-mention-in-newspaper) unless the nominator were to, say, accept a three-day ban as compensation for wasting editors' time. (For context, this editor nominated the Monash University student union, an organisation with a UC Berkeley-like history that is ridiculously well reported on in all manner of sources, for speedy deletion, which shows the level of diligence that went on beforehand.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that this editor didn't see to fit to actually add those references to the article, or list them here and explain their relevance. "Notability does not decrease over time" may be true, but it is also true that in the discussion from 2006 no one actually had any real arguments, let alone evidence. The Drover's Wife has plenty of passion and plenty of insults, but I wish they had a desire to actually improve these articles. They could look, for instance, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and start pruning these lists of student clubs--but perhaps they want Wikipedia to function as websites for these clubs.
  I appreciate their as-yet unproven diligence, but have to kindly decline their offer of a "three-day ban" (I'm not quite sure what that is, anyway). Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're talking organisations with long, well-documented public histories and where the best stuff, especially if people are going to be querulous about it, is probably in books (certainly the less recent, more overview-like material). And when someone is willy-nilly nominating notable organisations: what do I get out of this besides limiting their damage? That's the kind of effort that would mean I would have to drop what I'm currently working on and run to stop someone else vandalising the place, and that's not the kind of situation where I feel very enthusiastic about spending a week in a library fleshing these articles out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable, and has encyclopedic value. Unclear why nominator wishes to delete. Aeonx (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable organisation that will have ongoing social and historical currency in Sydney Australian Matt (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Scope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD of this article was "no consensus", in large part because little discussion took place in spite of two relistings. It may be time for another discussion. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cautious keep. I can understand some hesitation given the available sources, and in general the evaluation of Indian topics at AfD can be a murky process, but I agree with MichaelQSchmidt's reasoning in the first AfD, and I am also guided by the values expressed at WP:NMEDIA, and in particular WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals #5 ("significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets"); information about a source like this is of encyclopedic value. Also I note there are currently nearly 100 hits for this publication at GNews. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I opined last time. From Cinejosh, December 8, 2009: "With his recently launched magazine South Scope Allu Sirish is busy all these days."[28] From Indiaglitz, January 12, 2010: "Sirish is currently managing a stylish film magazine named South Scope."[29] from BehindWoods, March 4, 2010: "Southscope is India’s first English magazine on South Indian cinema. While it covers all the four southern industries extensively, considerable space is also given to Hindi films, Hollywood & World cinema."[30] From IndiaCompanyNews, April 17, 2011: "Allu Sirish, at 23 years, is the founder and CEO of Southscope film magazine and a young film producer..."[31] So.. we have resuts from late 2009 through at least 2011,[32] where other media speak toward the existing magazine Sirish founded. Being in Southern California, I will likely never hold a hardcopy in my hands... but I do not doubt it exists. We do have enough reliable sources speaking about this magazine and its film awards so that enough notabiity is demonstrated.[33] I do not think a newer magazine from India, purported to be the first to extensively cover the South Indian film industry, must somehow have the same long-term notability as might its older breathren or else it must be deleted. I have no idea just how many non-English sources may be available, but there is no need to delete and then recreate an article that would benefit from simple cleanup and regular editing. That said, a merge to its founder Allu Sirish is a consideration that would have precluded an AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health Schools Australia[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I weren't able to find any mentions other than sites tracking the website and the firm which go by the same name (phonebook-like sites in other words). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability within the article or with a bit of web searching. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed on the lack of notability. (Edit to sign) Tiredgrad (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party of India (Tamil Nadu)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a fringe political party which has never won a seat in any legislature, has no genuinely verifiable indication of actually having more than three or four members total, has a decidedly advertorial skew to the writing tone ("After his Inauguration the peoples are re-joined to RPI because of his leadership and honesty."), and was created by an editor with a likely WP:COI with regard to both the party and its claimed leader. Fringe political parties are certainly eligible for Wikipedia articles if they can be sourced properly -- but since it's possible for any random person in the world to simply declare themselves a political party of one, an article cannot be kept just because the topic is claimed as a political party, if it isn't reliably sourced as a real political party. Accordingly, per WP:INDAFD I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with Tamil language skills can salvage it with a few actual sources to get it over WP:ORG, but it does not get an automatic "just because it exists" inclusion freebie or an exemption from having to be properly sourced. Delete, unless it can be fixed. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. No coverage found -- let alone significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The most significant person in the party (according to this article) is only mentioned in losing bids as being an "independent" rather than in a significant named party. SPA creator's other article was addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.G.Nagamani. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 04:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article isn't about a political party as such, but of the TN state branch of the national party. And there is no referenced material to be merged into the parent article. --Soman (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChopNotSlop[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Others. No detailed reliable sources establish "ChopNotSlop" as contributing "notable melodies, tunes or standards", nor it "being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching", nor it "having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre", nor it being "listed as a significant musical influence on a musician or composer who meets the above criteria".

Also fails WP:GROUP. No depth of coverage to establish "ChopNotSlop" as a notable musical subculture. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The article makes no claim at notability, and a quick Googling returns very little. -- Irn (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 04:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any sources to establish real notability, no strong claim to notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped up, not slopped up is DJ OG Ron C's tag. It's not a sub genre, all part of the chopped and screwed movement. -Htown born and bred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.177.226 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Austin[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 03:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP with insignificant notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BLP ship has sailed for this one... Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A meaty IMDb page, but most of those are minor bit parts that do not establish notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Simply not good enough for an article. Cindlevet (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As David E suggested. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shimi Kang[edit]

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

No strong indication of notability. Has a "#1 Bestseller" book, but that phrase is rather meaningless (slightly off-topic: here's an article about someone getting a bestseller by selling 3 copies of a photo of his foot). Spoke at a bunch of conferences and won some minor awards, but not enough to pass WP:BIO. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note also that the article was created by Redbowcreative (talk · contribs), strongly suggesting the source as Red Bow Creative, a branding company, and that it was created as a paid service. (If it is kept, move it to Shimi Kang, per naming rules.) Mind matrix 14:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heavily promotional. Stuffed full of minor accomplishments tarted up to look more impressive than they are. No in-depth coverage in reliably published independent sources. No actual claim of significance discernable among all the wikipuffery. Even if some notability could be found, the article would need a complete rewrite (WP:TNT) to remove all the promotion. Plausibly a WP:CSD#G11 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The shared corporate username is cause for blocking alone, but more to the point, it's clearly a promotion-only account. I've reported it. It should be blocked, either for activity or it's username -- or both. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, after leaving my comment above, I was canvassed by a single-edit account Carlyt28 who asked me to help rewrite the article less promotionally. If more of this turns up, an SPI might be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could possibly meet WP:NACADEMICS but I can't find evidence for this in a brief search. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. If there is some possibility of meeting WP:NACADEMICS, let's leave it to someone else to attempt. The article creator has been indefinitely blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Not quite sure how to add to this thread properly (in the process of figuring it out), nor what an SPI is, but it certainly doesn't sound good. Is it against the Wiki rules to personally ask for help with rewrites? As I've seen other users do this on other talk pages, as well as read Wikipedia editor blogs telling people who need help with edits to email them? Had also read somewhere that articles that are not up to par or overly promotional could be moved to a draft space where non-biased users could make their edits. David Eppstein If this is indeed against the rules, will refrain from doing so in the future and have left the same message on Kendall-K1 page. Again, apologies to David for "canvassing" his talk page - intentions are not to break any rules. Carlyt28 (talk 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible KEEP. While the vast amount of original content was clearly an academic CV & copy of promotional content for author/presenter from promotional websites, it could be kept if stubbed. Notability of renamed Shimi Kang may not be due to WP:NACADEMICS but could be WP:AUTHOR if sufficient reliable sources could validate the significance/notability of the Dolphin Way book. Canuckle (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.. Thank you Canuckle for overlooking my unfamiliarity with vast Wikipedia rules and providing some helpful notes. So to clarify, Possible Keep is contingent on removal of elements of CV, or purely parts with 'promotional' writing? i.e. if "fluff" words are removed, is the rest fine? As for significance of The Dolphin Way book, will work to add as many references as possible. To clarify - references are of other sources speaking of The Dolphin Way and its validity, yes? Thanks again. Carlyt28 (talk)
- Carlyt28 - See WP:NBOOK & WP:Reliable to see how a book can be notable enough to be on wikipedia and what third-party, neutral RELIABLE SOURCES are essential. Create your own User Talk Page and a Shimi Kang TALK page for these conversation on how to learn to edit wikipedia and improve this particular article. This article for deletion page does not need this personal discussion. Canuckle (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Carlyt28 so you're about to find out what an SPI is. Just to recap, folks, less than a quarter of an hour after the spam article creator was indef banned, this account has started editing, going immediately to canvass editors who have edited it in the past, in a effort to save this article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal I made a new account because I learned the hard way that group accounts are not permitted, and in an effort to be able to communicate within Wiki rules to editors in this talk thread. I have not made any additional edits to the article, though I did click in by accident and clicked out (no changes made by me). Any edits that were made (to my knowledge) were added in by Canuckle in an effort to be helpful. Also I was unaware of what canvassing is, only saw that others wrote on user talk pages with similar concerns so followed suit, and have apologized for doing so unknowingly against Wikipedia etiquette. On top of that, I have apologized and explained that any errors on my part are due to inexperience, not with the intention of purposefully breaking Wikipedia rules and that upon clarification, I would refrain from any rule-breaking actions immediately. If you cannot see past that and insist on being unjustifiably harsh, then I'm not sure what else I can do. Will apologize again for good measure - sorry for my lack of Wiki community etiquette knowledge, but learning quickly. Carlyt28 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Kill All the Lawyers[edit]

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

Author deprodded, so here's an AfD. Quote is not notable enough for its own page. Also, entire page is an opinionated essay; would require WP:TNT to fix. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical note: Prior to creating this AfD, there was some discussion about the deletion of this page over on its talk page. -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in writing this article is to provide a location for the primary source of a highly cited quote, as well as many citations for how to interpret the quote. The quote has been the title of movies as well as the title for published books, and many news articles and editorials were written on this one-line quote.

However, the original source text for this quote is difficult to locate on the internet using search. In addition, the various articles written about this quote do not cite the contextual primary source document or other articles on the topic. My article includes the primary source text as well as many citations to articles about the quote.

This article is also relevant because the content of the play refers to actual events in the history of England. One of the characters in the scene, quoted in this article, has an entire wikipedia page on the corresponding actual historical person which is more than a page long. Steampowered32 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Steampowered32 (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32[reply]

The string "Let's kill all the laywers" is the single primary topic of discussion in the first 100 pages of a google search for that string of characters. Additionally, Wikipedia's topic of "Lawyer Joke" cites this exact quote as the archetypal lawyer joke for the page on the topic. That page references the disambiguation page. Steampowered32 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32[reply]

@Steampowered32: Unfortunately, having a lot of Google results is not a satisfactory indicator of notability. I recommend you read Wikipedia's general notability guideline so you understand what is and isn't considered notable on Wikipedia (the term "notability" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which might not match up with a dictionary definition or your mental definition). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- just because the quote is mentioned in Lawyer joke does not mean it is deserving of its own article. -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi: I realize having a lot of results is not, by itself, sufficient indicator of notability. This topic has many other indicators of notability. The topic is one of the most quoted lines from arguably the single most famous English author of all time. The line is the subject of debate in hundreds of articles every year, and this trend is not decreasing. The phrase is the archetype for another broader wikipedia page, the Lawyer Joke. This is arguably the single most important Lawyer joke ever. The phrase has relevance to modern culture, history, and the arts. I would also like to point out there are many other pages entirely devoted to famous Shakespeare quotes, such as this page.

I propose we let this article sit for a few days so it may have some discussion. I have noted your dissent, and I would like to hear from other editors. Steampowered32 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32[reply]

Indeed, I brought this page to Articles for Deletion so that a community consensus could be reached as to whether or not the article is notable. - IagoQnsi (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henry VI, Part 2#Justice. That'll provide the context for the quote. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfriend: The problem is that there is already a disambiguation page called Let's kill all the lawyers that includes a link to Henry VI, Part 2. If this page is going to redirect somewhere, it should probably be to that disambiguation page. -IagoQnsi (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I submit the following quoted source on the subject of notability, calling the quote a cliche Steampowered32 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32[reply]

These ten words are Shakespeare’s most well-known and lasting popular legacy to the law. Is it one of those key lines that seem to give us a glimpse into Shakespeare’s own mind, or is it merely a joke? From all of Shakespeare’s thirty-seven plays, that one familiar line stands out more than any other as a stinging comment on the legal profession. Its pith and pungency have helped it survive. Shakespeare’s anti-lawyer line, once heard, clings to the mind like a burr. It has been repeated so often that many who have never read any Shakespeare know the quotation. It has passed into common usage and become a cliche that even shows up on T-shirts popular among law students, on souvenir plates, coffee mugs, pillows, and as a title of a movie about a young man’s decision to reject a legal career in favor of becoming a gardener.
— Daniel J. Kornstein, Kill All the Lawyers? Shakespeare's Legal Appeal, University of Nebraska Press, 2005, p.22-29

There is potential to merge some of the content of Let's Kill All the Lawyers to the heading of the disambig page Let's kill all the lawyers. - TB (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible dab page, with only one legit entry. The second isn't mentioned in the linked article and the third is just a partial match. That should also redirect to the play. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous quote, well worth the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is imaginably acceptable as any other quote, no serious needs for deletion; at best this could be questioned for its own article but I believe there are no serious for deletion here. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going with Keep on this one. It's a notable phrase, with multiple articles providing substantial coverage on it; and it's a 400-year-old line, so it's not like this is fleeting news converage.

The article needs badly to be cleaned up, and I think there's naming cleanup to be done as well; it really should be at either The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers, as I think the quote is usually seen; or at Let's kill all the lawyers, and that DAB page moved. But that's a separate issue from whether the line is sufficiently notable for the article to be kept, which seems pretty clear-cut to me. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but if the article title refers to the quote, it should be downscale, not all uppercase like that. — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merge content into Henry VI, Part 2, but redirect to the disambiguation page. 66.82.144.144 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above as a famous and notable quote. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Heinlein would roll over in his grave if I didn't !vote keep on this one. But seriously, very famous quote, well sourced article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion & G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biowars[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published comic with minimal coverage. Blackguard 01:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and the page's only reference is to a wordpress blog. Meatsgains (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per copyright infringement of the Biowars website (I have applied the appropriate CSD tag to the article). -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar Rai[edit]

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

Created by the subject with his own pic-shot. Captain Spark (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading section includes his forefathers and grand parents,--Captain Spark (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Seems to be a newer faculty member. In fact, the university profile lists him as having only bachelor's and master's degrees, and the apparently self-published reference for his Ph.D. actually describes him as a Ph.D. student. GS citations are a little confusing, as a Ratan Kumar Rai has a GS profile, but even combined, I don't think that the two RK Rais would meet the citation threshold. Only brief mentions in reliable sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not covered enough in reliable sources, thus lacking notability. Most of the page's content is also unverified because of the poor references. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's a clear-cut case: there's nothing in the article to indicate notability and a google search returns next to nothing relevant. Uanfala (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. Assistant professors are usually too early in their careers to have any academic notability and this article presents no evidence for being an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PROF. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Vipinhari || talk 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 06:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhill School (Addison, Texas)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the references and citations link back to primary sources, and a Google search shows no links to any verifiable websites. Further more, this article is written in the style of an advertisement, and almost all of the the information in the article is redundant, and should not be in an encyclopedia. More proof of the article's being an advertisement is that the articles history shows that one of the main editors, who repeatedly edited the article, had the username Greenhillmenstennis. It is clear that this user has personal ties to Greenhill School. For the reasons previously listed, this article should be deleted. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 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 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close or fix - this is the disambiguation page for several valid school articles. The actual AfD target appears to be Greenhill School (Addison, Texas). I'd fix it if I knew how. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. For the technical reasons mentioned by VMS Mosaic, and because the nominator doesn't state any grounds that would justify deleting the school article. This is a substantial K-12 school with plenty of coverage evident in basic searches; there is no doubt it's notable under Wikipedia's customary standards for schools. Any issues with the current version of the article can be addressed by editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Needs a bit of work, not deletion. Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both school article (per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and general notability) and dab page (if anyone thinks the dab page has unnecessary entries, note that "Ysgol Greenhill School" is a wonderful bilingual confection meaning "School Greenhill School" so could well be sought under plain English "Greenhill School"!) PamD 09:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the currently linked page is a valid disambiguation page, not an article about a school. --do ncr am 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and gng Jacona (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unsourced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Osorio[edit]

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

Author deprodded. Osorio played a couple minor characters in a few soap operas; not enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER (also, page appears to be autobiographical). IagoQnsi (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and unsourced BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is not better for WP:ENTERTAINER and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship by Facebook[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own article; this sort of content belongs within the Facebook article. Also, fails WP:UNDUE; the page seems to exist exclusively to make Facebook look bad, and does not talk at all about Facebook's justifications for censoring. It's more or less an attack page. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete the article. I added the information on main page and didn't know of its existence before creating this page. I do not want to "make facebook look bad" but instead want to document censorship by Facebook and by others where it should be documented as per Wikipedia's standards.Zulukhosa (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zulukhosa: Okay, I've gone ahead and tagged the article for speedy deletion on the basis that you requested its deletion. -IagoQnsi (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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