Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 March 11 March >

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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prynce hamilton[edit]

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

No substantial coverage, found no independent sources on this musician. GABHello! 22:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

found a few independent sources and articles on this artist http://www.mtv.com/artists/prynce-hamilton/ http://wedoitfortheloveofmusic.com/prynce-hamilton-libra-season/ http://www.undergroundhitlist.com/discography/prynce-hamilton-libra-season-mixtape/ http://wedoitfortheloveofmusic.com/prynce-hamilton-ft-cory-jones-time/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.170.29 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Irn (talk) 12:34, 15 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) 00:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Parsons (nondual communicator)[edit]

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

Article as of 24 Feb 2016 is sourced from unreliable and/or self-published sources.

See

among other cites.

Quite possibly a WP:A7 candidate Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author - Tony is a significant communicator of nonduality, held in respect within that sphere. He has been a communicator for many years and his books have been translated into many languages. — Onlyoneness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • sorry Onlyoneness (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although www.advaita.org.uk and www.scienceandnonduality.com may not be "liked" as self-publicised sources they are well considered in nonduality circles. There are eight other sources. Onlyoneness (talk) 11:31, 27 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, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sources are very dubious and do nothing to establish notability. Not much of value jumped out to me via a Google search. GABHello! 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - massively undue article, no real evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 06:27, 12 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. The arguments for deletion are that the article was created in block evasion and that the material is already covered elsewhere. These are good arguments, but there is also a significant account of uninvolved keep and move votes who note that the depth of coverage is greater than elsewhere, and that the article is well sourced. Let us live with this, and possibly return to the deletion question in a year. Move can be proposed at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878[edit]

The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is already present in its neutral form at this article.--Zoupan 11:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. 23 editor (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a WP:POVFORK is not WP:IDL. 23 editor (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has placed for deletion at least 15 articles without any real rationale. How can you conclude to POVFORK if the talk page is empty? There are references provided.--Mondiad (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because this subject is already covered in a neutral manner in more then one place. Having references is not a problem for POVFORK. --Axiomus (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - blocking a user who has multiple accounts does not mean automatically to delete his/her articles. The article is referenced. The material is not huge and there is no POV. As much as the nominator might consider it "questionable", it talks about the ethnic cleansing of Albanians from south Serbia during 1878-79. If the topic is also covered at Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims as a section, here is more detailed and specific to 1878-79 cleansing of Albanian population only.
Also, I don't see the nominator making any comment or adding any discussion at the respective talk page. All this hurry to delete the user's articles after he was blocked is questionable.--Mondiad (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When article is POVFORK, there are no need for any further discussion. Also, this articles was made by blocked sockpuppet, and it would be deleted anyway, as created in violation of the block. after all, POVFORK should be deleted. --Axiomus (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As users already mentioned, article is WP:POVFORK. --Svetisrdj (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag The complaint seems to be that it is a POVFORK of Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and should be redirected to a certain section of that, which this is described as the "main article". The section in question is disproportionately long, so that the better course might be to merge the long section in that article here (leaving a summary). Both articles have a feel about them that involves a lack of NPOV, but that ought to be capable of being cured by editing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
POVFORKS should not be cured by editing, POVFORKS should be deleted, and main article should be cured, if possible. Section in main article is everything else but too long. If nothing else, that too should be deleted. --Axiomus (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, a proper redirect is found at Expulsion of Albanians and Turks from Serbia (1877–78).--Zoupan 12:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be deleted. The redirect that you found is itself a redirect to Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims, so you haven't really found anything.--Mondiad (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you support forks doesn't mean it should be kept? That section is far more neutral and comprehensive that this one.--Zoupan 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in all the other cases for this series of nominations. If there are issues with the article - tag it for improvement. If it's so POV that it's beyond any hope - explain why, what sources can be used to counter existing, etc. etc. Saying "article is questionable and highly POV" just doesn't cut it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the article is poorly written, tendentious, one-sided, even in its title, and contains information already covered by related articles. Sideshow Bob 08:31, 29 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 // 19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see my revised opinion below) as WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. Little evidence that this topic, as formulated here, is discussed in reliable sources. The events of 1877-8 are complex. There were wars in which Balkan peoples and states fought against the Ottoman Empire. There were movements of population that can, depending on POV, be discusses as Muslims fleeing the prospect of live under Christian government, Ottomans returning to the metropole, people fleeing scenes of active fighting, or, as here, ethnic cleansing. Because of the competing perspectives, historians tend to discuss the events ad population "displacements" or "movements", and to discuss them with great care and in the context of the complex breakup of an empire and formation of new nation states competing for the allegiance of populations with complex identities. I think the present article needs to be deleted as a poorly sourced, unsalvageable POV-pushing. But my fundamental point is that to write an article on the topic as understood by creator required the use of cherry-picked sources and the use of fringe and unreliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Select choice of sources used to describe one side of a complex issue from a specific POV. --T*U (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and replace contents. Changed my !vote in order to get on with things (and get rid of the current text), see my comments under "Suggestion" towards the end of this discussion. --T*U (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POVFORK, WP:BATTLE. Clear battleground article created by a banned user. The material covered in it is covered in much more neutral fashion in other articles. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Separate article is needed for this topic. Much of the material which i and a few other contributors wrote in the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article in the section Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) can be transferred in whole to here as it is very detailed and sourced (i urge editors to consult the article and relevant section to which i refer to). Instead in the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article, the section Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) can be shrunk to a paragraph so it is in line with the rest of the article regarding proportion (which i can do, though first i want to see what the outcome is here regarding this article's future), as that article often combines these persecutions in one article in a truncated form, but has links to separate articles explaining the amounts and level of persecutions of particular groups ethnic cleansings and so on (no one is saying that those articles should be deleted). A separate article on the topic is needed in its own right as it was a substantial event that impacted and shaped the region which a large proportion of modern day Kosovar Albanians being descendants from these refugees. We do not bury the expulsions, or ethnic cleansings etc within other articles about wars say of World War One and Two of the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide and the Holocaust etc yet that is what some editors in here are inferring regarding this topic and the events around it. While other editors who are, have also written that there is little literature on the topic and have either overlooked research on the matter or not looked into it much at all. I will also note regarding myself that i am very well versed regarding this topic (and the persecution of Balkan Muslims as a whole and of Muslims in general) and have access to large body of Western academic literature regarding this topic especially regarding making the article such as this better. Moreover this topic is somewhat problematically titled. During the war of this period, it was Albanians from the Sanjak of Niş specifically that were expelled and the contents of this article deal with that matter and the title should refer to that matter so there is no confusion. As the article title stands: The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878 is too generic and can be open to other possible "interpretations". The article title needs to be more concise and to the point with something along the lines of Expulsion of Albanians from the Sanjak of Niş.Resnjari (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You proposition is very POV as you compare this event with the Holocaust. I am afraid that you are not neutral person to comment this, just having in mind that you call Sanjak of Niš Sanjak of Niş. Articles must be neutral and subjects must be presented as they really happened, and not as you or someone else wanted to happen. Wiki should not have political agenda. --Axiomus (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Wait, are you claiming that my neutrality is in question due to me referring to the Sanjak of Niş because Niš is spelt the Turkish way. Note that when the events of the expulsion of Albanians from this region occurred between the years 1877-1878 it was still sovereign Ottoman territory where Ottoman Turkish was the administrative language, not Serbian and nor Albanian and so on. It was the Berlin congress which gave sovereignty to Serbia. All subsequent spelling of names containing the word Nish (and here i give the phonetic spelling) in its official Serbian variation Niš that uses diacritics is to be used thereafter its incorporation into Serbia. We are dealing with the events of 1877-1878 while the area was still Ottoman sovereign territory. As for the matter of the Holocaust, i in no way have said that these events are on the level of the Holocaust, as many from that view point would also say the same thing regarding the Armenian and Greek Genocides too. However i am not here to debate such matters. I referred to those articles as they are the most prominent examples on Wikipedia and my point was that their content is not subsumed within the article content of another and instead at times contain similar themes regarding population expulsions, ethnic cleansings and so on. Please refer to WP:civil for more before making serious claims about the character of a editor. Note the discussion here is about the viability of this article.Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We already have article with proper NPOV title, but, Gregory, if we must replace text and title, then we DONT NEED this FORK article. --Axiomus (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No we do not have an article already that specifically discusses these events in their own right apart from this one which has been placed up for deletion. Like i said before, we don't subsume topics like the Greek Genocide within the article about say the eastern front between Turkey and Russia in World War one, but instead have a separate article on its own that gives it the attention and depth it deserves. The sources out there exist for this topic. All ones needs to do to is search.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with you scraping all of the current wording of this article as it stands. It was written not in the best prose or the careful attention needed regarding the issue. All of that content from the Persecution article would be transferred here. That section on these events over there is already a article within a article and takes away from the overall article. This article would remedy that with scope for some small expansion, if need be. Nonetheless I would disagree with you on the content of the other subsection being WP:PLAGUE. There is no dispute between Serbian or Albanian historians regarding the course of events that occurred. When one looks at the Jagodic journal article or those who have access to Sabit Uka's works (like i do and they are much more detailed than Jagodic's works based on the Serbian archive also) will notice that these historians in their entirety have used both Serbian government and other sources from the period (like Serbian eyewitness accounts) regarding the events that followed and are in agreement and do not contradict each other. Serbian sources to date (though i stand to be corrected here and please do if you are aware of the sources) do not discuss the population numbers pre-war, only the numbers of refugees that reached Ottoman Kosovo after the war. It is the issue of refugee numbers who reached Kosovo post-war were the academic disputes have been or focused on. As such in the persecution article where the subsection dealing with these events is, all important academics giving different numbers and their positions are outlined in full so for there to be neutrality. As for the name i like your suggestion especially this one: ......... of Albanians, Sanjak of Niş, (1876–78). I would still opt for having the word Expulsion instead of Displacement as it was part of Serbian government policy to expel the region of Albanians. I can add that to the article based on academic sources, if it is kept. Dietmar Müller has referred to these events of expulsions of Albanians as ethnic cleansing after all. But title change matters can come later, first lets see what the outcome is for this article though. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"expulsion" is an intrinsically POV word, especially since we are talking about the slow-motion dismemberment of a the Ottoman conquest empire by a nation/state/people that had been conquered by the Ottomans. It is, of course, true that some (proportion unknown) of Muslims left voluntarily rather than live under Christian rule. That the Ottoman Empire practiced forced conversion (scale disupted,) forcible incentives to convert (gains in legal and fiscal rights), and the and forcible movement of large populations (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) to secure borders and/or break up concentrated populations deemed likely to rebel. We do not usually speak of the "expulsion" of Imperial populations to the metropole at the end of empire, although, of course, some (difficult to measure) proportion of these people fit that description. I really think we need a neutral title. Like Displaced.....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I understand where your coming from Gregory. However what you cited there about conversions is not what the article is about (though a interesting article to be started about the conversion of the Albanians would be the place to cover that). I do agree that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was a slow motion event when one looks at it in terms of centuries, but when those moments of dissolution on its shrinking peripheries occurred such as wars, events proceeded more rapidly and often violently. Yes there were voluntary population movements of Muslims (as some did not want to live under non-Muslim rule), but that was not the overall reality regarding these types of events and western scholarship on that matter has covered it in depth in recent times. Nonetheless regarding this article and the events around it, the events were violent and state directed with even examples of Serbian generals like Jovan Belimarković refusing to carry out such orders from Belgrade to expel Albanians. It is also clearly recorded by the Serbian side (you can consult the Jagodic article as a sample) that local Albanians fought Serb forces house by house, village by village and put up stern resistance to the Serbian army's entrance into these regions. Displacement infers that that these people were shifted from their area of residence which is true. However Expulsion indicates that there was intent in that displacement, and it came from the most highest levels from Belgrade. There are other debates on such wording for example say like the Armenian Genocide. Turks would refer to it being just massacres, one amongst many of which their numbers where counted amongst the dead. However and correctly so, Armenians and most of the scholarly world calls it Genocide because there was planned intent by the perpetrators in the actions they undertook to commit that massive ethnocide and to not refer to those events Armenians Genocide is to dilute the severity of what occurred. So to have displacement overlooks this matter. However Expulsion more concisely refers to these events. Sometimes the severity of a matter cannot obscure what occurred for the sake of not offending, if the events have been covered within literature that do not point to just displacement. Otherwise if we have displacement, we would also need to the the word Violent in front too for the sake of neutrality. Otherwise what type of displacement was it ? Anyway, i think i jumped the gun of the title matter, first lets see what outcome will be for thise article first.Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Title A far closer analogy would be the Pied-Noir , not a perfect analogy, just closer, surely, than the Armenians, an indigenous, conquered people whose fate was sealed by the fact that they had not converted to the hegemon's faith. I am not opposing the use of "expulsion" in parts of the text where it is apt. I oppose the use of the word in the title of this complex event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The analogy to the Pied-Noir would be closer regarding this Albanian population if they were a colonial installation. Regarding the Albanian presence in the Toplica and Morava regions, Serbian historiography presents them all as migrants of the late 18th century and Albanian historiography for the most part as all local. Both positions are part of the wider contested Kosovo historiography. Western scholarship such as that of Noel Malcolm and especially Frederick Anscombe [1] has been scathing of both positions and have referred to it being parts of both. Back to the example you gave, though there was the Oran massacre, the Algerians did not expel the Pied-Noir. They left on their own accord. This Albanian population did not leave on their own, yet were driven out and that is according to the Serb sources of the day. In regards to the Armenians the main similarities is that like they, this Albanian population group was exposed to population expulsions by another ethnic group and those were not ad hoc actions by the military forces that carried them out. There are also numerous examples and precedents on Wikipedia regarding similar titles about violent and forced population movements with the word Expulsion (there were none with the word Displacement). For example: Expulsion of the Acadians, Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, Expulsion of Cham Albanians, Expulsion of the Moriscos, Expulsion of Poles by Germany, Expulsion of non-resident Tamils from Colombo, Expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Portugal, Expulsion of the Jews from Sicily, Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE, Expulsion of Asians from Uganda, Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait, 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt, Expulsion of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union, Flight and expulsion of Poles from the USSR. Regarding this event the Albanians did not leave willingly and were forced to leave. The historical record (Serbian sources in particular) is clear about this. Expulsion sums up what occurred, or otherwise we can also use the term Ethnic cleansing instead as has done academic Dietmar Muller for this event. Still first lets see what happens with this article first about its survival. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, too much text. Wikipedia:TLDR. Instead of long pov monologue, try to address only the subject in question. You are very very POV, as your comment address some questionable fake political agendas and lies as fact. They are not facts. They are only one sided POV, and must be treated like that. --Axiomus (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Whether you read my comments above or not is not a concern. I made the case for retention of the article as others who had a keep for the article had not. As Wikipedia is about good faith please refrain from referring to my comments as "POV" or "some questionable fake political agendas and lies as fact". These events occurred and are first of all attested in both the Serbian state archive and Serbian eyewitness accounts from which both Serbian and Albanian academic research draws upon for examining the events that took place. You have NOT presented any source (apart from name calling) that challenges or in any way calls into question the research done by Jagodic (a Serbian academic) yet alone Sabit Uka or others (also some Serbians too). Please once again consult the policy WP:civil. Almost all of it of what i wrote (in addition to little adjustments by other editors) is at the persecution article on this matter has been called by even editors of a Serbian background such as Zoupan as "neutral" in here. The transfer of that text to this article suffices and leaves room for expansion if need be. In the end, its the administrators who will make the final call. If they decide its a keep, then that text from the persecution article which is neutral will be transferred in whole to here, with a shortened version placed over there.Resnjari (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Axiomus, Certainly the text here, and even the text at the article I suggested replacing it with, are highly WP:POV, sadly unsurprising in the Balkans. The "main" article cites POV sources, including the notorious unreliable Justin McCarthy (American historian). I do think the topic is notable, and am now wondering whether it is better to just blow this up. I am deeply troubled by the number of highly unreliable, POV articles at Wikipedia on subjects related to ethnic strife.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is the text at the other article POV ? Most of the contents for one are based on Western peer reviewed scholarship and on the research done by Serbian academics ! Albanian scholarship was not even used (in what could be considered the controversial parts) due to placing Serbian sensitivities (yes i actually thought about that when i wrote it and why i stuck with the Serbian) about it being Albanian regarding the events that occurred. My question here is this to the editors who keep claiming that it is POV. Did these events occur or not ? Do you have a source/s that disproves the reality of these events occurring? Is the Serbian archive of which Jagodic bases his research and other academics (excluding Mc Carthy) have also somehow been called into question. As for Mc Carthy i have stated in the talk of the persecution article that other western peer reviewed academics have noted Mc Carthy to be problematic regarding Armenian issues, however when it comes to his research of Muslim populations and their persecutions, they are considered to have merit by historians Donald Beachler and conservative historian Daniel Pipes [2]. Nonetheless, that section in the persecution article about these events when citing Mc Carthy only refers to population numbers and is juxtaposed amongst other academics who also offer different numbers. Serbian historian Dusan Batakovic is also there too whose works like the Kosovo Chronicles have been described as nationalist by Anscombe. However he is there in the numbers section as he has given a number regarding the matter in his chronicles book and is a prominent Serbian historian. Do we remove him too? Beyond that, like i said the events that transpired are not in doubt by either side as they draw upon the Serbian archive. Things happened and there is no point in sugar coating them. At one time, the persecution of the Ottoman Muslim article was up for deletion because it made some editors uncomfortable. Common sense prevailed and it was kept and has been expanded and continues to be done so. Muslims persecuted Christians and Christians persecuted Muslims and that happened a lot for the past 200 years in the Balkans. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it has articles on many topics. In the end it will be the determination of the administrators about whether this article is to be deleted. My preference is that it stays and there is room for expansion as reach on this topic is expanding and comes into the public sphere.Resnjari (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I still support the text replacement and move to a neutral that I mentioned above, in the hope that the article will move towards NOPV over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with scrapping all current text within this article (due to reasons already outlined) and moving in whole all text from the persecution article to here (need to know whether this article survives though before i spend that time and energy doing so). Regarding the Mc Carthy/Batakovic matter some additional words can be added so the reader knows that the numbers given by those two academics are to be taken with caution with Beachler and Anscoombe references added for those two academics. Beyond that as editor Zoupan (who is of Serbian heritage) and who is the other editor who contributed to the section in the persecution article has said here it is neutral. The events are not disputed, only the numbers of refugees that reached the Ottoman Kosovo vilayet (province) and all numbers are given in the persecution article respectfully and in neutral fashion. Having this article exist allows for scope for small expansion here or there if need be instead of clogging other articles with it and creating article within a article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: I have problems understanding how one can !vote "Strong Keep" and at the same time agree with scrapping all current text and changing the title of the article. For me, that sounds like "Delete". It reminds me of My grandfather's axe. There seems to be close to a consensus that the article with the current title and the current content has to be removed. Then there is the question about whether there should be another article with another content and another title, covering roughly the same historical event. But that is a completely different discussion, a discussion about whether there should be a content fork from Persecution of Ottoman Muslims#Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) or not. That discussion could best be held at Talk:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, preferably as a RfC. But first things first: Let us delete this article, which not even those who !vote "Strong keep" wants. --T*U (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment:Very easy to explain. Current wording of this article was done by an editor/s who where NOT familiar with events and scholarship of the expulsion that occurred. Examples of this include Shahid Pasha who is referred to as a "collaborator" with a citation to Blumi. Blumi does not use that word and that sentence in the Wiki article is based on manipulation of the source. That particular Shahid was from the Jablanica area (in essence all of modern day Medveđa municipality) enlisted in the Ottoman army and as most Albanians had fled across the border he urged some villagers in the area to no longer resist the Serb army and made assurances to Prince Milan to that effect. In return some number of Albanian villages have remained ever since and comprise the contemporary Albanian population of Medveđa municipality. My point is the current text in this article has been written by an editor who lacked expertise of the subject matter. Others made no effect to remedy this situation and have just opted for deletion as the ultimate solution. I was not aware of this article's existence to have done something about it and i admit i have come late to this discussion due to a personal illness i had in recent times that made me inactive on Wikipedia. One might also ask of me why when i wrote most of the text in the persecution article did i not create a new article for these events in 2014 ? I was active mainly in Albanian Wiki and was not creating new articles on other Wiki's. This article NOW exists and can remedy certain issues need to expand the article. The content in the persecution article needs additions like the Shahid stuff, expansion of Serbian policy considerations not cited there (although cited in Blumi's works, especially and interestingly the economic factors). Also not cited in the persecution article is that a part of this refugee population was resettled by the Ottoman authorities(due to the strain and disruption in Kosovo) in the Bafra region of Turkey and the Albanian presence there is still substantial due to these descendants [3]. And also about how these events are treated in the contemporary Serbian schooling system ([4],see paragraph 11. article by Zoran Janjetović). I have already identified just a few gaps. These can be added to the persecution article. But then again, that section will grow and in essence become the main focus of the persecution article which it already is (it is an article within an article). Instead, by having and retaining this article it allows for room to expand (and will from a important supplement to the wider topics of the Russo-Turkish war of which the Serbian-Turkish wars were part of). Its a very simple process. Firstly, the entire scrapping of the content of this article. Then the text from the persecution article gets transferred here (deemed neutral by the other editor who contributed to it of Serbian heritage Zoupan) and a small condensed form can be placed over there. These other additions can then be added with a important reading section (of sources) to this article. It also allows for the article to be expanded as new scholarship comes to the fore. As for the title, my proposal was to have it more concise by including Sanjak of Niş in it. Instead of playing games about deleting this article then restarting it or talking about fork this or fork that, lets have certainty. Moreover, no one to date here has placed any doubt to the events of this matter and there is more than enough scholarship out there to warrant a separate article. I say this to the admins however, for me to undertake these changes (which will take up some time and energy) certainty needs to be given as to whether this article will be retained. Creating these types of articles on Balkan related matters will always have some editors wanting their deletion and one cannot always be on a merry go round. Whatever the outcome, all the best to everyone. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. I still find it wrong to mix these discussions into one, but since you insist, I have the following suggestion: I will change my !vote from "Delete" to "Rename and replace contents", the formula used by E.M.Gregory. I suggest you do the same. Then this deletion discussion probably can be closed quickly, and we can get on with other things, like renaming. Just to be clear: I support moving the text from Persecution of Ottoman Muslims#Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) to this (preferably renamed) article, but only provided there are clear plans to expand it. I do not see the need for making a content fork as the text stands now. I know, however, that you are quite good at expanding articles and finding reliable sources. If you are prepared to do that, I will support a separate article on the theme. --T*U (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I am not wrong Resnjari isn't for changing title. Please don't misinterpret other editor's comments. Best regards. Berti118 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are wrong. Resnjari was actually the first to suggest a title change here: "The article title needs to be more concise and to the point..." --T*U (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the article should be renamed, instead of starting from scratch; move-merge into a new, neutral-titled article (including Turks and Albanians), from the section at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, then summarize that section.--Zoupan 10:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed! I fully agree with you, but it seems that some editors feel that there is a difference between on the one hand, deleting this useless article while creating a new one and, on the other hand, changing the title and the content of this article. I don't care as long as the result is the same; that the current POV article disappears. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I need to clarify regarding the title matter. During the wider Russo-Turkish war of which the Serbian theatre was one part, the Montenegrin one was the other. Of the conflicts that ensured with the Montenegrins, Albanians and Slavic speaking Muslims left the towns of Spuž and Podgorica (now a city and capital of Montenegro), while after Ulcinj was also incorporated into the Montenegrin state, a sizable number of Albanians also left the area with most ending up in Shkoder city and/or its environs. These population movements where both forced and not forced regarding Montenegro. Regarding this population movement in Montenegro, it is cited in scholarship though not in a extensive manner unlike the events that occurred in the Sanjak of Niş (at best in an article it would only have two to three sentences citing it if placed within a Wikipedia article). It is this factor which i had mind regarding the title matter by making it more concise. Nonetheless, having Sanjak of Niş within the title assists in it being distinguished from the Albanian population movement that occurred in the Montenegrin theatre of the wider Russo-Turkish war. Still as the title stands i am not fussed and actually may be holistic and warranted as it caters for the Montenegrin theatre too (which might need to be in the article) about Albanian population movements due to the war. Regarding the addition of the word Turk to the title, i understand where your coming from Zoupan, as the urban population of Pirot was Turkish, as were some small elements of Turkish populations living in Niš, Leskovac and Vranje (which Jagodic also notes had a Albanian origin where part of that population flow alongside the Albanians). Nonetheless, this article relates to the population movements of the Albanian population and most scholarship relates to that population, its expulsion and the legacy of that movement that was the genesis for the emergence of the Serbian-Albanian conflict. If editors working on Turkish Wikipedia articles want to start an article about Expulsions of Turks during this war, that's fine and they can cater for that ethnic group regarding Bulgaria and partially Serbia with a wider focus there. I do acknowledge that in the persecution article in the section regarding these events, in the sentence relating to demography that the urban Turkish (and Turkified Albanian element) is cited, however not much information if at all is given regarding their exodus from the area or what happened to those populations due to limitations of the scholarship. Did they settle in Kosovo Vilayet or other Ottoman areas???? Uka did an extensive study on these families descended from those settlements (and others too of the wider Albanian population and their ancestral villages) also and where they settled in Kosovo. None are found from Pirot and the ones from Niš, Leskovac and Vranje is difficult to untangle as to which might be from Albanian turkified families and or actual Turks due to those refugees settling in the wider urban and rural Albanian environment of Kosovo back then.
I will also note that where populations were exposed basically the same forms of expulsions and other forms of political violence in the same locality (or geographic space), separate topics exist in Wikipedia to cater for the ethnic group that underwent that experience and rightly so (see: Armenian Genocide and Assyrian genocide and not lumped into one (in say hypothetically: Armenian and Assyrian Genocide). Also regarding starting from scratch, there is not point. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia that can be edited and the current wording can be replaced with the neutral text from the persecution article thereby solving in a stroke all POV issues existing with the current wording here. I say this because going by other topics on Wikipedia that get exposed to it being deleted and then the disputes about which article needs or should be revived may pose problems, as there may be some editors who oppose this article just because it may make them uncomfortable. There is no point spending months and endless amounts of text on all sides about going through such a process and wasting time for everyone. Best a decisive decision occurs here on the part of the adminstrators instead of musical chairs like repetitiveness of disruption and disputes. If this article is retained, i can make the adjustments. Anyway it was me who wrote most of the stuff at the persecution article with important additions from Zoupan and all that text is acknowledged as neutral. Also as extensive scholarship does exist on the matter and as i have cited few and further gaps that need to be catered for, the article currently exists and can be accounted for and expanded. Another concern i have with deletion is that the remaining text on the persecutions article also spur some editors in future to say that that section regarding these events takes up space in the article overall by being WP:undue. It might give the rationale for it being "slimmed" down to the point that this very important event that has shaped the Kosovar Albanian community (and about understanding the wider issues pertaining to Albanian-Serbian relations) is subsumed to the point of obscurity of a few sentences. The persecutions article is a complicated article (and unique in its own right when ones looks at it) as it combines multiple events of expulsions and ethnic cleansing during the Ottoman disintegration process over time, though significant occurrences of those events have their own articles where the subject matter gets treated in depth (i.e: Ethnic cleansing of Circassians, Navarino massacre, Siege of Tripolitsa). I refer admins attention to the policy WP:WHENSPLIT and to note that this article is meant to fulfil the parameters of that policy and that its retention is not Wp:cfork, but somewhat WP:SPINOUT. Anyway whatever the outcome. Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many words, but I really cannot see any arguments against my suggestion in my answer to you above. Or maybe you did not see it? I suggested that you change your !vote from "Strong keep" to "Rename and replace contents". I have changed my !vote similarly. How about it? --T*U (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (blocked sock account of Rolandi+) Yes, the topic is covered at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, but here it can be more detailed. This article needs some expanding so the historical events will be shown exactly as they happened. Also, an important number of 'Delete' votes were based only on the fact this article was created by a blocked user. This is not a reason to delete encyclopedic material. It is strange how some people here call it a "displacement" and not an "expulsion".Berti118 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yet another pov-fork by the same disruptive sock-master. Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 22 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 Charles Laughlin. Clear consensus against keeping this as a stand-alone article. More murky where we fall along the delete-redirect-merge spectrum. I'm going to call this a redirect. The article history will still be intact, so if anybody feels the need to mine that for material, they can still do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biogenetic structuralism[edit]

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

This article reads as WP:OR. The term was coined by Charles Laughlin and appears to be little, if at all, used by anyone else. In other news, the article was created and most of its content written by user:Charles D. Laughlin. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a reference and short discussion of it in a literature review, Winkelman (1996) [5] PDF page 5. The references in that paper cite two books with Laughlin as lead author, Biogenetic Structuralism, (1974), Columbia University Press; and another one in 1990 from Oxford University Press. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable OR per nom - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Charles Laughlin (or some other article mentioning this topic non-trivially), and consider preserving the article (or one of its earlier versions) somewhere outside Wikipedia mainspace. Laughlin and his colleague Eugene G. d'Aquili, who were joint authors of the original book on this theory, both seem to have h-indexes high enough for us standardly to consider them as notable by WP:PROF#1 in a field like anthropology, and Laughlin seems primarily known for this. In fact, the theory seems to have made quite a splash in mid-1970s anthropology but ended up as something with which other academics contrasted their own theories over the next twenty years or so rather than one they adopted themselves. But by now it seems to be regarded as only of historic interest (see this, for instance), and so has not been attracting much interest recently. Even so, it is quite possible (though far from certain) that someone prepared to put in the effort could produce an article acceptable by current Wikipedia standards if they looked hard through late-20th century sources and possibly more recent historical treatments. But unfortunately, this is not it. What we have here is something that would probably be regarded as a model article if Wikipedia standards had developed differently - a reasonably accessible short introduction to the theory by one of its notable originators - and would be usable as a primary source on either Laughlin or the theory if published somewhere sufficiently reliable elsewhere, but definitely does not meet current Wikipedia standards. PWilkinson (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - what the heck? WP:TNT time. The article on Charles Laughlin could probably have some WP:OPINION content lopped out of it too. Blythwood (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From PWilkinson's comment I gather that the article's notability isn't questioned. A sufficiently developed theory is inherently notable, even if it's only of historical interest at present. As for the claim that it's original research, I'm not sure what to make of it. Most of the article appears well sourced and even the claims without sources given seem to be potentially sourceable. True, it does read more like an introduction to a volume of papers on the topic rather than a wikipedia article, but we don't delete articles solely based on style, do we? I'll be willing to change my mind if further evidence comes along or if it turns out there's something I'm misunderstanding. Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "inherently notable". Notability rests on reliable independent sources. This article has none: all the sources are connected to the person coining the term, and the article was written by him. It's a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a neologism. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might need to take a look in greater detail, but at first blush I don't see how inherent notability can't apply to academic subjects. True, most of the references given in the article seem to come from proponents of the theory, and that's a shortcoming of the way the article is written, not an indication of its notability. A series of peer-reviewed academic publications do, in my opinion, meet the criteria at WP:INDY even if they're written by academics who work within the framework under discussion. If we want sources that discuss the theory from an outside perspective, PWilkinson (talk · contribs) has given one above and, given the citation count of Laughlin's publications, I'll be very surprised if we don't find more if we looked. Uanfala (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERENT (as well as WP:INDY) is an essay and not a Wikipedia policy; the relevant policy is WP:NRV which states that "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists (...)". Even if some subjects were presumed notable by their mere existence (say, Sun or Human), "Biogenetic structuralism" is a highly technical subject and would likely not trigger such a clause, unless all scientific theories are considered notable by the same token.
Peer-reviewed articles only count if they are independent from the subject; but, of course, the problem is to know what "independent" means in the context of specific scientific research since whoever authorities in the domain are usually never independent from each other. The formulation of WP:NFRINGE ("A fringe subject (...) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.") puts the bar relatively high. Tigraan (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is this a fringe theory? WP:FRINGE seems to define fringe science quite broadly, only in relation to mainstream science. I'm wondering what exactly is meant by mainstream science and whether this can apply to anthropology. My experience (with linguistics, not anthropology) is that there exist quite a broad spectrum of theoretical approaches that vary in popularity without there being a decent criterion of pinpointing a single one as "the mainstream". Uanfala (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a large spectrum, see WP:FRINGE/PS (especially the "questionable science" part). The point is that any explanation that the wider community rejects, either because "that's reasonable but I do not believe it" or "It is plainly idiot", is considered fringe, and as such must meet a high standard for inclusion.
Are you disputing PWilkinson's claim (above) that this theory has not convinced the scientific community at large? I just assumed he made a fair summary of the debate (I cannot check that myself, lacking the credentials to do so whatsoever). If so, this is definitely a fringe theory. Even if the whole of anthropology was made of fringe theories, the point (in my view) is that theories widely accepted among the relevant community are somewhat validated even in the absence of mainstream sources, while fringe views need more since they lack that support. Tigraan (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, I'm relying on PWilkinson's summary (and I don't have any credentials either). But what this summary implies, in my opinion, is that the theory isn't a piece of pseudoscience or an approach that has been completely discredited, but simply one that has given way to other approaches. Again, I only have the linguistics scene to compare it with. There, if a given approach (Government and Binding seems to be in a similar situation) has completely been superseded, even by its practitioners, it doesn't mean it's fringe theory now. It's still useful as a way of analysing linguistic data and in some ways may be better that its successors. From PWilkinson's summary, biogenetic structuralism "ended up as something with which other academics contrasted their own theories over the next twenty years or so". This seems to imply the there are plenty of independent (even in the strictest sense) sources out there. On re-reading his comment I realise he doesn't appear to be questioning the notability. Rather, the issue seems to be whether the article is acceptable in its current form. I think it could do with a more neutral recasting but I don't personally think this is a good reason for deleting it. Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On your last point, personal opinion is irrelevant, but policy is and it agrees with you (WP:NOEFFORT: a junk article on a notable topic should not be deleted).
However, I think your example is off the mark: it seems to me that biogenetic structuralism was never mainstream and from the start of its existence was criticized by the community as incorrect, not something that had enjoyed significant support was eventually superseded (like Phlogiston or Lamarckism).
At any rate, there ought to be some independent sources. A single article in a semi-famous main press newspaper, or a Nature editorial, or another similar source may be enough if it says the theory was acclaimed by others, while more may be needed if it was never really adopted, but at any rate nothing at all (which is the current amount of independent sourcing) is not enough. Tigraan (talk) 12:27, 9 March 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 // 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:43, 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. This is getting very academic in parts, so forgive me if I've skipped over some of the longer walls of text. With one exception (and the nominator, which I'm not really inclined to count, because this is articles for deletion, not articles for keeping, but it doesn't matter...), no editor argues that this is an independently notable concept, but rather an aspect of anti-zionism. What's more, consensus is also that it's not even worth merging because the concept as outlined in the article (as a specifically left-wing issue, apparently) is original research by synthesis. Consensus therefore is that the overlap of these two anti-isms (of any political persuasion) should remain covered in anti-zionism, anti-semitism and the many other already existing anti-ism articles.  Sandstein  20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitic anti-Zionism[edit]

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

Transferring proposed merge to AFD in quest of broader participation and in the belief that "merge" is being used as a sort of stealth deletion by an editor who first tagged the page for notability, then, when challenged by at least 2 editors to take it to AFD if he truly believed topic was not notable, started a merge discussion. With apologies to editors who tire of endless Middle East-related AFDs, and in the belief that the way to end BATTLEGROUND tactics is to make objective, policy-based decisions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New antisemitism or Anti-Zionism. I know this is a touchy subject, but I fail to see the need for the two separate articles, which really do seem the same to me. GABHello! 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, which of those 2 articles does this article "seem the same" as?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article currently linked from single sentences on both pages mentioned, which, frankly seems more efficient and more usual. Note that we have hundreds of articles on Political terms. We have about a dozen articles on separately defined types of antisemitism (including one I had not seen until just now, secondary antisemitism, I just linked it from a page I started yesterday on Werner Bergmann). Pages like secondary antisemitism, Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and Anti-semitic anti-Zionism are useful, which is probably why we have dozens of pages in Category:Antisemitism; hundreds in Category:Democracy, and 8 subcategories in Category:Anti-Zionism. I refer editors to WP:GNG, the principle that pages exist when there are persuasive, reliable sources to support a topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good point there. I am not really sure, and it may be a moot point since the article may be deleted altogether. GABHello! 23:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
This "article" is nothing but a list of instances in which authors have used the phrase "antisemitic anti-Zionism" or some close variation. There are no secondary sources cited, because there are no secondary sources about the phrase. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note both the notability and merge discussions on the talk page were started by the author of the article himself who has now nominated the article for deletion. I object to the "stealth deletion" accusation, I merely added a merge tags on the relevant articles after the discussion was started on the talk page to encourage broader participation from other editors. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant where the discussion takes place as the same arguments will be used until consensus is established, regardless of whether it is a merge or AfD discussion, nothing at all stealthy about that. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. I opened sections on notability and merge after templates were put on page as a simple act of keeping things organized.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC):[reply]
Er, I only added the notability tag as the article only had two sources at the time. After you started the talk page discussion, the merge tags became relevant to encourage broader consensus. Please try to WP:AGF rather than making such inappropriate accusations, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you are laboring under a huge misapprehension. The article you started suggested by WP:OR that Alan Johnson invented the concept, and Simon Schama recognized his originality. What Alan Johnson wrote merely recycled what numerous scholars have argued concerning links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic discourse since the 1970s. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the topic, bar Simon Schama, would have recognized the trite discursive overlap between what Johnson wrote and what Robert Wistrich used to write. Your WP:OR hangs on this failure to familiarize yourself with the topic. When editors noted Johnson's remarks were old hat, you started backtracking to document earlier examples of the phrase, but only going back a few years, to keep the idea that this was some 21st century development. It ain't. You've created an unworkable mess. The only point of the exercise is to hang this on "leftists". Early scholars, such as Pierre Birnbaum, said anti-Semitic anti-Zionism was a strong characteristic of the right-wing as well. Johnson hates "leftists", and trimmed out the right-wing connection. What a conceptual revolution. Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other types of antiSemitic anti-Zionism can, and arguably should, have separate articles. This article outlines a tightly defined type of specifically left/progressive anti-Zionism that has a unique and well-defined ideology. We have separate articles on separate political ideas/movements. Feel free to write an article on right wing antisemitic anti-Zionism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality check I started an article, have been expanding and improving it, learning about the topic from sources that use this term and improving the article as it grows. This AFD is about whether a specifically left-wing, modern (not Victorian or medieval) form of Antisemitic anti-Zionism exists and is notable. Sourcing in article argues that it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before starting articles, familiarize yourself with the topic. You answered none of the objections above, but simply described what you were doing. There is a huge literature on the anti-Semitic character of Soviet critiques of Zionism since the 1950s. Journalists like Johnson get things consistently wrong, and numerous other journalists pick up the 'new' talking point without any background research. This is an encyclopedia, not a sponge for overnight newspaper trivia and the topic is conceptual,a and is best handled by secondary sources that know how to contextualize the chat in the longer discursive history.
Please WP:AGF the fact is that this concept was news not only to me, but to Simon Schama and Roger Cohen. I suppose obsessive leftist, anti-Semites already knew about it. I looked at New Antisemitism, which WP definies as "emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right" Very different. Anti-Zionism is a mess of an article, already overly long, as is Antisemitism. All three articles, however, feature many brief descriptions of sub-topics that have separate pages. As several major scholars have tightly defined this phenomenon. A tightly defined, separate article with links seemed like the best course. It still does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Malik Shabazz. In the meantime, what little is useful can be excerpted and placed in the relevant articles (New Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism) as per Pluto's suggestion. Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As per Malik Shabazz, the article does not contain reliable secondary sources that actually "discuss" rather than just "use" the term or concept. In absence of such sources, it is insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this requires "analysis" and "synthesis" of primary source to advance its position, which is prohibited by WP:OR.
This article is just a WP:POVFORK of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism which attempts to make connection between the two topics with a collection of examples where writers have used the phrase or a variant of "antisemitic anti-Zionism". The relationship between the topics can be discussed in the individual articles themselves rather than inventing an unencyclopedic potential link between the two. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POVFORK. It's well known that there is a sector that will mechanically label all criticism against Zionism and Israeli policy as anti-Semitic, but we aren't forced to pander to this narrative. The debate on the relation (and lack of relation) between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, with coverage of different perspectives, can be better dealt elsewhere. --Soman (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as subtopic to to Anti-Zionism. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the editors above, Antisemitic anti-Zionism is a notable modern phenomenon and a separate topic from Anti-Zionism and from Anti-Semitism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Userify. It's fair to say the article needs a lot of work, just being a random collection of random thoughts from random scholars at the moment, but I don't think it's quite fair to say it is, or at least was intended as, a POV fork. From what I can gather, (I haven't read much on the subject yet) this "anti-semitic anti-Zionism" seems distinct that in seems to be a form of classical antisemitism specifically targeted against Zionism and the State of Israel, and not against Jews per se; a kind of politically correct new antisemitism, perhaps. It's an interesting distinction and probably worth seeing if this could become a viable article as there seems to be a lot of scholarship around, and the term has reached a certain notability recently, thanks to Johnson and Schama.
Certain key aspects are missing - such as the work of Robert Wistrich, who was the real coiner of the term back in the 1980s, and who dedicated much of his work to this. E.M.Gregory probably lacks and academic background and has difficulty interpreting all of the scholarship, however, and probably found Johnson's succinct if simplistic interpretation easier to understand and write up about. I think WP:POORLY applies here, and in all honesty, I think there's a bit of WP:DLS on the part of some of the commenters, too. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wistrich used the term and defined its elements in 1984. His definition was even then not new. The danger of these forks is that they just spin out a large array of newspaper screaming, and don't follow the critical literature. As said above, all this is amply covered in various articles, and this was created out of pure misapprehension, as you justly note, that Johnson's casual remark was original. It wasn't, and nothing added to it is original. Encyclopedias should focus on a clear representation of topics by theme, not meme replication under aliases.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As User:AnotherNewAccount says, the world at large sees Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as an independently notable phenomenon. Notable independent of the topics into which a merge has been proposed. The idea that AntiZionism is now causing anti-Semitism in Britain, the United States and elsewhere is a new idea, even if editors on this page dislike that fact (WP:DLS), it is well-documented. And, pace User:Nishdani, the sources are not "newspaper screaming", Simon Schama and the others i cite are serious scholars, identifying an writing about a significant, distinct form of anti-Semitism. The article draws on serious scholarship. Sourcing and Notability are the standard for WP:GNG. I will try to improve the article, other editors were helping to do so before the AFD began, and I hope that those with scholarly knowledge of the topic will help. But the the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should anti-Jewish hatred be denied a page that would be given to other distinctive, formally-defined forms of race-hatred? "There's a new wave of anti-Semitism in France, which is often packaged as anti-Zionism, but employs all the classical tropes." [19] published today. This is real: France's Toxic Hate, [20]. Can Nishdani or anyone explain why this large, well-documented phenomenon does not merit a separate page, with links from brief subsections on Anti-Zionism and New antisemitism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Schama is a great scholar, and like all great men, makes mistakes. His opinion is not notable because his article shows that he did not grasp that Johnson was just channeling clichés with a long history, and using a phrase 3 decades old. Now, please refrain from turning the page into a forum for your assertions.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nish, the idea that you know more about antisemitism than Simon Schama does is... breathtaking, can you spell Chutzpa? WP:BLUDGEON? Please put yours down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He made a known error. To err is human, scholars are human. Every book review of a great scholar will note some of the inevitable slips and oversights. My own copies of Schama's works are thus annotated. To make the inference from this that because I noted one error, therefore I am implying I know more than Schama about, say, anti-Semitism, is puerile (It's not his field, and it isn't mine, in any case). it ain't even logic. It's typical, in its failure to understand the simplest syllogisms, of newspaper hacks writing for a specific constituency to confirm their ingrained beliefs. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here: [21] Michael Walzer and a lineup of credentialed leftist intellectuals discuss the problem of left-wing Antisemitism anti-Zionism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTFORUM. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop-do-doo! You've veered off into left field, E.M.Gregory. This is a deletion discussion, about a specific Wikipedia article, about a specific phrase. Not a forum about leftism and antisemitism. So please pick up your soapbox and go away. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antisemitic anti-Zionism is a term of art that describes a concept. The articles I cited above are about the concept, others, like this recent one [22] in The Telegraph use the term: "Antisemitic anti-Zionism distorts the meaning of Israel and Zionism until both become receptacles for the tropes of classical antisemitism." in discussing the impact of Antisemitic anti-Zionism within Britain's Labor Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Labor Party row it covers is about the , Antisemitic anti-Zionism and the scandal of Oxford University Labour Club [23].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Labor Party suspends member over anti-Semitic tweets [24]
  • While in the U.S. a New report Anti-Semitism on campus linked to anti-Israel activity being covered by major newspapers [25]. There's more, antisemitic anti-Zionism is a major issue in the news cycle every day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think this discussion has been exhausted, and attempting to respond to WP:IDHT stances is pointless and unproductive. The claim that "the world at large sees Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as an independently notable phenomenon" appears to be nothing short of WP:FANCRUFT. The unsupported claim that editors voting to delete dislike the subject lacks WP:AGF.
Equally Greg, you may wish to consider taking your own advice regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND which you quoted when you nominated this article for deletion. Also WP:DROPTHESTICK, your responses do not appear to serve any purpose and you are not adding anything new; I think everyone is aware of your opinion and your reasons. I doubt these one-on-one WP:FORUM exchanges are getting any further to changing the outcome of this discussion to anything other than an overwhelming, resounding delete consensus, however, you may have the WP:LASTWORD. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated above, the problem with the consensus is WP:DLS. I urge an administrator to roll this one over and hope that some courageous editors who are are not emotionally involved with the Middle East weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"hope that some courageous editors who are are not emotionally involved with the Middle East weigh in." That rules you out then @E.M.Gregory: AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with New antisemitism. I want to paraphrase E.M.Gregory’s argument in my own words first to make sure I understand it:
Johnson, Bergmann, Marcus, Schama and Hirsh have all used the phrase "anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" to refer exclusively to the way the left wing expresses anti-Jewish sentiments in the form of opposition to the existence of Israel. Their usage of the phrase "Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" is unique from other perspectives on new antisemitism, because it’s specifically commentary on the left-wing version of antisemitism as opposed to commentary on both extreme right and extreme left wing expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment in the form of anti-Israel rhetoric. And it deserves its own article, because (1) the exact phrase “anti-Semitic anti-Zionism” has been used numerous times by various experts to express a shared concept of left-wing antisemitism in the guise of anti-Zionism and because (2) discussion of the topic would take up too much space in the New antisemitism article.
Is that right? Hopefully it is, because if not, the rest of this might be totally off base. Hypothetically, I could agree with that argument or a re-worded one, but I don’t think the current premise is supported by the sources. The only 2 that seem to support it were the 2 by Johnson (that were essentially the same article published by 2 different news sites). This is what the sources say vs what the article says they say. (Quotes from the article are in green, quotes from the sources are in italics and the bold is my emphasis.)
Johnson: Left-wing antisemitism never went away. It became the "anti-imperialism of idiots" in the last third of the 20th century, when vicious, well-funded and long-running anti-Zionist campaigns were conducted by the Stalinist states, in alliance with the authoritarian Arab states and parts of the western New Left. Those campaigns laid the ground for the form taken by left-wing antisemitism today - antisemitic anti-Zionism. (See here and here.)
Bergmann -- “The Handbook posits that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is an outcome of the commitment of the "extreme left" to anti-racism, anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism; as an outcome of the tendency of the extreme left, "Arab Muslims," and "some third-world countries" to see Israel as a "stooge of American imperialism;" and as a means of expiating European guilt for its fascist and/or imperialist past.”
Differentiating between anti-Semitic and non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is proving controversial. Accusations directed against Israel are to be regarded as motivated by anti-Semitism when they exploit traditional anti-Semitic figures of thought and… demonize Israel as the “enemy of the world,” and question Israel’s right to exist or defend itself. This anti-Semitic anti-Zionism has various motives: anti-imperialist, anticapitalist, and antiracist motives amongst the extreme left and some third-world countries that see Israel as a “stooge of American imperialism”; a means of offsetting guilt for the extreme right, using Israel as a projection screen for their anti-Semitic resentments. (here)
Marcus -- “In 2008 civil rights scholar Kenneth L. Marcus, noting that "anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" is "quite distinct from legitimate criticism of Israeli politics," set out "the distinguishing features" of the ideology of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism that were, he thought, "rapidly becoming conventional" among contemporary, left-wing anti-Zionists.”
Marcus did not refer to left-wing politics at all in the source cited. His focus was the antisemitism expressed on college campuses by students and professors without mentioning any specific political affiliations. He said: The distinguishing features of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism are rapidly becoming conventional: employment of "classic anti-Semitic stereotypes," use of double standards, "drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany," and "holding Jews collectively responsible for Israeli actions" regardless of actual complicity. For example, American college students and faculty have recently used the medieval phrase "blood libel" to describe Israeli military practices, ascribed traditional Jewish cultural stereotypes to contemporary Israeli society, and attributed demonic characteristics to Israeli leaders and Zionists as those characteristics have historically been related to Jews.
Schama -- “[Schama] cites Johnson's use of anti-semitic anti-Zionism to describe a tendency to anti-Semitic discourse on the part of the contemporary left in Western countries that, Schama says, "has mutated into a rejection of Israel's right to exist."”
Schama’s references to the left were all basically in the context of emphasizing that this form of antisemitism also exists on the left end of the spectrum, not exclusively: But when George Galloway (in August 2014 during the last Gaza war) declared Bradford “an Israel-free zone”; when French Jews are unable to wear a yarmulke in public lest that invite assault, when Holocaust Memorial day posters are defaced, it is evident that what we are dealing with is, in Professor Alan Johnson’s accurate coinage, “anti-semitic anti-Zionism.”... In the 19th century virtual vampirism was added to the antisemitic canon. And the left made its contribution to this refreshment of old poison… Hess concluded that only self-determination could protect the Jews from the phobias of right and left alike. He became the first socialist Zionist. (here)
Pretty much everyone else cited as discussing “anti-Semitic anti-Zionism” used that phrase one time in a general way where antisemtic is just a an adjective describing anti-Zionism and never in reference to a form of antisemitism exclusive to left-wing rhetoric. As a result, most of the citations don’t count towards the notability of Johnson’s version of “anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.” Is there something else that links all of these sources together in a way that’s unique to other descriptions of new antisemitism? I don’t know, but it’s not left-wing-only-anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. PermStrump(talk) 05:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first arguments raised here seemed a similar to notability issues raised about Islamo-Leftism. It is the sturm und drang on this page that seems excessive.
  • In response I will commit myself to expand the article to include sections on other well-sourced uses of the phrase "Antisemitic anti-Zionism".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 18 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) –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurec Group[edit]

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

Company has almost zero notability outside it's very small telecom niche. Articles provided do not establish significant coverage or notability as required by WP:GNG Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is sourced and is noteworthy and informative. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Sir Joseph said.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May not be the best-written article on Wikipedia, but even a very quick WP:BEFORE would have established notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous comments. As well, there are enough referencs in Hebrew about complany. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:47, 12 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 Sukisho. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutae Yuzu[edit]

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

Author only notable for illlustrating one light novel work according to MADB [26]. It is a lengthy light novel series (14 volumes) but is that enough to establish notability? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:48, 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 05:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage or third-party sourcing to demonstrate that this person satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sukisho, as redirects are cheap. The one work appears to be her most notable one so it could be a search term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 16 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Women’s Fistball World Championships[edit]

1994 Women’s Fistball World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little context 2602:306:3357:BA0:5585:201B:10E9:3AA4 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It might look bare, but looking at the other websites that link with this. I think this can easily be improved so at the moment I would put it as a stub for the moment. Matt294069 is coming 00:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Fistball World Championships seem to take place every four years. We have an article for Fistball World Championships and several for men's championships in different years and I see no reason to delete this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; much room for improvement exists and I see no viable reason for deletion. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:05, 17 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. Although nom's withdrawn there's still a delete !vote present so can't really close under SK1 ...,Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in the Trenches[edit]

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

I cannot find much evidence of notability from my Google searches. DrDevilFX (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BKD A single 12-line poem from a book that in itself does not have an article, is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The book and the poem itself can be found at Wikisource: Suicide in the Trenches. That's where it belongs. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per — Maile Keep - Per Google books, Drmies is right, it seems notable based on the number of analyses and songs etc that have been written about it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the nominator will try Google Books, so they can see this. This poem is ridiculously notable in its own right: it's heavily anthologized and widely taught and studies. I hope this will be withdrawn, despite my Googly kind of argument (to counteract the non-Googly rationale); if not, I'll have to come back and cite anthologies, critical studies, and JSTOR. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as Drmies says, there's lots been written on it. I am in the process of adding some of these references to the article. Nominator would be well advised to look again at the searches. LadyofShalott 01:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being widely anthologized and studied is sufficient. Nom should be withdrawn to avoid wasting further time. Bongomatic 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn from nomination: Since almost everyone here wants it withdrawn from nomination, I have decided to do so. DrDevilFX (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems I am late to the party, but I too feel the sourcing, while not excessively robust, supports a reasonable enough level of notability and impact for this entry to be kept. Snow let's rap 08:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've withdrawn the nomination, so why hasn't this been closed already? I see someone closed it, but later reverted their edit for some reason. DrDevilFX (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I can't use the speedy close because this is still one good faith delete vote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 14 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonabell Farm[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only one of the references which is primarily about this farm is on the web site of the company owning the farm. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The farm has been absorbed by Darley Stud, which may explain the difficulty finding outside third party news on it. However, there are source links to the Daily Racing Form which is an outside, neutral, third-party source that has news about the farm; the Washington Post carried the obituary of the founder of the farm, the stallion roster alone establishes notability. Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up: I am accumulating the many, many, third party sources here. I haven't the time to edit this article, and I am a bit irritated that APIndysMissingBall isn't taking this seriously enough to put out a wee bit of research effort, (though he might be a newbie) but let me also express my complete exasperation with these waste-of-time AfDs that can be resolved with the most cursory of google searches. Montanabw(talk) 00:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lengthy quote
Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously, you did a poor job, as I found 14 sources and two books. Montanabw(talk) 03:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Listen I am not familiar with proper formatting with edits and all that on these talk pages Montanabw but I do not appreciate your passive aggressive tone as I did put in "a wee bit" of research and even created the entire page. If you'd rather be not add content or do any of that I would be glad to do so, but many of the racing pages are lame at best and many more, such as Jonabell, dont even exist even though they should. A little bit is better than having absolutely nothing on these. I understand you take this very seriously as your tone and constant talking down to users has shown but come on now. On my ban-request page someone mentioned that you all need more racing knowledgeable people but if they're gonna be talked down to and treated like children (which, might I add I expected by saying "Well, obviously, you did a poor job" to whoever that was is ridiculously rude and self righteous. xoxo APIndysMissingBall

Dude, I'm on your side on this one. You just have only yourself to blame, though, because you've been an obnoxious smartass elsewhere and so people think you are a vandal. Montanabw(talk) 01:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Montanabw. There are 27 results when one searches for "Jonabel Farm" on Wikipedia, nearly all mentions being in articles about famous horses that have stood at stud there or been foaled there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the ESPN link that Montanabw provided on the article's talk page sealed the deal for me. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:54, 17 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. The general pattern is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Meneley, although here we have a marginally better discussion and a headcount that leans more clearly towards keep. Nonetheless, the editors who offer useful opinions (i.e., something more than "keep per User:Foo" or "delete per WP:Something") disagree in seemingly good faith about whether our notability criteria are met, and that's not something I can resolve by fiat.  Sandstein  19:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Robertson[edit]

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

Notability not established by text or sources, which are mostly not independent. —swpbT 20:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article, along with many others on seemingly non-notable individuals (several listed above), seems to trace back to Regina Art & Feminism Meet-up. All articles listed there should probably be examined. Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment these are most likely first-time editors at that event: Art+Feminism sponsored events all over the world, Agricola44. They shouldn't be pigeonholed as "SPA" for that reason. People come to these events, sign up and are tasked to write either about women artists or feminists. Unfortunately many newbies don't understand how to reference at first or how to establish notability. I'm not saying don't take a look at the work, but try to understand where they are coming from is all. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Megalibrarygirl Please consider what you just said: "People...are tasked to write either about women artists or feminists". That is the (single) purpose. These editathons, in the end, will have been detrimental to WP because, rather than having a mission of building an encyclopedia (meaning an organized set of articles on encyclopedic toipics), their purpose is essentially political. That is to say the goal is to create articles on people that some group feels is under-represented, rather than letting the organic process of article creation happen naturally. The result, in many cases, is a raft of new bios on increasingly obscure individuals. This phenomenon and others like it (e.g. paid editing) are gradually reducing WP to an online directory. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what you consider "political," Agricola44, I see as addressing a systematic problem with Wikipedia: the gender gap. And really, finding an area that's lacking in content is hardly political: it's good practice for an encyclopedia to notice what is missing! If the topics were about anything other than women, most people wouldn't bat an eye. There is a huge gender gap on Wiki. I write article about women and women's issues every week and I'm constantly gobsmacked by how many notable women have fallen through the cracks. Whether or not some newbies have written on topics that fail notability in some editathons does not take away from the fact that Art+Feminism has helped increased the body of knowledge about notable women for Wikipedia. If you doubt that, check out the results for just 2016 here. This convo is off-topic somewhat for the AfD, but your comment shows that you really miss the point of editathons completely. They do not decrease the value of Wikipedia in any way at all, but rather add useful content in areas that have been neglected. Missing content about women's issues/bios is a serious problem: we make up half of all humans living on this planet and should be better represented. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Megalibrarygirl I couldn't agree more with we make up half of all humans living on this planet and should be better represented. But how about concentrating your valuable efforts on notable women – maybe start poring over lists like requested prof bios that have plenty of ipso facto notable women lacking WP bios. Focusing on obscure people (women or otherwise), which seems to be par for these editathons, only moves WP closer to a directory. That is a plain fact, whether you acknowledge it or not. Agricola44 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment You hit the nail on the head, Agricola44! That's why projects like WikiProject Women in Red encourage editors to use curated lists. WiR tries to ensure individuals added to these lists are notable. I'm not sure what happened in Regina to create the problem we're seeing, but most editathons I've been a part of use curated lists, especially ones curated by museums and such. So I don't agree that editathons are moving us closer to being a "directory" at all: I think they are providing needed content including notable individuals. Hopefully Regina will learn from this issue and curate some curated lists for next year. Anyway, I think we're getting off topic, but it's a good discussion to have, maybe in another venue. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What happened in Regina is what seems to be happening more in general at these events. New editors, not familiar with our standards, are encouraged to write a bunch of articles on topics (usually bios) that they're interested in (usually because of boosterism, or an agenda, if you like) but which aren't actually notable according to our well-established standards and wind up having to be deleted. I think it is the responsibility of those folks running these events to do the filtering up-front, so that overworked contributing editors don't have to do the clean-up. Curated lists are great, if the curators know our standards. I'm not sure I see that that's been the case. Agricola44 (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment It is to be noted that a "CarmenRobertson" was an attendee at the Regina Art & Feminism Meet-up. Is there a WP:COI here? Are there others? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very weak delete - the article was apparently incorrect. Robertson is an Associate Professor not a full professor, making her claim to notability much weaker. I'm agnostic on this though as she does seem to be somewhat notable. Being a published author from a university press, while not automatic proof of notability, does at least suggest that they think you're worth commissioning a book from - but she only co-wrote that book and is not the lead author on the cover.
    I feel sorry about doing this to a new author, but I think this underlines the importance of considering what articles to create for these meetups. Blythwood (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being an Associate Professor who writes two books and some articles isn't an autopass under WP:ACADEMIC. Fails GNG. Big trout for the failure to winnow the list of Regina Art+Feminism editathon proposed bios, the organizers of that event blundered mightily. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Author of a widely-reviewed book from an established academic press. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all academic press titles are "widely reviewed" in academic journals and may be themselves notable. Very few of them are impactful in a way that lends notability to their authors. Still, I've got an open mind, a few of the many links would be helpful to review. Got 'em? Carrite (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did a database search. They're all paywalled. There are some quotes from a number of these reviews on the publisher's website. Gamaliel (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are "all paywalled," there are still URLs. What are they??? Carrite (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP:NAUTHOR: "such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". Duckduckstop (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your helpful response. She has published stuff, but it has not been cited much. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You have to manually count book holdings because WorldCat often includes other stuff. If you scroll down further on the link you provided, it shows 2 books with average holdings: the "Seeing Red" book with ~230 and "Clearing a Path" with ~100. Others further down are double and (mostly) single digits. The total is way below the number you quoted. Again, these are very average holdings. Agricola44 (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep As per Duckduckstop, and also she is in the news a lot. I don't think there is a COI just because she was at the same editathon, either. That's a stretch. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she is in the news a lot, produce the sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Her book Seeing Red is in over 800 libraries, according to WorldCat, and has also been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews, in venues like the American Historical Review, the Canadian Journal of Communication, and Studies in American Indian Literature]. I believe that alone would be enough to deem her notable under Wikipedia author criteria, but I've also added note of her past presidency of the Native Heritage Foundation of Canada, her work on the editorial board of the Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, and her forthcoming solo-authored book from Michigan State Press. I've also refocused the lead paragraph of this article, so it now better states what she's known for. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book may well be notable. The author pretty clearly does not meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • that you participate in this discussion tells a lot about the mentality. as organizer of the event, as one who did not warn about the consequences :( --ThurnerRupert (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created at an editathon at the unversity of regina, where carmen robertson herself was there. a new book coming out soon which needs promotion. this stinks. she should be wikipedian, not get an article. WP:Too Soon --ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki indicates she attended, and added 954 characters to Ruth Cuthand. She was being a Wikipedian. Being at an event where someone else writes about you is not a COI. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • if this is legally a COI or not is not important. it is unnecessary shading too much bad taste on the whole story. it damages other similar style events. honestly, i consider such behaviour as bad character. from the organizers, from persons there, and carmen robertson who seems to approve this as she was on the list and there. at the end of the day it damages the reputation of carmen robertson. which i find not fair because she might be one of the nicest and competent persons on this planet. this is not worth it. if she has a spine and her edit was not just a one day joke, she could come here and say "just delete it." --ThurnerRupert (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Duckduckstop and JohnMarkOckerbloom. —OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per JohnMarkOckerbloom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Keep, per vacuous ILIKEIT comment above" does not carry much weight at AfD. We have yet to see the (canvassed) generic "Keep Per Above" voters provide a single substantial published source of presumed reliability dealing with the subject of this piece. What we can agree upon is that the subject has written two books and that the publisher has released blurbs for them. We are still sitting at the zero mark for sources counting towards GNG. So, let's see some URLs or at least admission that this is an organized ILIKEIT campaign for a piece started by the Regina Art+Feminism editathon due to the ineptitude of organizers who failed to check the notability of proposed subjects or to instruct participants about WP's notability rules. This is a clear and obvious Delete unless multiple published sources can be mustered. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There lacks coverage about *her* specifically in multiple reliable secondary sources - however, I do think that the book that her and her colleague wrote does deserve an article about itself due to the amount of reviews (Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers). But, does the coverage of the book mean she does pass notability guidelines? IMHO, writing abook doesn't make you automatically get a Wikipedia article. For the record, I could care less if she was at the edit-a-thon. Missvain (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I do not see that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Many of the sources included as of now are self-authored, or fail WP:RS for other reasons. I'd like to say, however, that accusations other "delete"-voters have made (Carrite and ThurnerRupert) are counterproductive. Nearly everything we do in the Wikipedia world is experimental to some degree. Perhaps it is true that the organizers of this particular edit-a-thon could have done some things differently; but if so, that is not a reason to vilify them. Making an effort to bring new contributors to Wikipedia is commendable. If there are problems, the best courses of action are to correct them and to try to avoid them in future events. Pointing fingers and questioning motives accomplishes nothing worthwhile. -Pete (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her book Seeing Red has had plenty of coverage. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF on her book Seeing Red -- we've had a number of discussions about the library holding levels for an academic book to count for WP:PROF#C1 in the humanities -- is it 100? 300? 500? People have set different levels. But I've never seen anyone argue that 800 isn't sufficient. Remember that subject notability guidelines such as WP:PROF are explicitly alternatives to GNG; GNG does not need to be fulfilled if WP:PROF is fulfilled. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. One notable book does not make a notable author. Two or more usually does. For WP:PROF, being an authority in one's field requires a sustained body of work, and this is not present. (That's why most associate professors do not meet the standard.) For GNG, the sources are not sufficiently discriminating. I recall a very early educational assignment at a US university, where the class was asked to create articles on the professor's colleagues in his own department. Some of them were -- correctly-- judged non-notable, and I gather the outcome was not happy. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:PROF "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", based on representation of her work in Google Scholar [27], the number of scholarly citations for Seeing Red, and the fact that she is prominent enough in her field to serve on the editorial board of the Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, published by Cambridge University Press. In combination, to my mind these points demonstrate significant and international (she is Canadian) impact in her academic discipline. --Andreas JN466 13:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should recheck these statistics. GS indicates the entire body of her work has a grand total of 15 citations. Sorry, but editorial board is also not sufficient – this is still very much the fodder of the "average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Citation counts are not accurate or important in the humanities -- I know that you're aware of WP:PROF Agricola so won't point you there, but this specific point is mentioned there. Library holdings are much more important. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but I didn't raise the argument. I only responded to it ;-) I would guess these citations are indeed accurate. They're just not that important here. I agree that the most salient driver is her book, but the gigantic case law precedent on PROF is clearly ≥ 2 such books, as DGG reminds us above. Keeping bios like this is a clear trend towards eroding notability standards so that WP eventually becomes just a big directory. Maybe that's what we collectively want though. Agricola44 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Michael Scott Cuthbert, Andreas. Additionally the essay (WP:Too Soon) being cited early in this conversation is not a Wikipedia policy. It should not be treated as such in discerning what is a viable article to include or not. Ckoerner (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andreas. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing any evidence of notability under WP:GNG. I was claimed that the book "Seeing red" makes for an automatic pass under WP:CREATIVE because of how impactful it was in the field. However, that book only gets 35 GS citations, which makes claims of its significance rather unlikely. Sławomir
    Biały     10:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMICS #1. While Seeing Red won three Saskatchewan Book Awards, it was not her only book. She also wrote Mythologizing Norval Morrisseau (2016) and has edited/contributed to Clearing a Path: New Ways of Seeing Traditional Indigenous Art (2009) and The Routledge International Handbook of Intercultural Arts Research. The sourcing for this article has been improved dramatically since its nomination and I invite the closer to reject !votes based on the circumstances of its creation. gobonobo + c 13:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With an h-index of 3, she really doesn't even come close to meeting WP:PROF#C1. Sławomir
Biały 14:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to expect an academic in a relatively small and specialised academic field (indigenous people) to achieve the same sort of h-index a physicist, say, might achieve, where the pool of journals and papers covering the topic area is several orders of magnitude bigger. All WP:PROF asks us to look at is whether the academic has made a significant impact in their discipline. To my mind it is quite clear that she has. Andreas JN466 12:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this comment accurately gauges the difference in citations between the social and natural sciences. Of the papers that I have written, for example, the only one in the social sciences, which was probably the least important, has garnered the most citations. I have published in mathematics and physics. So that interpretation of social sciences as a more rarefied discipline, than (say), the mathematics of stochastic processes in Hilbert spaces, does not seem to reflect reality. A google scholar search for "sociology of indigenous peoples" gives a quarter million hits, many of these have thousands of citations, and even more have hundreds. The top cited papers are comparable in citation numbers to a comparable google search for "stochastic processes in Hilbert spaces". So, I find it very difficult to accept at face-value the argument that sociology gets a pass on WP:PROF#C1 because it is a low-citation field. Sławomir
Biały 14:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ThurnerRupert: This has been deployed as a Redirect. This good faith pre-emption, looking for possible common ground, doesn't yet answer the fundamental questions here because it is not clear where the implied edits are taking this. The underlying idea of non-notability is sometimes stated as "preventing degeneracy toward a mere directory". Looking at what may logically remain after possible upcoming "de-larding" edits, do we not paradoxically end up with a shelled-out decontextualized directory-type stub? Or are we keeping the same general contextual content and just running the train on a renamed track with the same passengers aboard? Can you please explain what you have in mind in broad terms, so that we can consider this proposal? FeatherPluma (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book has only 35 cites on GS. This is totally inadequate for an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Although I do not fully relate to the reliance on a particular GS cite count, I suspect the central thrust of what you say is right, Xxanthippe. But I think you should also take into account how this idea was given birth energy by previous commentary on this page. I would like to provide ThurnerRupert adequate time and space to explain or to reconsider (maybe reverse the redirect/rename?) the proposal. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back. While redirection is a viable outcome, that decision should be made by the closing administrator based on the consensus here. We are, of course, free to create an article on the book separate from this discussion. The Interior (Talk) 18:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a borderline keep, but a keep nonetheless. My go to source for CanLit is Canadian Literature (journal) - generally, if they cover something, it's of significance to Canadian writing (review here). We've got a selection of independent sources - no "slam dunk" coverage - but cumulative coverage. I disagree with the assertion that GNG must be met with coverage outside reviews of her work. Many notable authors are covered primarily in the context of recently published work. The Interior (Talk) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and as been pointed out above, doesn't appear to meet any of the niche notability criteria either (e.g. PROF). Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 22 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. Opinions are divided about notability. The quality of the discussion is notably poor, with most opinions merely asserting that the sources are, or are not, sufficient, but there's no analysis of the existing sources and discussion of why they are, say, reliable enough, or not independent. On that basis, I can't assess the weight of the arguments made, and so we are left with keeping the article for lack of consensus.  Sandstein  19:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Meneley[edit]

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

Notability not established by text or sources. —swpbT 20:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@98.69.237.118 Please do not alter contributors' edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. This article, along with many others on seemingly non-notable individuals (several listed above), seems to trace back to Regina Art & Feminism Meet-up. All articles listed there should probably be examined. Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Indeed, because surely we know the notable members of the feminist art scene of Regina better than they do? :-) Expert knowledge matters; edit-a-thons do tend to produce single purpose accounts; that's how they recruit new editors. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expert knowledge does not matter to the degree you're implying. A fitting topic for an encyclopedia has, by definition, lots of sources that anyone could read and subsequently use to create a solid WP article. That fact that these editathon individuals don't have such sources should give you pause. Maybe there just aren't that many notable members of the "feminist art scene of Regina". Please see broader comment below. Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Sources indicate that she is a well-established artist. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep Sources on page indicate signicant notability, and substantial coverage in other sources if you do a very quick Google search: nominators for deletion need to do a minimimum amount of dilegence in checking for sources.Sadads (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the usual BS avalanche after the art+feminism editathon --ChristopheT (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons based on policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't propose to spend my valuable time, or waste yours, on giving you a course on etiquette and manners, nor on combing through your XFD contribs. However, my advice would be, other than the obvious one of sticking to the spirit of WP:CIVIL and not just the letter, would be to try to minimise the amount of "rebuttals" you are making in discussions that are really obvious. On this AFD for instance, closing admins are perfectly capable of appropriately weighting !votes with no rationale, or on interpreting core guidelines like WP:GNG. You're not technically incorrect here, I think you'd have a lot more impact and come off as less of a badger if you made your arguments well constructed, comprehensive in the first instance, and preferably comment only once unless you have some specialised knowledge to contribute. --ChristopheT (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, after a long lecture, the panel still does not know what your policy-based reason is for your !vote. Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I confess that I am really mystified by the growing deletionist "cabal" here on WP. I happened to notice your account because of your lobbying for deletion of the biographical article about me. What's that about?! I mean, a !vote is fine, but arguing with every other !voter out of an apparent animosity? It's a strange urge, I think.Now I recognize that my notability is borderline (as described on the AfD; where indeed I provided a bunch of possible sources, per Pcap's request there). Some of your comments are weird; people in professional communities do, y'know, talk with each other, so finding some evidence that I've previously interacted with colleagues is hardly the disparagement you try to draw out of it (e.g. yes, I do "know" Danny Yee–in a virtual way–because I wrote him after he reviewed my book, some years ago). But it made me wonder whether this animosity was personal to me in some way. So I took a look at the Academic deletion sorting page (which I've looked at before, but not recently).On those academic AfD's, I definitely notice a strong deletionist bias in your !votes. It's not unreflective, I readily acknowledge. You !vote both ways, and give reasonable descriptions of your motives. What got me into more active monitoring and participation in deletion discussions in the last weeks or months was having noticed some truly rabid deletionists on software-related articles. The nominator of the bio of me is one (who has had some truly abusive behaviors associated with that deletionist mania--since long before I ever heard of him), and there are a couple others who always !vote "Delete" on anything about software (but especially FOSS). I think I really need to start watching the academic or biography AfDs too, though it becomes time consuming, of course.What I wonder is wherefore the sentiment that WP should be as small as possible, or not include anything that Brittanica does not? If some academic has published a few books on "good" academic presses, and has moderate amount of cited biographical information, why do we need to delete that article?! Sure, maybe that person is not the "leading figure" in their particular discipline, but disk storage is cheap, and there is some number of readers who might be interested in learning about that person (they encounter them professionally, read those books in obscure corners of knowledge, see them cited in some other work, whatever). Or similarly (but outside your area of interest I think), what's the harm in having a cited article about some software tool used by tens of thousands of people?! Sure, it's probably not a household name, and the user community is a pretty small minority of computer users/developers. But someone finds it useful to research that particular tool, whether to compare it to other tools, evaluate using it, learn about its capabilities or creators, etc.It's not like I don't know that there are silly vanity articles created of strictly-local musicians, or of just-released one-developer software products. Or even of the professor that some student liked, but who never really published or did that much or wide renown. There is some threshold to judge. But compared to 3 years ago, or 6 years ago, this threshold seems to have been pushed upward to to point of absurdity. I really cannot understand the motives for this... including yours (but likewise of dozens of other editors I've seen recently with similar attitude). All the best --ChristopheT (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to talk about details of your bio elsewhere, though I don't actually see any record of it, and a general rant about how notability guidelines are too high also belongs elsewhere. I'm still not sure I see anything relevant to this case. Agricola44 (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep. Sources seem fine and support a quality article. Notability clear and well established.--98.69.237.118 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)98.69.237.118 — 98.69.237.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep. She has participated in both solo and group exhibitions, as documented by the sources given. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE on the basis of the present article. Where are the works in the permanent collections of museums? Where is the substantial published criticism of her work? There are two scholarly articles listed, one she wrote, one is a article contain sections written by different artists, one of which is her. Neither of these are about her. I se local newspaper articles about a local artist--this never meets the GNG because it is not sufficiently selective. I see various blogs and informal publications, none of which show notability. I very much support the goals of art+feminism, and helped lead with some of the NYC workshops. I advised the people there to work first on the unambiguously notable, specifically in order to keep the work from being not just rejected, but even questioned, and i would certainly have advised against the creation of this article. I almost never mention at AfD am editor's style of commenting, but I find it ironic that to a question "What are your reasons based on policy" the response is "I'm not going to waste my time giving you a course on etiquette and manners"--this from someone whose previous comment was "the usual BS avalanche" DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you have to quote do it right : "I don't propose to spend my valuable time, or waste yours, on giving you a course on etiquette and manners" --ChristopheT (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the assertion that local sources are less than reliable is not based on Wiki policy. This is an argument I see crop in in AfD often and I wish editors would quit resorting to it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a little difficult because artist-researchers are not a routine conceptual category that we frequently think about. However, WP:CREATIVE provides different listed ways in which a topic can meet the threshold. The topic satisfies criterion 4b, by way of curated exhibition; the media of expression include curated installations and intermedia video that has been screened on multiple occasions, so this is the apposite benchmark. I do appreciate that 4d is probably the most frequent consideration for many artist articles, but permanency is not a relevant policy-based question here, as permanency is a component of criterion 4d but not of 4b. In addition to meeting 4b, maybe you overlooked the article's citation of Horowitz's editorial about Meneley (and others). The editorial addresses some of the conceptual challenges when categorizing intermedia artist-researchers. The editorial is top heavy with jargon and insider academic polemical perspective, and is further confounded by a dense writing style. However, Meneley notably receives conceptual attention and her methodological approach is discussed, albeit somewhat trenchantly. (In some ways, I suppose it's nice that artist-researchers are maybe just as complex and specialized as scientist-researchers.) FeatherPluma (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gamaliel, Sadads, 98.69.237.118 and ChristophThomas. I too am dismayed that, yet again, we see an attempt to combat systemic bias resulting in 10 AFDs from 12 articles. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OwenBlacker: Actually, 22 of 24 articles created were AfD'd in some way -- if you check the links and the page histories at Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina, the ones that are now red links were created, not just suggested. A number of the ones that were marked AfD no longer seem to be so, and the talk pages don't always indicate the result, but you can see the deletion attempt in the article history. The editathon drew 48 people, based on the page's list of attendees. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gamaliel, Sadads, 98.69.237.118, ChristophThomas. She exhibited a lot, has quite a huge list of awards and publications. No reason to delete at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many citations and verifiable information presented. While this was one of the articles from the Regina Art & Feminism Meet-up, most flagged for deletion were then selected to keep. --Chittah (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough citations for notability. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources indicate she is notable. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many of the comments here amount to WP:ILIKEIT. I think that these editathons, in the end, will have been detrimental to WP because, rather than having a mission of building an encyclopedia (meaning an organized set of articles on encyclopedic toipics), their purpose is essentially political. That is to say the goal is to create articles on people that some group feels is under-represented, rather than letting the organic process of article creation happen naturally. The result, in many cases, is a raft of new bios on increasingly obscure individuals. This phenomenon and others like it (e.g. paid editing) are gradually reducing WP to nothing more than an online directory. Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Sources indicate she is notable" different from "Negligible sources" or "I agree, Too Soon" in terms of the quality of argument? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with DGG that the subject of the article is not notable. WP:CREATIVE cites as evidence of notability that the artist should have pieces in permanent collections, or at least "significant critical attention". Mere discussion in local press does not rise to the level of significant critical attention demanded by this guideline. Further evidence of lack of notability is the lack of GS hits, as DGG also notes. Sławomir
    Biały     10:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Courtesy note: I have already commented above.) Policy-based input is always welcome. With all due respect though, this comment selectively quotes the guideline. Linguistically, WP:CREATIVE's section 4 affords four separate options. This comment arbitrarily reduces that to 2. Since 4b compliance has been put forward multiple times in this discussion (explicitly and also implicitly by description), the issue is not to then point out again that she fails 4c or 4d: that's correct but is not in contention. The meaningful pivot point would be to argue whether 4b is really met or not, as 4b is a subjective criterion. I explained why I came to the opinion that 4b is met by this article ( --a) curated public exhibition and --b) type of media), but others could differ on that relevant question (e.g. did not go on a formal national or international circuit -- although in fact one of the video works has been showcased in several locations in Ontario as well as her home province). FeatherPluma (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria 4c/d listed at WP:CREATIVE are illustrative of the kind of substantive impact that an artist is expected to have in order to meet the notability standard set out there. This clearly goes beyond mention in local press or local exhibitions, for which essentially any artist at all would be "notable" by this very weak standard. Sławomir
Biały14:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the argument, I can very reasonably appreciate the point being made. I absolutely agree that 4b is flimsy in comparison to the other "safe harbors". Maybe 4b shouldn't exist at all? I would politely say that making the initial case by misquotation of the guideline is problematic. However, let's move on. Since we agree that 4b is less weighty than the other benchmarks, the concern becomes whether we are committed to spending time and effort deleting articles based on interpreting guidelines "illustratively" i.e. synthetically and in divergence from their literal articulation. This updated explanation also continues to push the erroneous contention that coverage was local only, dismissing (by failing to even acknowledge) the Horowitz editorial. Of course, I agree that the editorial isn't HUGELY convincing, as it obviously is to some degree an "insider" discussion of academic artists. I see the article as fence-straddling and difficult to categorize rigorously. But when we set about criticizing editathon work product after the fact for not intuiting some higher unexpressed standard, we are lining up for public explanation of how and why the language of our written standard isn't to be relied on. It seems to me that deleting this article would fall into the "Give us your time, do the work, but please be ready to be told we find it's all of no importance whatsoever, and will be completely discarded because ultimately "we" know what matters and what doesn't, and we do this by interpreting our guidelines as we wish." I think I see a possible circular argument: if the article is quickly adjudicated as less weighty, a policy is post facto marshalled to justify the shoehorning. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing that we throw out that part of the guideline, but words like "substantial" need to be read in context. Substantial in other contexts generally means the subject of peer reviewed scholarly work, not mention in local press. The guideline isn't meant to be read in a vacuum. Arguments about misguided edit-a-thon attempts are not policy-based, and carry zero weight in this discussion. Sławomir
Biały 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. In short: No proper counterpoint has addressed why we should ignore the referenced scholarly national editorial about Meneley's methodology, despite being "peer reviewed scholarly work" as subjectively demanded. In detail: As a courtesy, I added your name to your initial reply from the page history - it wasn't showing properly. Sorry for this lengthy reply. However, there are several points. 1) If mentioning the editathon is not relevant, that cuts both ways - several others introduced and made something of that as a theme before I touched on it. In fact, without pointing fingers, take a look: one delete rationale, as overtly expressed, is based exclusively on it, and others do point to it as well. More generally, my comment isn't really about the editathon specifically: it is about the way in which certain articles which meet a particular written standard are nonetheless subjected to hurdles that are possibly arbitrary or, if not arbitrary, are undeniably subjective. 2) In any event, I observe that this updated explanation, presumably still in favor of deletion, seems to continue suggesting that coverage was local only, dismissing (by failing to even acknowledge) the Horowitz editorial, an academic source, which you seem to indicate would count "in other contexts". Of course, I would try to bring some sense of equipoise and cognitive balance to things by pointing out that the editorial, while reasonably persuasive taken along other considerations, isn't in itself completely convincing, despite being, let's say, pitched at a national Canadian audience: it is to some degree both fairly brief and an "insider" discussion of academic artists by an academic artist. But notice also how the editorial explains why a traditional review of the individual artists is not appropriate, as was discussed by the academic editorial board. Horowitz explains in the editorial that this was the agreed collective opinion of the editorial oversight team. 3) My comment saw the article as fence-straddling and difficult to categorize rigorously. I continue to carefully judge that the article complies with WP:ARTIST 4b, to which I do not see any objective rebuttal, even though I might well also point out that that may be an inapplicable yardstick for an artist-researcher. I took a lot of time deciding about the input. I do not read anything in a vacuum, and I do not normally have much truck for overly literal approaches. But I do notice when a subjective position is based on pounding "local only" when it's objectively not local only, even after that has been stated repeatedly, but not acknowledged. Anyway, I put forward the consensus proposition that we both seem to think that a policy-based determination of the merits of this article relies on subjective contextual evaluation of "substantial", which for me is influenced by publically curated solo and group exhibition(s) (which is objectively not "any exhibition"), video screenings (in various sites in Alberta and Ontario, not just her own "local" province), and the academic editorial. I read the article differently to you, based on these "fine point" distinctions. I also admit a tendency on my part to a mildly inclusionist stance in general, so I can relate to where you are coming from. 4) The closer will see that there has been no proper counterpoint that even tries to address the editorial reference - none. I don't want to hog the airwaves, so I will stop at this point, and let you chose whether you'd like to have the last word. Again, thanks for the replies. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC) (subsequent tweaking after initial posting) FeatherPluma (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There is some in-depth coverage of this artist in a local newspaper, for instance [28]. If we had more sources like this, from a wider range of higher-profile publications, I think this could be a keep, but I searched but couldn't find them. Instead we have (no doubt added in good faith by new editors who didn't know better) a lot of WP:WIKIPUFFERY: material by the subject rather than about the subject or her works, exhibit announcements rather than exhibit reviews, multiple copies of the same text in differently-published exhibit announcements indicating that it is most likely from the artist rather than written independently, etc. I don't think it's enough for WP:ARTIST. And although I am sympathetic to the idea that we should be nice to new editors and/or try to combat systemic bias, I don't think that filling out our categories with low-notability articles is the right way to do that. The lesson for future edit-a-thons should be: put more care into the selection of topics rather than encouraging new editors who don't know our standards to pick topics which are likely to be quickly deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added the list of exhibition catalogues in an attempt to address the assertion that Meneley wasn't included in group exhibitions -- it therefore seemed reasonable to list some catalogs as evidence of her presence. If people feel that it is more appropriate to include the information in some other form, rather than as a separate section, I'm fine with that. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:24, 22 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) 00:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Matome Mashao[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. —swpbT 19:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 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) 00:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raghav (surname)[edit]

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

Unable to find any evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Can't be turned into disambiguation page, because we do not have any articles on people with the last name Raghav. Note: This should not be confused with the first name "Raghav" (which means "descendant of Raghu" / Raghuvanshi).

The only reference listed in the article is not traceable. The historical versions of the articles contain large chunks of unsourced content related to other topics and copied from various articles / websites. utcursch | talk 18:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 18:23, 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) 00:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Budharup[edit]

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

PROD contested by author. Actress does not meet the specific WP:NACTOR criteria nor is there significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Two existing refs are to verify that she won the high school competition, which is insufficient, and to a TV Talks listing about the show she's on. My searches have turned up no reliable sources. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 18:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:05, 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 keep. I will also move the article to Address Na. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Address Na (No Address)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. The article was deprodded by Atlantic306 with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
alts:
Sinhala:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
& through WP:INDAFD: "Address Na" "Jackson Anthony" "Mahendra Perera" "Kamal Addaraarachchi" "Sabheetha Perera" "Janitha Maarasinghe"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Greene[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, and reasonably so considering it's been five years since the last AfD. That being said, the underlying notability concerns remain the same. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again Still fails the same criteria. Number 57 09:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has not played or managed senior international football or in a fully-professional league, nor is there enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. No problem with salting, seems unlikely player will ever be notable without a significant change in career path. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 14 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) 00:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Malhotra[edit]

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

Can't think of a proper place to redirect this article to, so I'm proposing deletion. Fails WP:GNG. No Google News/Books hits. No significant coverage via specialty Indian newspaper search set up by Wikipedia's Indian noticeboard. Fails WP:NACTOR since only one project is indicated with no indication of whether or not the role is significant. The only references in the article are to cookie-cutter blogs run by who-knows-whom. (One of them, punjabigrooves.com is on the brink of being added to the spam blacklist, and the others are of about the same quality.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Has acted in just 1 film. Her modelling work hasn't received coverage beyond social media and unreliable databases. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Zero hits on Google News. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is not convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My sweeps of Indian media did not find sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 15 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 The result of this nomination was Speedy keep. Kudos to all, especially Mduvekot and Mary Mark Ockerbloom, for substantially improving this article and adding independent citations during the AfD, making this a clear decision. Since the early revisions have been hidden, I will note for the benefit of non-admins that the initial article was extensive, with no independent citations, and was identified as a copyright violation. -Pete (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Horowitz[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. —swpbT 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 16:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 16:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced fan-page with no claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No actual claim of notability per WP:CREATIVE — this basically amounts to "artist who exists, the end" — and no reliable source coverage cited. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- associate professor of art with some substantial awards and exhibitions -- probably a bit WP:TOOSOON -- in a few years will probably need a full AfD discussion again if recreated. And after removing the copyright violation, per Bearcat, there's no claim of notability left in the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither GNG or Prof achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources to support notability, it just takes some effort to find them all. I've started to add some, and I've nowhere near exhausted the sources. I would like to point out how demoralizing nominations like there are to new editors and projects like Art+Feminism, and I wonder if deleting is really the best we can do. Is it really not possible to improve articles like these? I'm referring to WP:AFD, which reminds us to consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that inadequate articles by new editors should be kept just because the editors are new? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Of course I'm not suggesting that lack of experience is a valid reason for keeping an article. I was referring to WP:AfD. I do think that with this nomination the nominator and the supporters of deletion have not done their due diligence and ignored WP:Before.Mduvekot (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of what you've added are not sources in the WP:RS sense, but would rather be classified as "external links", i.e. they're mostly web pages of commercial or non-prof organizations. One appears to be from her own institution (not independent) and the "Hunter Charitable Foundation Artist Award" is an obscure award. BTW, one is even a dead link. None of what you posted indicates that the subject is anything more than "the average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please identify the dead link? I don't see it. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that articles from new editors should be deleted because they are written by new editors? If the goal is to keep new editors from coming to Wikipedia, deleting everything before it gets a chance to be improved is, of course, a well-planned approach. Some people might try improving an article instead of deleting but evidently, everyone does not think the same way. --Oop (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article, along with many others on seemingly non-notable individuals, seems to trace back to Regina Art & Feminism Meet-up. All articles listed there should probably be examined. Agricola44 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
So, basically you guys target an editathon, nominating all the articles for deletion and then using that very nomination as an argument for deletion? As trolling goes, a bit tautological, but innovative. --Oop (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. She is a respected Canadian artist with a solid track record of projects and exhibitions across Canada whose work has been shown at Canada House in London, England. The Queen of England even attended the unveiling. That said, I agree that the article is not in great shape at this point, and needs improvement, and I'm willing to put some time and effort into that. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources indicate that she is a well-established artist. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep substantial reviews of works, to demonstrate relative notability. Needs improvement, but good enough, Sadads (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Living artists are notoriously hard to source out for notability and allowances should be made for insufficiencies inherent in the available source material. Based upon an extensive exhibition career, accentuated by substantive coverage in available sources, such as "Creating Spaces: Net Art in the 'Real World,'" by Michelle Kasprzak (see footnotes) this subject seems to narrowly meet muster for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite and my own experience with articles about contemporary visual artists. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --ChristopheT (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons based on policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 12 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) 00:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Giant Entertainment[edit]

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

Non notable record label, The creator is "Mc Keezy K" who's doing everything in his power to create everything related to him .... , That aside I can't find any evidence of notability so Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - said creator is socking to get their articles retained, so be on the look-out for any new accounts "helping out." GABHello! 23:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The record label in question is not notable whatsover. Article fails WP:NMUSIC. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Newly founded with no better signs of convincing improvements at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 15 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) 23:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Kim[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources. (Sources at the time of nomination are an article that doesn't mention Kim, a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview, a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview, an article written by Kim, a passing one-sentence mention of Kim as being a popular quora.com user who is "not famous", and an article that doesn't mention Kim.) I was unable to find any viable sources myself. McGeddon (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Some of the sources are legit. unsourced sentences should be rvmoved. but the person seems notable. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those six sources do you think are "legit"? --McGeddon (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Serious notability concerns here. Fdssdf (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure if these links are notable enough or not but references to Forbes, INC, Fortunte, LATimes can't be ignored. Review some of the news links where the subject is covered:

http://www.inc.com/aj-agrawal/5-things-you-can-do-to-build-a-powerful-personal-brand.html http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/personal-brand/ https://techdayhq.com/news/handouts-aren-t-for-people-like-richard-branson-warren-buffet-or-leonard-kim http://iambrunocoelho.com/mhmsales/ep6-leonard-kim/ http://blog.employtown.com/post/82725150627/our-interview-with-quora-master-leonard-kim http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-obama-answers-questions-about-affordable-care-act-on-quora-20140324-story.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/09/03/10-business-lessons-from-the-success-of-the-kardashians/#1cf69dc497ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.126.97 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References from Forbes, LA Times, etc can be ignored for the purposes of establishing notability if they are written by Leonard Kim or are WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews with Leonard Kim, as is the case here. --McGeddon (talk) 18:32, 2 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 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Passing mentions and interviews don't really give us the sources or substance of an actual biography, even a biographical sketch of this person, as opposed to a self-promotional resume. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply of this actually suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 15 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) 23:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasia (video game)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search or Google Books search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 12:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 12:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sadly. It sounds like this was important at one time, unfortunately I can't find any sources discussing it and USENET posts don't satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 15 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) 23:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Razor Sharp[edit]

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

Not notable, does not have independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think it is notable due to the cast and production quality. It is also Cassidy Freeman's debut. She's gone far in hollywood.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Short films are difficult to source, as they don't often get coverage in the usual places. There's a trivial mention in this article and another one here, but these sorts of sources aren't enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A glaring lack of sourcing. If its status as Freeman's debut mattered, it would have coverage in sources. Alas. Please {{ping}} me if more sources are added. czar 14:39, 15 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. Consensus is for article retention. North America1000 00:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Chan (cyclist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One source and one guest contributor aren't strong enough to establish a case for it passing the criteria for inclusion as a BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've found the following sources from mainstream publications in Hong Kong: Next Magazine, 2014; Apple Daily, 2015. Also this industry news site: Maker World, 2014. All the above contain detailed coverage of Gary Chan and his work. Combining these and the sources already on the article, I think there is enough coverage over a sufficiently long period of time to qualify for notability. Deryck C. 13:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article has been expanded and its sources appear to establish notability. sst✈ 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sst. Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 18 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 List of The 100 characters. After having been merged there.  Sandstein  19:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The 100 cast members[edit]

List of The 100 cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The table consists of only tables, and is basically a basic duplicate of the character's page. Separate pages are not required for the cast and the characters. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unsourced. I've fixed the errors in the table and it could be added to the List of characters page but the "actor" and "character" columns need to be swapped. That table isn't essential by any means. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The table has now been added to List of The 100 characters,[31] so the article is now completely redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to preserve page history unless a HistoryMerge+Delete is really desired. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – List of The 100 characters is a "thing"; "List of... cast members" is only a "thing" for the long-time daytime soap operas (e.g. List of Days of Our Lives cast members) which have larger casts than regular series, but is completely superfluous in a case such as this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 13 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. Closing in favour of delete per WP:NOQUORUM and WP:BIODELETE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Roberts (Producer)[edit]

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

British DJ and radio host, according to talk page "a well known local celebrity". The only claim of notability (if that's the word) is that he worked for 4 years in Radio Northumberland, and as a DJ in "some of the best clubs" in Newcastle. (The article calls him a producer, but he didn't produce anything yet, he is studying TV and radio at a university.) Delete, perhaps speedily. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference has been added but I think Radio Presenter would be a more appropriate title instead of Producer considering most of his work has been Radio Based.John Hughes (talk) 15:21, 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 05:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:12, 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 speedied as a recreation of deleted content. Bearcat (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hancox[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE and no strong reliable sourcing to support it: right across the board, the sourcing here is to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and student or community weekly newspapers that cannot carry WP:GNG, except for a single deadlink where he was the author of an article about something else. None of the sourcing or substance here is enough to get him into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; didn't know this was a recreation until this page was completed and I saw the first discussion template. First version was identical. Speedying. Bearcat (talk) 09:07, 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) 23:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yussuf Kazeem akande[edit]

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

No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league. Provided statistics are wholly unreferenced. C679 08:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not been reliably sourced as having played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 14 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.  Sandstein  22:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amarapedia[edit]

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

As written, this fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any good sources, but maybe they are in non-English language. Ex I found [32], but I cannot judge how reliable and on-topic it is. Any comments appreciated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covered in Basque-language magazines Kulturaldia (ref above and here) and Argia (here), and mentioned in the page about the city-wide Donostiapedia project on the Capital of Culture website. In Spanish, substantial piece [33] in the regional paper El Diario Vasco, and a brief mention in El Pais here (national newspaper). We've got an article about the similar project Monmouthpedia: Noyster (talk), 14:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, demonstrated secondary source coverage in multiple different publications. — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Flashy318 (talk) 21:52, 18 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) 23:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CupoNation[edit]

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

Too soon. Not notable enough yet. Seems to fail WP:CORP. No non-PR independent, reliable sources yet. See discussion at WP:COIN. John Nagle (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 06:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 06:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like promo or nn WP:CORP fail for various reasons: Created and expanded in the last few days by SPAs. An section called The Swedish Housing Shortage concerns a dubious connection to refugees in Europe, and provides a quarter of the sourcing. The rest of the sources discuss routine startup funding, purchase of another nn company for undisclosed sum, and a self-cited factsheet. — Brianhe (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete COI/paid editing is highly likely whenever a fully formed article complete with perfectly formatted references and infobox springs from the hands of a "new" editor, as this one did. However that is immaterial. This start-up, in operation for less than four years, comprehensively fails WP:CORP. The references are all either to the company's own website, self-written profiles, press releases. or press release-based articles with routine announcements of new funding rounds, minor acquisitions, etc. I can find nothing better. A sign of how they were really struggling for coverage to use in the article is the earth-shaking fact (now removed) that they couldn't afford the office rent in Stockholm. As for the SVT interview on the office rent problem with the company's Public Relations Coordinator, Lukas Ohlsson and such soundbites allegedly attesting to notability, this article in the Columbia Journalism Review should be required reading. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Thanks for sharing the CJR article. Thus a question: If he is just the results of powerful PR - why does Benjamin_Wey still have a Wikipedia page? The first part of your argumentation is understandable, but this argument is contradictory when talking about Wiki requierments. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 15:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Wey does not have an article because of his PR-generated coverage, although that's what the editors whom he had paid to write the article had originally used as "sources". He has an article because, unfortunately for him, he has been the subject of multiple independent coverage in major publications for his legal issues, as you can easily see if you read the article and its talk page. We don't "award" articles for meritorious behaviour. We write about what major publications have taken note of and written extensively about. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Being the initial contributor of this page I would like to quickly comment on my reasoning behind adding this article. First of all, thanks for saying and assuming that I am a paid writer. So my initial research was apparently too well done...WP:CORPDEPTH&WP:ORGIND I also know that Wiki is not |LinkedIn :-).To explain why it might looks as it is: I ve been active on Wikipedia some time ago, so I still know the code a nice looking article. Design matters here, and always when I see a badly edited article, I ll try to update it as I did in the past. About the topic: Having seen some articles on the "swedish housing crisis" (that's how I called it), I also saw a lot of articles on this small company I never heard of before. Agree, I got a lot of articles as sources which might be - or are - much PR guided by the company. At a later stage I planed some info about the company, which is apparently active and strong in multiple markets around the globe. Fully agree, its content might at the current stage look PR influenced, but thats solely due to the sources I found so far. However, as the company claims to have a strong role in some markets, I see a certain Wiki relevance here (as apparently some remote football stadiums in Brazil have) and hope other contributors can help me to modify the stub in a "wiki appropriate manner". Last but not least: The argument "It's just 4 years old" is in my opinion not a proper argument I would say, as many companys are currently growing very fast, such as Snapchat. I think Wikipedia also has the duty to be as up-to-date as possible. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you've been active on Wikipedia since "some time ago", it must have been with a different account. You registered your account 2 weeks ago. You then made 6 very minor edits, followed by adding a chunk to Rocket Internet, the parent company of CupoNation which you then created with your next edit. Be all that as it may, the age of a startup which is not publicly traded on a major stock exchange is highly relevant because it then requires extensive independent coverage to establish notability. Yes, some of them like Snapchat do grow very fast and end up valued at billions of dollars with extensive coverage (albeit not always favourable) in the New York Times, The Guardian, Time, CNN, NBC, CBC, etc., etc. There is simply no comparison with Cuponation. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did refer to an old account, I don't have access to anymore (thus not "since some ago", just "some time" ago - but anyways). I fully see your point and understand your reasoning for deleting this article. Checking current mentioning’s I agree that most of the current articles look rather PR steered. However, your comment exactly touched the point I was trying to make: When is coverage "independent"? While this discussion is going I spotted an article in a larger Spanish daily called ABC as well as in Germany in Wirtschaftswoche. I guess there is some interest in different countries, but it might be too early as you have to be stock listed or the next unicorn to be important. I see your point, but its currently really a unclear definition of relevance criteria. Having looked at other countries, I must say that at least the German wiki-guidelines are clear [34] stating the exact need for an entry. Considering those, I see the lack of relevance, which might only be met on the point "dominating position in a market segment". Considering the size of the company and number of markets it serves, it might be the case, but clear arguments for this argument I could not find yet. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 09:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the ABC articles, an interview with the CEO of the Spanish branch at the launch and ditto three years later and the ones in Wirtschaftswoche, an interview with the German CEO of the company and a routine announcement about the company's second funding round (which actually states that it's based on the company's press release). They do not indicate significance of the company, simply the fact that it has a well-functioning PR department. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen the first ABC article. I think with the significance and PR-work we have a "chicken & egg" problem. How can something be significant, when noone knows about it? I agree on your point that PR can push the coverage (at least that is what they are paid for), however in case you are not a mountain/city or have have any natural importance, significance comes through publicity, which roots in PR. If we exclude PR impact from anything, most of the Wiki articles might have to be reviewed :-) Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 09:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I found some coverage but nothing solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Beyond sources that cover routine events (like receiving funding, etc), I couldn't find sources that cover this company in-depth, and enough of these sources to assert that significant coverage exists from secondary reliable sources (which is enough sources to write a full article without the need for original research). Hence, I am voting delete. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:53, 17 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 keep. Never close this early but it's evident BEFORE wasn't followed, The article/subject satisfies GNG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha Tourism Development Corporation[edit]

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

not notable; the article gives no actual information except the location of their tourist bungalows, which is not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ubayd Hafiz[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No sources found via Google; besides the link to another Wikipedia article, the other link doesn't actually mention his name. GABHello! 02:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think this needs to be deleted because there seems to be little to no evidence of his notability. CLCStudent (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 12 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. Closing in favour of delete per WP:QUORUM and WP:BIODELETE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gammer[edit]

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

Transfer following procedural close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Gammer: the original nomination by Apriestofgix was "WP:DEL7 WP:DEL8." Ricky81682 (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ricky81682: for correcting the template. To respond to the questions on the original page. Currently this article has absolutely no sourced information. Also the notability of Gammer is extremely low. Apriestofgix (talk) 21:59, 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 redirect to Hip hop. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in hip hop[edit]

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

It would definitely be possible to write a real article about this topic, which is why I'm not just speedying it outright -- but this, as written, is more like the thesis statement to a undergraduate essay than an actual encyclopedia article. And indeed, its only source seems to be a university course syllabus, but even that's locked behind a login screen and thus impossible for any Wikipedia reader to verify. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is prepared to tackle rewriting and sourcing this into a real encyclopedia article -- but in its existing form there's nothing keepable here whatsoever. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On one hand, I am in favor of deleting this to encourage the creation of an appropriate article on this topic. On the other hand, I am also tempted to redirect this to Hip hop, since that article discusses various issues relating to sex and gender in hip hop. Either way, this article shouldn't remain in existence in its current state. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best and restart if there's anything better for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some reasonable redirect targets, including Women in music (though Hip hop may work fine). I'll see if I can clean it up a bit. edit: on reflection, there's not much there but a paragraph or two. It's a reasonable search term, so I'd prefer redirection. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hip hop as {{R with possibilities}}. Women in music is not a suitable target as it only contains a single passing mention of hip hop. sst✈ 05:05, 17 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. An unsourced BLP. Closing in favour or delete per WP:NOQUORUM and WP:BIODELETE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Hardin[edit]

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

Questionable about the truthfulness of this article-only matches I could find online were for sites like YouTube, Facebook and Linked In. It also seems that this was a cut and paste job. Yeah I know its early to put a AFD and I don't normally do this, but I'm unsure of what to say Wgolf (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Perhaps CSDing under A7 would provide quicker results? I'm not seeing any claims of significance/notability. The article states he's best known for being someone's grandson, but that alone is not a sufficient claim. Furthermore, there's no indication the the grandparents are indeed notable. Elaenia (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider doing a CSD also-but it was written out as a possible notable article so I was unsure. Wgolf (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as certainly questionable, searches found only his own links. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 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 redirect to List of Monster High characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Taur (Monster High)[edit]

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

This is a biography of a non-notable person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Monster High characters. It's not a human, it's a minotaur which is the son of a minotaur (or so the article claims). Basically, it's a fictional character for a doll franchise. Elaenia (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 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) 23:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatus Fee[edit]

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

had this as a BLP prod-but this guy looks unotable from what I can tell. His appearances are not on the IMDB either it seems! Wgolf (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think with some improvements in terms of sources, this article has good potential. CLCStudent (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google hits are mostly social media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not convinced by any signs of potential because none of this satisfies the applicable notability and there's no convincing improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 11 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) 23:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sales[edit]

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

A rapper. First and only single released Feb 2016 and "voted best Hip Hop song of 2016". Psychic. No reliable refs in the article. Case of WP:TOOSOON Bgwhite (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to locate any refs for improvement of the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I managed to go through some of the listed sources and none of them were convincing and there's simply nothing else better here so delete is the option. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources lack objective coverage and are are given merely to prove the existence of a project rather than make a case for notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:13, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_10&oldid=1142621860"