Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ebou Adams[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a Premier League side. However, since he has not actually played, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG, and presently fails NFOOTY. Can be recreated when he plays in a WP:FPL. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:44, 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. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league, fails NFOOTY. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:33, 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. discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandhir Singh Chahal[edit]

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

Article asserts notability, but I was unable to find any sources on him whatsoever, and most results from Google were just social media. The article is quite promotional in tone, too. The creator has provided a handful of YouTube links on the talk page, but I don't know if these suffice in regards to sourcing. GAB^Hello! 22:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than various social media profiles, absolutely no evidence of notability. General Ization ^Talk 00:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that the Mr. Punjab contest itself is not notable at the English Wikipedia, it's a safe bet that the first runner-up in the 2015 contest, with no other credible claim to offer, will not be notable here. General Ization ^Talk 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocked socks, including article creator

bro i have given you everything on the internet available about him.. and you also know that all those big stars like taylor swift and many more are famous from youtube only and this person has won mr punjab 2015 first runner up t*itle and in Punjab, India, it is a very great achievement bro. so please respect this decision and take off this deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeet456 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- i have submitted much replies and great content for the verification of this genuine person for whom no verification was required at all and now i can see that i am getting support from other wikipedia editors over the article i have written now i will remove the error of deletion as you were not replying and the verification is done by other wikipedia editor over this matter.` Jeet456 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- i have also submitted articles from websites which are given there .. you can check in the external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeet456 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- http://punjabitribuneonline.com/2016/01/%E0%A8%95%E0%A8%AA%E0%A9%82%E0%A8%B0%E0%A8%A5%E0%A8%B2%E0%A8%BE-%E0%A8%A6%E0%A8%BE-%E0%A8%85%E0%A8%AE%E0%A8%A8%E0%A8%A6%E0%A9%80%E0%A8%AA-%E0%A8%B8%E0%A8%BF%E0%A9%B0%E0%A8%98-%E0%A8%AC%E0%A8%A3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeet456 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, no mention of anyone named "Mandhir Singh Chahal" (or any reasonable variant) at that link. General Ization ^Talk 00:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey gab friend.. i dont know who you are and for what purpose you have requested for the deletion of this subject.. i here by on my own basis support user jeet456 by his decision that what ever he has mentioned is 100 % true and verified by the PTC Punjabi channel... so please try to understand this thing and get this request being cancelled. Rahul0500 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.yespunjab.com/punjabi-music/item/84393-amandeep-singh-declared-ptc-mr-punjab-2015

http://www.dekhnews.com/ptc-mr-punjab-2015-grand-finale-winner-name-23-jan-2016-results-performances/

http://jagbani.punjabkesari.in/punjab/news/-mr-punjab--winner-amandeep-on-arrival-in-nadala-was-given-a-warm-welcome-pictures-508289

http://www.media247.co.uk/bizasia/ptc-punjabi-announces-winner-of-mr-punjab-2016

http://punjabitribuneonline.com/2016/01

check these links out you will see his name in the articles as the first runner up of mr punjab 2015 by PTC Punjab some more are here bro

http://www.southupdates.in/mr-punjab-2015-winner-amandeep-singh-photo-ptc-punjabi/

http://www.boxofficebull.com/mr-punjab-2015-winner-name-grand-finale-episode-results/

http://techuloid.com/winners-mr-punjab-grand-finale-ptc-punjabi/

http://latestmasala.com/lifestyle/mr-punjab-2015-contest-winner-details

http://masoommandy.com/ptc-mr-punjab-2015-grand-finale-winner-name-amandeep-singh-23-jan-2016-results-performances/

check these also you will definitely see the name in the articles

As per GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." Only one of these links devoted more than just a mention, and I don't think even that is enough for a full-fledged article. GAB^Hello! 00:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello general bro.. i respect your decision but what jeet456 is saying is 100 percent true. i belong to the place where this person has won that title and it is a very big achievement. so please also respect the hardwork he has done to write the article on the wikipedia Rahul0500 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i have seen articles made with such small articles on them bro .. why are you not understanding... this article is about a genuine guy and now even a wikipedia editor of that region has also said that the article i have created is 100 percent genuine... Jeet456 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes jeet456 you have created a genuine article and nothing is fake in it so there is no such scope of getting it deleted from wikipedia. Rahul0500 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul, as someone other than the ~~editor~~ creator of the article, you pretty much have one opportunity to comment here, and you have taken it. Kindly cease reiterating the same comment over and over again. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is someone named Amandeep Singh mentioned at numerous of those articles. The Wikipedia article you created is not about Amandeep Singh. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

amandeep sigh is the winner of the mr punjab 2015 but mandhir singh chahal is the first runner up of the mr punjab 2015 so his name is inside the article which is written as firs runner up of mr punjab 2015 you can check it bro.... Jeet456 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey general who are you to say here that mr. punjab contest is not notable at all ?? almost 23,ooo young talented energetic boya fight each other for this title and you say that this article is not notable at all ?? what are you saying man ? have you ever been to Punjab, India.. i do not think you have been otherwise you would be knowing this title for sure. it is the dream of thousands to be on this reality show to showcase their talent.Jeet456 (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete this article proofs were shown for the notability .Rahul0500 (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Jeet456 is a Confirmed sock puppet of Rahul0500. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahul0500.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy. Zero evidence of WP:BIO notability or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. References on the article are all press releases. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 19 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. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Antoni[edit]

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

WP:NSKATE, see http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00003679.htm Hergilei (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:09, 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 rescope. czar 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lara[edit]

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

I initially tagged a CSD on this and reverted it. Daniel Lara seems to be an internet celebrity. However, there are no references to this, so it's hard to tell if it's the internet celebrity or a same name situation. Or even if that internet celebrity would be worthy of a stand alone page. Damn Daniel which this article refers to redirects to List of Internet phenomena. May this one should also?? I decided to bring it over to XFD and let others have an opinion on it. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E. Aside from going viral on social media once, he's not known for anything else. He remains (and likely will remain) a low profile individual and it was a single event (criteria from BLP1E). Elaenia (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Damn Daniel and rewrite the article from the video's "perspective". While Daniel Lara is not notable per WP:BLP1E, the Damn Daniel video and its corresponding catchphrase is notable as it has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Damn Daniel as per Samuel Wiki, might as well incorporate the material into that article. GAB^Hello! 13:40, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Ray[edit]

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

Article seems to be beyond hope of nailing down how the subject is notable in what appears to be a resume-building exercise (some of which I've recently removed). There appears to be no good reliable sources, either in the article or online, backing up the notability of the subject. Also, the author has been primarily fixated on this and the related subject TriYoga, suggestive of WP:COI. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the first AfD closed due to no consensus, which appears to be the case only one editor participated, and they !voted for a merge to TriYoga. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as fairly blatant promotionalism. Quis separabit? 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hardly any independent coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:20, 19 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAPUI5[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this product. Few Google hits, nothing that's substantial, independent, and in reliable sources. What little there is consists of instructions and documentation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found a few links, particularly at News, but nothing convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note: I am SAP employee and involved with the SAPUI5 project, see my conflict of interest declaration. I think I'm still allowed to contribute facts to the notability/deletion discussion:

There are 282,000 Google hits, which is not really "few". It's rather similar to (or higher than) for similar libraries like ExtJS (378,000), mootools (345,000) DHTMLX (283,000), Ample SDK (208,000), qooxdoo (145,000), and jQWidgets (87,700), which all have a Wikipedia page where notability is not questioned. Comparing SAPUI5 to those others in Google Trends also indicates that SAPUI5 is at least as important to public interest as those are.
There are books written specifically about SAPUI5, like "Getting Started with SAPUI5" (also available in German translation) and "SAPUI5 - The Comprehensive Guide"
There are references in print media like the popular German magazine iX
There are references in online publications like computerworld.com and infoworld.com.
There are scientific theses covering SAPUI5 like this one (Swedish; analysis whether UI5 can satisfy the expectations for user interfaces at a time where mobile devices are ubiquitous), this one (goal-oriented performance models, tested with UI5) and this one (evaluating JavaScript MVC frameworks for usage in collaborative web applications)

There are more, but as far as I have understood, these references should be sufficient to establish notability. Please excuse that I have posted the same content on the article's talk page - I am not sure where the notability discussion will be predominantly led. Akudev (talk)(COI) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address your Google comment at the moment, before I have a chance to review the rest of what you've written: The number that Google shows at the top of search results—282,000, as you said—is meaningless, and has been for many years. If you actually page through the search results, Google says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 53 already displayed." If you click the link to show other results anyway, it shows about 540—most of which amounts to technical documentation for the product, which doesn't contribute to a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I am surprised! (well, I get 83 hits initially, maybe due to google.de, but anyway) However, this also happens for other libraries: mootools stops after 93 hits for me (and 570 when clicking "more). And even the extremely popular AngularJS only has 95 "relevant" hits initially (and 396 when clicking "more"!). This was using the Chrome browser. Trying Firefox stops at page 76 (with this query). Even searching for "USA" just returns 190 relevant results (and stops at page 53 when clicking "show more")! So this must be a quirk of the Google search. I'm sure there are more than 400 or 800 references to AngularJS and more than 530 references to the USA in the web... Trusting these numbers would make SAPUI5 about as popular as AngularJS or the USA, which is of course not the case. The Google Trends link I gave returns data that looks more trustworthy than this. Akudev (talk)(COI) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two-sentence mentions of SAPUI5 in each of the two online publication articles you referenced don't amount to "substantial coverage". The library is mentioned only as one item on a list of SAP's current activities. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my search I see that a lot of links to sources that do not meet WP:RS/WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soulburn[edit]

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

No independent, verifiable sources in the article. Could not find any independent, verifiable sources online either. The reference section only provides booking information. The text reads as a promotional story and a personal history. The parallel article on nl.wiki was deleted, while the Dutch Wikipedia tends to be more inclusive than en.wiki. gidonb (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a few hits: [1] (German) from de:Powermetal.de, [2] from Terrorizer, [3] (German) from Rock hard. I think it would be helpful to have someone who understands German better than me comment on these sources. I tried searching for Dutch sources, but I am completely incompetent at Dutch. At least I can figure out a few words of each sentence in German. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate Thank you for the excellent research! I'll accept these three as valid sources and withdraw the nomination! gidonb (talk) 22:37, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STMPD RCRDS[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Newly created company with no sustained coverage and no credible claim to notability. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As search results found not enough coverage to claim notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandoFWS (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 March 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no notable results for "STMPD RCRDS" on Google, save for one mention in the Music Times, and, even combined with the two in-article references, that's not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:54, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) IagoQnsi (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above closer had somehow messed the close up so I've reverted and reclosed, Hopefully that's fixed it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open API[edit]

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

This article is written more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia article, and it has been for a very long time (the essay-like tag has been there for over seven years ). An "Open API" isn't really a standalone topic; it's just a Web 2.0 buzzword (WP:NOTDIC) about making APIs public. I would suggest this article be merged into Open data, but I don't think there's any content here that could be merged without having to be substantially revised or rewritten due to the unencyclopedic tone. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while wording should be corrected - article itself covers fairly notable subject with quite substantial amount of links leading to it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OpenAPI is very different from OpenData, and deserves an article of its own. E.g. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/open-api-policy.pdf http://nuviun.com/content/its-about-time-open-apis-finally-burst-onto-healthcares-sluggish-scene Ross-c (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distinct subject, worthy of encyclopdic coverage. Artw (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are a number of sources about the idea and it appears that it's more of that, and idea, than a product. The first 50 Google hits make that clear. The problem is that the term is generic and several links do not discuss the concept. The article needs to be rewritten if it's kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Zaman (journalist)[edit]

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

I came across this article at DYK. The article is written in a very promotional tone, almost like a CV. All the images in the article are claimed as CC 4.0 with no evidence of ownership by the article creator indicating a perhaps close alignment with the article subject or potentially copyright violation. My main concern is whether the article topic is notable enough i.e. meets WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a video of an independently organised TED talk so is a primary source. Ref 2 basically states that she's a news anchor. Ref 3, 4 are interviews by the article subject, Ref 5 basically states she's written two articles for Tehelka. Ref 6 is a Dawn article covering an event she attended. Ref 7 states she's a correspondent for IBNLive,Ref 8 is a case study where Radical Reflex describes the work they did for her on a website. Ref 9 is a blog, Ref 10 is an article written by the article subject, Ref 11 is the article subject's facebook page. I don't think there is enough evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cowlibob (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems the creator is indef blocked as a sockpuppet per this investigation: [[4]] Cowlibob (talk) 13:02, 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 11:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles does most certainly need improvement. However, I think the coverage Zaman has received in various media meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First off, I getting sick of editors and deletion nominators labeling interviews like the two sourced in the article as primary sources "by the article subject". They're independent sources like nearly every other interview, so stop it. Second, the journalist actually has garnered coverage to meet WP:GNG, as this search would also find that she has been covered in some reliable sources that do a fair amount more that just mention her. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a concern about her jewellry project, which looks promotional, but clearly notable as art journalist and curator. So, keep and clean. I would remove the gallery of her jewellery, since as work of art it had not been exhibited in any museum or gallery and all mention of eat started with "A journalist she also started her own jewellery brand". Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the promotional images and statements from jewelry and design part. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy perhaps as a compromise even if the article is not as solid as it could be because unless better coverage is found, all of this is still questionable for the applicable notability. At best, I'm willing to say keep only if this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Qwarforth[edit]

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

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

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

Article about Musician who does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Searches have brought up little to support notability worthy of inclusion. One does not inherit notability from colleagues. This musician has won no major awards or charted on any music charts. As I do not feel the musician is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia I have also nominated both articles on his albums to be included. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 19:09, 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) 07:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Youth Project[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Quis separabit? 19:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilie Dahl[edit]

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

~~Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn per the arguments below. Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Having her work as part of Malmö Konsthall collection and exhibiting in Brooklyn Museum she easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The article may not be mature yet, but definitely has to stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian1977, I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. Where are the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources? That being said, artists often get their works exhibited in museums (it's a common thing) but we often consider them notable if their works has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. In this case, they would pass WP:ARTIST#4 but that is not the case here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology Malmö Konsthall is one of the major museums and exhibition halls in Sweden. Her works are in that collection. The same may be said about Brooklyn Museums. So, what do you consider significant coverage then if not this? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having their works in museum is not a ticket for a Wikipedia article. That being said, you probably do not know the difference between WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Do you? WP:GNG is the general notability guidelines. Subject of an article often meet WP:GNG, based on the subject's significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. While WP:ARTIST is a subject -specific notability guidelines. Subject of an article doesn't need to passes WP:GNG if it already pass WP:ARTIST and vice-visa. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider MoMA, Brooklyn Museum and Malmö Konsthall sites as reliable? This makes it passing WP:GNG. For the WP:ARTIST it passes by "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" and "(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Cheers. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Arthistorian1977. "The person's work (or works) ... is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."--Theredproject (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Artist with works in major permanent collections. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've read over and agree with the astute analysis by Arthistorian1977, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:34, 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 speedy keep per WP:WDAFD. (non-admin closure) The Origins of Heaven (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Millard[edit]

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

Not convinced that Metropolitan Borough Council leaders are de facto notable. Uhooep (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retract Sorry I didn't realise Borough Councils had such great variation in terms of the size of their respective populations. This one (284,500) seems large compared to some English Borough Councils which have populations <16,000 so perhaps keep? Uhooep (talk) 15:33, 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. Consensus is for deletion, for various reasons as delineated below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian ghost[edit]

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

I cannot see any point in this incoherent article on the supernatural, apparently 'inspired' by a TV show and not written in English. TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense at all. GAB^Hello! 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT — Maile (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsalvageable. Anmccaff (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It's very difficult to even determine what this is. If this is notable, it would be best to start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Best I can tell, at best this is a rambling essay. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not encyclopedic. Chris vLS (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found that incomprehensible. It has to be a Delete in lieu of someone making the case for notability in a language structure I can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many things in the article could be sourced if hunted down properly on web. I will try doing that. But I see no use of this current article. Hence suggesting deletion and then redirecting to Bhoot (ghost) where such "types of ghosts" can be discussed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:10, 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. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Oman traffic accident[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article does not purport to do anything other than report on a serious traffic accident. It does not indicate that the event has any significance other than as a report of a current event. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This event may have had importance immediately after it first occurred, but it is insignificant by today's standards. The only sources are from news organizations, and were produced on the day of the event, supporting the claim of this event not being verifiable enough for inclusion based on WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No lasting significance to an unusually deadly, but otherwise routine, accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the worst such incidents in the country's history and officials began discussing a raft of measures long after the event --Benchwarming (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any depth of coverage, particularly broad coverage, or significant international coverage here. TheBlinkster (talk) 09:08, 19 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 Maximals#Technorganic. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longhorn (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Tagged as lacking notability and being written in an in-universe style since 2010. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Maximals#Technorganic. This is a tricky one, as the name is pretty generic. However, I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Google Books results look mostly unrelated, but there are a few novels. No matter how many extra search terms I add, I still get lots of biology or steer-related results. I admit that I gave up a bit quickly after becoming exasperated with the number of unrelated hits. Standard Google results return open wikis and fan sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The one sentence description provided by List of Maximals#Technorganic is sufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 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. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eifion Roberts[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Also stood for Parliament but finished third. Uhooep (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Roberts. Graemp (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable judge. Andrew D. (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Queen's Counsel, and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)". DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 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 keep. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Butler[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable judge. Andrew D. (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Queen's Counsel, and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)".DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional obituary in The Times, in itself a good claim to notability. And in the Telegraph. Obits in two major national newspapers argues extremely strongly for notability. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As DuncanHill points out, WP:LAWYERS cites QC as notable. Sounds like you're clearing out some other underbrush, though, keep it up! Chris vLS (talk) 06:33, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chimestone[edit]

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

Previously deleted by AfD here. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND JMHamo (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly WP:SPEEDY#G11): The only claims in the current article that might provide notability appear to be against WP:NBAND#7 (that their album sold 15000 copies and they "were chosen by The Seattle Times as one of the city’s most promising and talented new musical acts"). This is not evidenced by the Seattle Times 1993 source (an uncritical promotional interview that doesn't contribute to NBAND#1), the article is largely unreferenced with no further coverage found, and it's not obvious that even if the claims were substantiated that they'd be strong enough to meet NBAND#7 anyway. Notability of the NEVE Recording Console is WP:NOTINHERITED. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and is completely unsubstantiated. Seems to be WP:Promotional Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable like the 1st AfD, none of this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is still lacking. The sourcing in the article does not demonstrate notability nor can I find any coverage that would establish notability. --Whpq (talk) 01:57, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misbahudduja University Centre[edit]

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

This is an article about a university center, which belongs to the university of which we have no article. Unless in special circumstances, such organizations would not be notable, and, indeed, there is not a slightest indication of notability in the article. It could have been notable as a building if built by a famous architect for example but this has not been shown either.Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Unable to find reliable sources to verify the notability of Misbahudduja University (which seems to be a distance learning organisation). In addition the article is about a "Centre" of the university. Clearly does not belong to Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: The author of the article seems to have created multiple articles (Wahabpora,Mosiviyat Enclave,Al-Mehdi Chowk) with questionable notability and all of them contain references to "Almehdi Islamic Library, Raheislam Organisation". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to make a claim of notability. Also fails WP:NGEOG, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the general notability guidelines. There is no independent coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:34, 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew. @Shabidoo: As the only substantial editor, feel free to redirect it as you please. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Competition Mahjong scoring rules[edit]

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

Almost-exact duplicate of Guobiao Majiang mahir256 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...agreed. I made this page to remove this from the main article which is already quite long and I didn't know there was a page for it. Please change it to a re-direct to the Guobiao page as some know it as competition mahjong. I'll add part of the header to the Guibiao Majiang article. I don't think a discussion is necesary, I'm the only user who edited content (not corrections) and its a pretty clear cut case. Shabidoo | Talk 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of harmonizing article titles, I've decided to keep this article in favor of having the other one redirect to this one. Please close this as soon as possible. mahir256 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...but we should copy the other article and paste it into this one. Shabidoo | Talk 23:17, 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. Michig (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Noonan (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable local author. Has some local coverage, but limited. Borders on advertisement. Fails WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably autobio. Certainly spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete promo spam or at least WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Henrietta Stewart[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Lady Stewart was Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine article with plenty of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 17:58, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Davies[edit]

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

Twice failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CBE Graemp (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of Circuit judge's and District judges, while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) was de facto notable in itself. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here,here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a set view on the UK honours system. Recipients of the CBE merit inclusion regardless of any other issues. Graemp (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absurd nomination. Plenty of sources and content. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long consensus that the CBE proves notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is involved in the articles Oxford by-election, 1938, Popular Front (UK), and now Patrick Gordon Walker. In fact, I was researching those articles and came across this debate, which I would not be able to do if the article was deleted. --Dagko (talk) 17:41, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aline Mackinnon[edit]

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

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In 1938 the lack of coverage given to women in the volumes of Who's Who gave rise to the establishment of the biographical publication 'The Lady's Who's Who' by the Pallas Publishing Company. Mackinnon was regarded as notable enough to command a place in this reference work. This publication has been used as a source for this article.

Another recognised determiner of notability in the UK was to have an obituary in The Times and Mackinnon's obituary appeared on 10 January 1970, at a time when perhaps the role of women was becoming more appreciated. This obituary has been used as a source for this article.

The National Portrait Gallery in London has a portrait of her in the National Photographic Record that was established in 1917 and made a point of photographing every British Notability through into the 1960s. In 1930 she was deemed notable enough to be invited in for a portrait session for this purpose. The portrait in the article is from this session and there is an external link to her NPG page. Graemp (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources and content. Compare with an article created by the nominator such as Wangdi Norbu. No contest. Andrew D. (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most notable deceased politician who is no longer alive and has ceased to be. — Cirt (talk) 12:36, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Oswald Moon[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entry in Who's Who (UK). Notable physician and writer. Graemp (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine. Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as having some political involvement, he had a career as a physician, publishing some books. He passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable deceased politician and medical doctor. — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Scott Gatty[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources and no reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 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 speedy keep. [{WP:BEFORE|The nom hasn't even bothered to search]]....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Scaramanga-Ralli[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary and London County Council candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). author. Graemp (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable author. Andrew D. (talk) 18:13, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Cope Morgan[edit]

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

Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the MBE. Graemp (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obituary in The Times = notable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a mention here. He wrote a book. But my open-sweep of news found not much here plus I could not find the obituary (hidden behind a paywall?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Times obituary is not hidden behind a pay wall but freely accessible to anyone with a freely available UK library card, as is also the case with anyone wanting to access Who's Who. Just to clarify for our American friend Tomwsulcer, he passes WP:ANYBIO#1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" for being awarded the MBE. He also passes WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO" for being appointed as a Queen's Counsel. Unfortunately, Tomwsulcer's intervention means that we don't have a consensus in this AfD discussion, unless he chooses to withdraw his vote to delete. Graemp (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well, supposing there is an obituary notice in The Times, there are still some problems here. One of my tests -- admittedly unofficial -- is pageviews, and usually articles with substantial pageviews, such as 10+ per day, don't get deleted (from my past experience). This article has 1 pageview per day, although I suppose we could account for that because the subject's prime years were in the past century, before the advent of Internet and easily-checkable sources. Next problem: please read the first sentence of the current (16 March 2016) lede paragraph : Sydney Cope Morgan MBE QC (25 October 1887 – 14 October 1967), was a British barrister and Liberal Party politician. Then, the article goes straight into his early years, which (in my view) gives too much information about his trying to win a seat in Parliament, coming close, but no cigar. So, that's it? What did he do? What is he famous for? What did he accomplish? Or to put it in Wikipedia's terms, What is he notable for? Is he notable for simply being a barrister? Hmmmmm? The British media chose not to write about him because they didn't consider him notable. If he did in fact receive an award, what did he do to earn that award? That's what I'd like to know. Now, if you can find sources indicating otherwise, I'll be glad to change my vote, although I think the article needs a rewrite and especially trimming down. And my being 'American' has nothing to do with this, I'll axe or rescue articles based on the subject's notability not their nationality.--11:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: I agree, you being American does have nothing to do with this, but you being unable to check references from key sources is. If I was unable to do this basic thing, I'd probably butt out of any AfD. Check out the logo top left - an incomplete Globe; we don't delete articles for being incomplete, if we did then there would be a heck of a lot of stubs that would need to be deleted. The article defines his notability and is properly sourced with in-line citations. He may not pass Tomwsulcer notability criteria but fortunately he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Graemp (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can be persuaded if you show sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Also according to the paragraph above ANYBIO it says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long consensus that an obituary in The Times proves notability. Although note that consensus is also that an MBE doesn't qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree consensus that MBE doesn't automatically qualify, but entry in Who's Who suggests notability and taken together should satisfy ANYBIO#1. Not all recipients of the MBE make the Who's Who cut. Graemp (talk) 16:55, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Morgan (politician)[edit]

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

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awarded the gold medal of the Alliance française of Paris in the examination for the Diplôme Supérieur. Youngest woman candidate in the 'flapper election' of 1929, the first to grant the vote to young women, so her candidacy epitomised that election. Graemp (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent article; lots of content and sources. Andrew D. (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is determined not by how many elections you have won, but how the press received you. As Graemp pointed out, she was notable for other reasons. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no serious reason to delete.Berti118 (talk) 20:03, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Edgar Jalland[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Judge. passes WP:LAWYERS. Entry in Who's Who (UK). Graemp (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fine article with adequate content and sources. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Jane Joachim[edit]

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

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Held high party office. Entry in Who's Who (UK). Graemp (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate content and sources. Andrew D. (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entry in the UK Who's Who appears adequate proof of notability, as does Chair of the Women's Liberal Democrats. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:07, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beesley[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are a variety of factors that would justify the article's inclusion: (1) Beesley received a CBE, which satisfies WP:ANYBIO as a distinguished commendation, (2) an award bears his name, reflecting his status as one of the "most influential transport economists of his time" (University of Leeds), (3) the awarding institution certainly appears to be international in scope: Thredbo/University of Sydney Business School, (4) he received obituaries in a journal (Transport Reviews) and at least one national paper (The Guardian); the latter describing him as among "the most gifted industrial economists of his time", and (5) he also had a series of lectures in his honour: The Beesley Lectures, at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Losing in a parliamentary election wouldn't trump the above indicators of his notability. The Origins of Heaven (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 08:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - CBE. Graemp (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long consensus that the CBE proves notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. Plus DNB entry. Uhooep, you seem fixated on these people being failed parliamentary candidates. That's not all they did in their lives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 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) sst✈ 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Valérie Hash[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable designer. Quis separabit? 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep she gets quite of few gnews hits including in depth like http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2015/07/09/anne-valerie-hash-comptoir-des-cotonniers LibStar (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of name checks in Google Books and items such as The World's Most Influential Fashion Designers indicate adequate notability. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harcourt[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the CBE. Graemp (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Emlyn-Jones[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate and non-notable circuit judge. If he were a High Court judge I wouldn't nominate. Uhooep (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not just a parliamentary candidate, not just a circuit judge; notable - entry in Who's Who (UK) with portraits of him held by the National Portrait Gallery. Graemp (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For reasons listed above. Ross-c (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:18, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Clarke (physicist)[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sources and content. Andrew D. (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep per UK Who's Who. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:09, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Logan Rait[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was notable for being the youngest candidate to stand at the 1923 UK General Election. Graemp (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not confer a notability freebie for being the youngest, oldest, fattest, thinnest, etc., person to do an otherwise non-notable thing — with the extremely rare exception that would require a far greater volume of sourceability than has been shown here (such as the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell in 2010), an unelected candidate for office is normally eligible for a Wikipedia article only if they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of their candidacy. But no claim of preexisting notability has been made here, and the sourcing is almost entirely to primary sources with the few reliable ones not even approaching the outermost suburbs of the volume necessary to grant him the O'Donnell treatment for the candidacy itself. If he'd been the youngest person ever to run for the British Parliament in the entire history of Britain, then there might be a case for inclusion on that basis — though even then, it would still be dependent on the quality of sourcing and would not be an automatic inclusion freebie — but merely being the youngest non-winning candidate in one particular year doesn't cut it in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not the job of Wikipedia to confer notability on anyone but to recognise when that notability had been conferred by those that had a greater appreciation of the subject matter. How notable was it in 1923 for someone aged 21 to stand for the UK parliament? Given the amount of national press coverage his candidacy received at the time, it was very notable, far in excess of the average candidate. Britain's premier weekly magazine The Illustrated London News was among those who covered his candidacy and part of their coverage is used in the article, reliably sourced with in-line citation. The portrait of him in the article comes from this coverage. I could have chosen any number of sources of the time but settled on this one and saw no need to duplicate reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources to supplement an article, which I have done here. People are entitled to their opinion as to what constitutes notability but your opinion seems based on America in 2010 rather than from the perspective of Britain in the 1923. I think we should assess Rait on the latter not the former. Candidates are not inherently non-notable just because they did not get elected, we need to assess them on their individual merits. One of the ways we do that is to assess if they received national press coverage. Those are the relevant points we should take from WP:POLOUTCOMES. Graemp (talk) 07:08, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Murray (Scottish politician)[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and journalist and author and prominent early figure in the Scottish government movement. Graemp (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two collections of his papers are held in the National Library of Scotland showing the variety of events he had an involvement in. The article needs to be expanded but the subject is clearly notable, passing WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:51, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Stuart Mowat[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK) passes WP:LAWYERS. Graemp (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of Circuit judge's and District judges, while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) was de facto notable in itself. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here,here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mowat's entry in Who's Who has nothing to do with circuit judges or Orders of the British Empire. Graemp (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to note. First, consensus is that an entry in Who's Who does not confer automatic notability, but it is a good indication that an individual may be notable. Second, consensus is that the MBE or OBE do not confer inherent notability (although taken together with other honours etc they may do), as they are very common, but the much rarer CBE (or higher award) does, since it is only awarded to people deemed exceptionally notable in their fields (and remember that just because someone is in an occupation not in the public eye and you may not have heard of them does not make them non-notable). If an individual is considered notable enough by the government to be honoured with a CBE then who are we at Wikipedia, which has articles on every minor pop star, sports or TV personality who may have been dribbled (and drivelled) about by fanboys/girls on the internet, to disagree? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was a Sheriff Principal who presided over the fatal accident inquiry that reported in February 1991, following the Lockerbie bombing. He passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As explained by others above. Ross-c (talk) 17:22, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Rowley Elliston[edit]

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

Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep': Also mayor of Ipswich. http://www.oasi.org.uk/History/Chaldaean/Chaldaean.php Not sufficient in itself, but along with the OBE sums up to notability. Ross-c (talk) 17:13, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Alfred Gerothwohl[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). In addition to his academic status and published works he passes WP:ANYBIO#1 for receiving Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown of Roumania, Officer of the Crown of Belgium, Order of the White Rose of Finland and Knight of the Crown of Italy. Graemp (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graemp: - It's spelt "Romania". AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: - It was spelt "Roumania" in the UK at the time. Graemp (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: Entry in Who's Who plus other backing. Ross-c (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His many honours easily push him over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Herbert Kemp[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. The claim that he was one of the founders of Keele University is not backed up by a reference, and during a quick search I was unable to find sources which validate or lend credence this claim. Uhooep (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure how or why this nomination has resurfaced. It was previously nominated and the decision then was keep. Neither the article nor wikipedia policies have changed in the meantime. Graemp (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The decision on Kemp was not "keep" the first time — it was "No consensus, with no prejudice against speedy relisting". Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For clarification, the Administrator said no prejudice against speedy re-listing as he felt discussion around three different articles at once had been confusing. There was no speedy re-listing, perhaps because the nominator visited my talkpage to indicate that they were happy with the article but instead sought improvements which were duly made. Graemp (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His best shot at includability is his term as Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent — but because most mayors in England are not directly elected by the general public, but instead the position rotates on a ceremonial basis among the councillors, most mayors in England are not eligible for automatic inclusion per WP:NPOL unless they can be reliably sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. But the sourcing here is not adequate to give him a pass on that basis — it's not to media coverage about him, but almost entirely to primary sources and simple namechecks of his existence in directory lists. And as I already noted above, he did not get a "keep" result the first time — he landed "no consensus, NPASR". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your points about most mayors in England not being directly elected and them being ceremonial are irrelevant. There is no reason why someone who is not directly elected or someone who has a ceremonial role should not be accepted; The British Prime Minister is not directly elected and the Queen is ceremonial. What is important in assessing notability is not how someone acquired a position or how long they had it, but what that position was and what responsibilities it had. As with most city Mayors of the time, Kemp had a ceremonial role as the leading figure in the community and also the role of being Chairman of the Council, presiding over the meetings of the full council, the prime municipal policy deciding body. Wikipedia gives us additional help by valuing strategic and regional significance. Stoke's regional significance as the centre of the UK pottery industry led to its status and that of its civic head being elevated in 1928. The article covers various aspects of his life, but the only one we need to concern ourselves with is him being Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent as that is what determins notability. Therefore as far as sourcing is concerned we only need to satisfy ourselves that he actually was Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent. Here The Times comes to our rescue by confirming the fact with an in-line citation. Graemp (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely missing the point of what I said. For national officeholders like the Prime Minister or the Queen, the role is automatically notable and it's irrelevant whether they're directly elected or appointed or executive or ceremonial — the Queen is a national head of state (not just of the UK but of numerous other countries worldwide including mine), and the PM is the national head of government. However for mayors, and other people whose notability is more localized, our inclusion standards are deliberately much more restrictive than the ones for national officeholders. A mayor only gets automatic inclusion under WP:NPOL if he or she is the directly elected (not appointed, ceremonial or rotational) mayor of a major city (not a small town), and if they fail either of those criteria then they become eligible for a Wikipedia article only if you can show a volume of sourcing that's sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG — for an appointed/ceremonial mayor, one citation confirming the mere fact that they held the role of mayor is not, in and of itself, enough to get them kept, especially when that one citation doesn't even give enough detail for us to be able to tell whether it's a substantive reference about him or merely the appearance of his name in a directory list. Per Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, for example, the city has had 88 Lord Mayors since 1927, of whom just two besides Kemp actually have articles and even one of those two got it for being a federal Member of Parliament rather than for being a Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting confused. There is absolutely nothing in WP:NPOL that says a Mayor has to be directly elected. You can't just make stuff up. Even if he had been directly elected he still would not have passed WP:POL as Mayors are not covered by this policy. As I said, the position had regional significance which is specifically referred to in WP:POLOUTCOMES. Graemp (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting confused at all. For one thing, mayors are covered by NPOL if they satisfy criterion #3, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", but what that means is that you have to actually show the coverage upfront to a much greater degree than you have to for an MP or a PM (although even MPs and PMs aren't exempted from having to be sourced — all they get is a "you don't need as much sourcing to start the article with", not "no sourcing required at all", and they still get flagged for {{refimprove}} until the sourcing gets better.) And it helps immeasurably to be familiar with the actual state of precedent on comparable AFDs, of which WP:POLOUTCOMES is not a fully accurate and up-to-date summary: "a mayor has to be directly elected to get an automatic NPOL pass just because mayor" is not a thing I made up myself. The real, established consensus at AFD, established by a lot of editors on all of the comparable situations to this one, is that appointed/ceremonial/rotational mayors do not get automatic inclusion because mayor, but rather must be shown as being the subject of a lot more press coverage than has been shown here in order to become includable per WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NPOL#3 is about "elected officials" and "unelected candidates". A non-directly elected Mayor who was neither can not therefore meet WP:NPOL regardless of press coverage. That is why it is all about WP:POLOUTCOMES, the only place where Mayors are specifically talked about. Here it says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD". It further says that an article needs to do more than state that fact. There is nothing here that goes anywhere near talking about the volumes of press coverage you say are needed. Your contention that there is an "established consensus at AFD" that Mayors per se require a lot more press coverage than in the Kemp article, looks particularly flimsy when you consider that this so called "established consensus" was completely ignored by the Administrator who considered this case when it was the subject of the first AfD only last year. The article cite's his position as Mayor from a reliable source and includes additional coverage of his career from both the national press and the specialist press. Graemp (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the closer's conclusion in the original discussion, he left Kemp as "no consensus" because the participants in the discussion failed to actually address him at all, and instead the discussion focused entirely on the other two articles that he happened to be batched with. So no, that close doesn't contradict what I said in the comment above at all — if a politician hasn't earned a clean WP:NPOL pass by virtue of his position being one that confers automatic notability, then a volume of reliable source coverage that is substantial enough to satisfy WP:GNG is his only other path to a Wikipedia article ever. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, if you actually read the original discussion, numerous contributors actually did address Kemp and the issues surrounding him. There were many contributors in that discussion, some addressed all three subjects while some only addressed one. If you actually read the closer's conclusion in the original discussion, he left Kemp as "no consensus" "due to most participants here overlooking him" and did not say anything like "the discussion failed to actually address him at all" as you assert. So yes, that close completely debunks your "established consensus" assertion, because had that been the case, even without much discussion, the decision on Kemp would have been to delete, as it was with another subject who was also ignored by some contributors. Graemp (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know where you perceive a distinction between "most participants overlooked him" and "the discussion failed to address him" — there's certainly not a substantive difference in what the words mean. Closers aren't allowed to impose a conclusion on the discussion that hasn't been supported by that discussion — so no, it's not the case that the existing consensus around non-elected mayors would have forced the closer's hand despite the lack of discussion about Kemp; the lack of discussion of Kemp forced the closer's hand despite the precedent, not vice versa. And you can't just look at one AFD in isolation anyway — you have to look at every past AFD about appointed/ceremonial/rotational mayors of places in England, and those have consistently been closed as "delete because not enough reliable source coverage has been shown to get around the fact that the position isn't a directly elected one that can confer automatic notability-because-mayor". So no, I'm sorry, but I am not wrong about this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just explained to you the distinction but I'll try it again in a numerical way; "most participants overlooked him"= between 50%-99% overlooked him; "the discussion failed to address him" = 100% overlooked him. That is a substantive difference. At least you are no longer asserting that "the participants in the discussion failed to actually address him at all" and that there was in fact a discussion on him. During that discussion on Kemp, the specific case you make for deletion was actually made. Therefore, the closer didn't need to impose, he could have referenced "established consensus", but this did not happen. I assume that the closer of that discussion may have "looked at every past AFD about appointed/ceremonial/rotational mayors of places in England" particularly with regard to how they meet WP:POLOUTCOMES which states "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD". I would expect that closer, or any other to take more notice of something specifically stated in a policy, than a contrary assertion of "established consensus" made my an editor that can not be referenced at all. Graemp (talk) 16:45, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Arthur Guy[edit]

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

Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Beeching Frankenburg[edit]

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

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Chairman of the National League of Young Liberals. Graemp (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, held national leadership positions in prominent party, held international positions as well. --Soman (talk) 21:32, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Arnold Baker[edit]

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

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the article and did so because the subject has a dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Baker. Graemp (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Deputy Lieutenant for Surrey, vice-president of the Liberal Party, chairman of the Liberal national executive. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hague[edit]

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

Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK) and passes WP:POLOUTCOMES for receiving national press coverage for his by-election candidacy. Graemp (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Acott Hall[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the CBE so passes ANYBIO#1. Graemp (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long consensus that the CBE proves notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ifor Bowen Lloyd[edit]

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

Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the article and did so because the subject has a dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Lloyd. Graemp (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about Liza_Gordon-Saker (Circuit judge), Laurence Marshall (Circuit judge), Peter Carr (Circuit judge), Jane McIvor (District judge), Jonathan Radway (District judge), Peter Bowsher (QC), Charles Sherrard (QC) etc? All are listed in Who's Who (UK) but were all recently deleted via AFD as they were determined not sufficiently notable. Law is not the only profession in which I believe Who's Who lists individuals who should not be de facto included here. There are currently c. 110 High Court judges of England and Wales. I don't think we need to include all Circuit judges (c. 600), District judges (c. 400) and QC's (2,800+) on top of this just because they appear in Who's Who (UK). Other examples of where I don't believe Who's Who inclusions meet our notability criteria in a de facto sense are private school headteachers another AFD example here and low ranking diplomats (below the rank of Ambassador/High Commissioner (in the UK sense)) to name but a few. In short I don't believe inclusion in Who's Who (UK) should be considered as conferring de facto notability upon a person. Uhooep (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't comment on articles that have been deleted as I can't see them and therefore do not know how their notability compared with Lloyd's. Perhaps none of them accrued any additional notability outside of their legal creer. I can comment on the deletion discussion and decision for each. All those listed were nominated by the nominator here, all discussions were short, no discussion developed around the nominators contention of notability repeated here and no reason for deletion was given that hinted at the nominators contention. Therefore I would be reluctant to accept any guidance from these deletion decisions. Graemp (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: King's Counsel', and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)". Also Bencher of his Inn of Court. DuncanHill (talk) 01:41, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Watson Bell[edit]

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

Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the article and did so because the subject has a dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Bell. Graemp (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Rankin Rutherford[edit]

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

Twice unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was awarded the CBE in 1945 Graemp (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He held the elected offices of Provost and Councillor in his local area. Beyond this, he had an active national role for more than a decade, on groups such as the Economic Committee and the Scottish Council on Industry. The award of the CBE is a reflection of this. There is coverage of this in reliable sources. He passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long consensus that the CBE proves notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT-autism Pride flag[edit]

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

An unremarkable flag by an organization which lacks a Wikipedia article. As someone who himself is autistic, nominating this article for deletion is kind of disappointing, but searches for the flag (either the "Autism pride flag" or the "LGBT-Autism Pride flag") and the organization which promotes it fail to find any coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems too soon for a Wikipedia page. The article states the design was only introduced February 2016 (two weeks ago?) and thats seems to have generated no coverage of it. there's nothing in Google image search. Maybe if it takes off in the future and is reported upon it will warrant its own entry on Wikipedia, but at the moment I say Delete or Redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs)
Delete. No sources have been provided other than a press release and Facebook page both from the organization that introduced this flag. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pernom. May be in future this flag will be notable, but not yet Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform to promote every brand new thing that somebody happens to come up with. If something's just two or three weeks old, and its own creators' own primary sourced content about it is all we can come up with for referencing, then it's just not a thing that qualifies for an article yet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it ever really takes off as a thing that reliable sources actually cover. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, per Bearcat. Bazj (talk) 13:54, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Mitchell[edit]

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

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a parliamentary candidate but a notable Georgist theorist and company director. The book search link above features his published memoirs. You have to be reasonably notable for a publishing house to publish your memoirs. Graemp (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any reliable sourcing present here that's covering him in the context of his Georgist theorizing — that could be a valid claim of notability if it were properly sourced, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's asserted. And while having preexisting notability certainly can't hurt in terms of getting an opportunity to publish one's memoirs, it isn't a necessary precondition in the slightest — thousands of people over the years have published memoirs just because they had a compelling and marketable story to tell, without having had any preexisting encyclopedic notability prior to the memoir itself. Just off the top of my head, Frank McCourt was a non-notable high school teacher prior to the publication of Angela's Ashes — the memoir itself got him over our notability bar because it won a notable literary award, but he was not already known or notable for anything prior to its publication. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As currently written, the content and referencing in this article is stacking his notability entirely onto his non-winning candidacies for office, with nothing substantive being said about either his Georgist-theory background or his memoir beyond unsourced assertions that those things existed. Those latter things might make him eligible for a Wikipedia article that was written and sourced differently than this, but his notability for either of them has not been adequately shown by this version. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can find the proper sourcing necessary to get him over WP:AUTHOR as a memoirist or a Georgist. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have updated the article to expand on his career and his views. I have also added a reference for his published memoirs and added information of other authors citeing him on Georgism, providing reliable sources. Graemp (talk) 15:02, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Burge Robson[edit]

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

Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No legacy, whether positive or negative. Delete 45sixtyone (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Legacy confirmed by entry in Who's Who (UK). Passes WP:POLOUTCOMES as he received national press coverage for his by-election candidacy. Also passes WP:ANYBIO#1 for receiving Croix de Guerre. Graemp (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about Liza_Gordon-Saker (Circuit judge), Laurence Marshall (Circuit judge), Peter Carr (Circuit judge), Jane McIvor (District judge), Jonathan Radway (District judge), Peter Bowsher (QC), Charles Sherrard (QC) etc? All are listed in Who's Who (UK) but were all recently deleted via AFD as they were determined not sufficiently notable. Law is not the only profession in which I believe Who's Who lists individuals who should not be de facto included here. Other examples of where I don't believe Who's Who inclusions meet our notability criteria in a de facto sense are private school headteachers another AFD example here and low ranking diplomats (below the rank of Ambassador/High Commissioner (in the UK sense)) to name but a few. Uhooep (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robson was not a judge, diplomat or headteacher so the comment you make seems to me to lack relevance. Graemp (talk) 21:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Humphryes[edit]

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

I cannot see how colourising three Doctor Who episodes is notable - even with third party coverage. Tiny beets 02:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was third party coverage precisely because it was notable technical and artistic achievement. The work premièred at the British Film Instutute because it was a notable achievement and the coverage in national magazines and trade publications was a result of the work being noteworthy. He is the only UK-based film colourisation artist and his colourisation technique differs from that used by other commercial olourisation processes, as detailed on the Wikipedia article on Film colorization. Chaotic Galaxy 02.43, 12 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal but Stuart Humphryes may not be finished. Soft Keep 45sixtyone (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Checking out the article's claim that "He is more widely known by his alias "Babelcolour"" brought back tens of thousands of results on Google. All the ones I opened to check were about him and his work, so there's obviously an active sub-culture out there of people taking an active interest in discussing what he does. It consequently strikes me as perfectly reasonable that there should be some basic biographical information available to them on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind Chaotic Galaxy seems closely linked with the subject. Tiny beets 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tiny beets is quite right - I am closely linked with the subject. I know him personally and offered to upload a photo to his page. But that shouldn't preclude me from voicing an opinion in a debate. I have no conflict of interests: I know hundreds of people in my life and I don't think any of the others are notable enough to make a case for them. But just because I know the person doesn't make me a troll or an internet vandal or in any way devious. I'm just an individual with an opinion like everyone else here and even if I was the subject's own mother (which I'm not) it shouldn't mean that I'm ignored if I make valid points. And in the interest of fairness you will all notice I didn't actually cast a vote and the AfD Vote Counter shows I have remained out of the process. But it really shouldn't prompt a warning from the person advocating deletion merely for voicing what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Just because Humphryes has concentrated on one genre up-till now (i.e., Doctor Who) doesn't mean his work is not notable. Just like Laurel and Hardy did not (as far as I know) do other genre like Shakespeare etc. Yet Humphryes is advancing the way of colourization that others follow. Anyone that is aware of his skills and influence in cinematography would certainly consider that he has a place on WP. His work may be under most editors radar because he is not an egoistical self-publicist, instead he is a doer that creates results. Why leave WP littered with articles like [Circus Drive-In] which features batter-dipped onion rings and fried Maryland softshell crab.--Aspro (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to post a vote because I am one of the people who's helped edit the page and so have a bias in thinking it is noteworthy enough stay - but I have a genuine question about "reliable" independent sources. This link below is to 20 independent reviews of his colourisation work. Although they are all independent they do consist of a hotch-potch mixture of trade site, fan sites and individual blogs. We have no way of knowing which are (or are not) permissible to link to in the "Critical Reception" section. Are any valid? Even if two out of the 20 are considered OK it adds weight to the case. Please have a look and let us know (or suggest if this is better on the talk page)/ Thank you. Here's the link to them all REVIEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.37.13 (talk) 11:07, 21 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. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Mitchell (barrister)[edit]

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

Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Graemp (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: King's Counsel, and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)". DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lawyer who reached a senior position, was involved in academic activities, was an author and was a political activist too. There are reliable sources documenting this. He passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:54, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Moxon[edit]

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

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and author and publisher and theatre founder. Graemp (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author, publisher and theatre founder are not claims of notability that entitle a person to an inclusion freebie just because they're asserted, either — those careers all still require reliable source confirmation of the person's notability, not just their existence, in those fields. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just because of the candidacy itself — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some reason independent of their candidacy, then they do not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. But this, as written, does not demonstrate his notability as an "author and publisher and theatre founder" — it just asserts those things, and completely fails to reliably source that he was notable for any of those things (which is not the same thing as "existed"). Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can properly source him over WP:AUTHOR. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable politician. Quis separabit? 19:15, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CustomInk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional and non-notable. "best place to work " is a dubious distinction, awarded by no firm criteria. Best place to work in multiple cities doesn't add anything to it. Using this sort of material to support notability impliest either that there is nothing better, or the promotional intent to say whatever sounds like favorable. The statement about "growth" similar are just notices of particular investments, plus unsourced and unsourceable claims about the importance of their products.. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you do a google search for news (in the tool above) you'll find a bigger load of articles. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yesindeed, I find a large number of press releases and a few incidental notices. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although Northamerica1000 and VMS Mosaic (the only still noticeably active users}} voted keep with Velella nominating it at the 1st AfD, none of this satisfies the applicable companies notability and press releases and other unacceptable material is not enough to convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concluded that it failed all notability tests when I firts nominated this at AfD and despite allegations there that I had failed to take due diligence in searching out sources, I remain firmly wedded to my original view. I can see nothing that changes my view. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the sources below are bylined news articles that are authored by journalists. Also, how could the book sources I provide below (some of which I posted at the last AfD discussion) be "press releases"? This makes no sense. Source examples include, but are not limited to the examples below. Promotional tone can be corrected by simply copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
Techcrunch
CNBC
Forbes
I Love You More Than My Dog. Penguin. (book)
Flip the Funnel. John Wiley & Sons. (book)
Wiley Pathways E-Business. John Wiley & Sons. (book)
Washington Business Journal (WP:NEWSBLOG)
Albuquerque Journal (WP:NEWSBLOG)
CBS News2 (Reno)
PC Magazine (short article)
Times Dispatch (short article)

Keep –- Substantial news stories as pointed out by North America¹⁰⁰⁰Meets WP:GNG - Also, $300M company with 1500 employees. Jgreene1333 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing has changed since the first AfD. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH per North America. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article appears to satisfy the basic notability of WP:ORG. Sheer logic dictates that a company with 500 employees and revenue of $300 million needs a Wikipedia article. Silverado60 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No. That is a complete misunderstanding of the Wikipedia notability policy. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of proposed sources[edit]

The Forbes article is "This interview is part of the cover story in the May 23, 2011 issue of Forbes, where we ask eight father/child pairs to reflect on their relationships " its about the family, not the company.
Washington BusinessJournal is essential a place where press releases get published.
The Albuquerque Journal "article" is a slightly disguised ad for their T-shirts, and so are some of the others.
The Wiley Pathways book is a quote from the owner.
At least some of the WSJ stories are about people making investments and getting a story out of it. If the WSJ covers relatively small investments, there's likely to a reason, but the reason is not likely to be the actual importance of the company.
There is substantial similarity between all the articles examined, which does show that the bare based on similar press releases, or copying the same quotations. I haven't checked for actual plagiarism. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I suspect similarly of the others. The company is very good at public relations. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dingley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Walter Leslie Dingley

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

I'm not sure how or why this article resurfaced. It was previously deleted, and I am unconvinced the subject is sufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Leslie Dingley for the previous debate. Uhooep (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awarded the OBE, see ANYBIO#1. With regard to the AfD discussion on a previous Dingley article, to which I was not a part, there was concern expressed about insufficient sourcing. This Dingley article seems to have very good, reliable sourcing.Graemp (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ANYBIO 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award... Order of the British Empire seems significant enough. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Booth (judge)[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. This individual also stood for Parliament but came third on two occasions. Uhooep (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the article and did so because the subject has a dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. In addition to his career as a judge, at the age of just 22, he became Britain's youngest barrister, a fact thought worthy enough to be referred to by The Times. His additional political career only adds to his notability. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of other circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the additional degree of notability of Booth. Graemp (talk) 07:14, 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 speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stevenson Webster[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. This individual also stood for Parliament but came third. Uhooep (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the article and did so because the subject has a dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. Obviously some circuit judges are more notable than others and Webster had a political career on top of his legal career which is perhaps why his notability was deemed significant enough for him to be included in Who's Who. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment on others except to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Webster. Graemp (talk) 07:11, 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. Unlikely to reach consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Maher[edit]

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

This article fails WP:BIO on almost every level, and is a perfect example of navel gazing in the Wikiverse. There are literally millions of "managers" out there in the world, and only a hand full of them would be notable. For the purposes of this nomination I am using this version of the article.

In determining notability, one needs multiple sources which discuss the person in length.

Source #1 - http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/02/25/the-new-westphalian-web/ - the information sourced is the byline bio. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
Source #2 - http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/04/15/katherine-maher-joins-foundation-chief-communications-officer/ - it's a blog post/press release by an organization which is not independent of the subject. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
Source #3 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083193.html - it's a mailing list post. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
Source #4 - http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wikipedia-is-still-disrupting-after-15-years-1313225 - it's an interview with Katherine about Wikipedia, not about her. As a PR person, this is her job. PR people are not inherently notable. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
Source #5 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082470.html - it's a mailing list post by Lila Tretikov. It doesn't discuss Katherine at all. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.

Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there, need I go on?

I would also recommend deletion without redirect due to her non-notability. MedalSmeddle (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understandably no one will want to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but to clarify here, I think what you were going for was WP:TOOSOON? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Magoo and McBarker, nope not at all. Being ED of the WMF, in itself, doesn't even make one notable. And let's not forget she's only an interim ED. It's more WP:CRYSTAL that people are assuming she will become notable in due course. MedalSmeddle (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~Delete~~ Move to Draft space/redirect to WMF - Seems WP:Too Soon.~~ Keep - arguments below are persuasive. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably too soon. Quis separabit? 03:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete back when Sue Gardner was made ED, I created her article which was also prodded; the difference, Sue had a notable career before joining WMF, Maher does not..'too soon' indeed..--Ste moc 04:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too Soon. For the moment, Interim head of WMF --Nouill (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This article has not been in existence for two days, & is still in development. Give it a month, & if it hasn't been sufficiently improved by that time, then delete. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then move to draft space until mainspace-ready. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because people will look for an article on her & can't find it in draft space. I was looking for information about her, & discovered the article by following a link from the Signpost article. (Off topic: I wonder just how many views this article has racked up so far...) - llywrch (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, move to draft space then. This is not an argument for keeping, She is either notable or not. I would say give it a month, then see how notable she is. But as of now she has not even taken over the job yet, this is way too soon. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an argument for keeping if you keep in mind that what's there is more of a stub/start class-article written in haste than a seasoned, complete profile. Better sources & a better examination of her previous activities are likely to provide more proof her notability. (As Montanabw points out below.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ED of WP inherently notable, coverage will come. This is a clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Article on Tretikov was created May 1, 2014, within moments of appointment, it seems; her prior background would most likely not have met GNG at the time, either. Give this a week or two to develop, people. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Follow up: The most cursory of Google searches reveals her being quoted in her role as CCO in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Yes, it was her job, but clearly meets extensive third-party coverage. Plenty of bio info here that can be used for additional searches: https://www.linkedin.com/in/krmaher. Afd this now and we will just need to recreate it in a week or two, so why waste the bandwidth with an AfD that is a total waste of time? Montanabw ^(talk) 19:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage will come in time" is the very definition of WP:CRYSTAL, if you want to argue that, move it to the draft space instead. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She now heads a top ten Internet site. It is difficult to see how she cannot be notable. The article is verifiable and informative. And nothing is too soon. — fnielsen (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what is even the reason for WP:TOOSOON, if nothing is too soon? (t) Josve05a (c) 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I interpret the WP:TOOSOON specifically to apply when there's no media coverage yet of the person being considered, but you're pretty sure it's coming. There's some minor coverage now, including of her role before this, so that seems to be enough to keep the article.Timtempleton (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep From the current sourcing it is WP:TOOSOON / WP:BLP1E (hired) / WP:10YT / WP:NOTNEWS but willing to keep as a current event for now with no prejudice for relisting WP:DONOTDEMOLISH (the argument could be made that the position alone - interim or not - is enough per Sue Gardner "70th most powerful woman"). Widefox; talk 23:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is not a guideline. "Keep for now' is a common argument that holds little water where notability is concerned. If it is WP:TOOSOON to tell whether it is notable, then it is not notable. Note that she hasn't even taken over the job yet, and won't till the end of the month (seriously thats how premature and WP:CRYSTAL this is). Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. My understanding is she's in the position from tomorrow. It's already tomorrow here. (and yes I'm aware what's a guideline, e.g. TOOSOON is an essay for instance so logically you may want to shore-up your own !vote). The notability is clearly from WP, but if viewed similarly to Sue, she may be arguably considered the 70th most powerful woman, which in my (crystal) book is notable. We can try to correct our naval-gazing, but let's not hypercorrect by ignoring the importance here. Widefox; talk 00:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to Move to Draft space, as i think you might be right, but there is also the possibility that someone else will be chosen in a couple months to replace her (as she is only interim). Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we cannot WP:CRYSTAL ball the future. This seems WP:RECENTISM#Recentism as a positive vs WP:RECENTISM#Recentism as a negative, and I'd lean towards the former, which drafting wouldn't have any immediate benefit for readers wondering who's running the WP org today! If notable, then her tenure length doesn't seem relevant to me per WP:NOTTEMP. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a powerful argument, but by (rough) analogy we have Nine-Day Queen. If we want to avoid recentism completely we could draft and just redirect to Wikimedia Foundation, but I'd personally let the BLP get built. Widefox; talk 02:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors User:Pigsonthewing, User:Ktr101, User:Acabashi User:Mike Peel User:Ymblanter User:Adamstraw99 User:Deansfa User:Josve05a. Widefox; talk 02:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One doesn't need the crystal ball to see that if we delete this article today, it will simply be recreated again a month from now. Sue Gardiner a case in point (her article was originally Prod tagged? Really?) The ED of WP has an article. Has there ever been one who has not? Frankly, if she has the job for two months as interim but then someone else becomes permanent, then there might be a case. But there's not a case now. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am with User:Montanabw on this one. Give it a couple of weeks. Lila was the 99th most powerful woman per Forbes after 4 weeks of working at the WMF.[5]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Montanabw and Doc James. – SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a case of automatic notability. Not in the wikipedia sense (i.e. playing for a x-level-league team in a pro match for two minutes at some obscure sport), but real-life notability (i.e. the world is taking note now). Agathoclea (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space. If she becomes the 99th most powerful woman per Forbes, we can move it back to main space. Until then, we're navel gazing into our crystal ball. (Yup. I wrote that. Couldn't resist.) --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an arbitrary high bar, and specific source requirement for a BLP, which if consistently applied would result in a limit of 100 BLPs of women. Widefox; talk 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to Doc James specifically, who wrote that. And I'm not unique in that, for example, the below responder is also responding to Doc James. Obviously that's not the only requirement; but there does need to be some sign of Wikipedia:Notability, which has not yet been met. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DocJames, as I do not think that the case for saying that she is not notable is extremely weak. I also find it suspicious that the editor created an account, nominated the article for deletion, and has never been seen again (which makes me think that this is someone who might be blocked or banned). Either way, demolishing the house before it is built is really not how we should be building articles on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the nominator is one of those folks known for living under bridges. (Couldn't resist.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ED (even interim) of a major charity / large organisation would seem to be intrinsically notable to me (i.e., I agree with @Montanabw) - I'd actually go a bit further than that and say that the C-level staff should also be sufficiently notable in a lot of cases. The article is still in fledgling state, and I'm sure it will develop over time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The interim appointment in itself confers notability. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion is now a Signpost article (or at least a draft): Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/Discussion report — fnielsen (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. probably notable before becoming WMF's acting ED, certainly so afterwards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ED of Wikipedia is inherently notable, as others have noted. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think notability was overlooked and the article was created simply because of the euphoria and excitement everyone feels about the recent victory the community had of the caving in from the pressure and subsequent leaving of "that person" who filled the ED position before Katherine took as interim.Bobbyshabangu _talk 17:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speculating on motives of creation (or deletion) isn't a powerful argument for the merits of the topic . Separately, crystal interim temporariness is discounted in WP:ATA#CRYSTAL "Delete This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year". Widefox; talk 23:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really Bobbyshabangu, as I created it because she had notability due to her position, not because of any euphoria or anything. It really wasn't that important for me to create, but I did it since I was amazed no one else had before. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 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. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Peters[edit]

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

I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Queen's Counsel, and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)".DuncanHill (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add Also a bencher, indicative of high status recognized by the profession. DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Queen's Counsel as above. Ross-c (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. However WP:BIO states: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". There are over 2,800 QCs currently in the UK and most do not receive specific coverage about themselves, rather they receive a passing mention in the media such as "XYZ QC defending ABC said during the trial...". There are also over 600 Circuit judges in England and Wales and again most only receive passing mentions in the press. At least 6 QC biographies were recently deleted as a result of an AFD debate (1 2 3 4 5 6). A batch of District judge and Circuit judge articles were also deleted. Are you saying these articles shouldn't have been deleted? Should their deletion be reversed? It seems too inconsistent to have 6 recent QC bios were everyone voted to delete, and now you're all suggesting to keep. I respect your opinions as members of the community, but I find it a bit frustrating that AFD is proving inconsistent. I only nominated this one because the previous 6 QCs were delete with unanimous approval. Uhooep (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that the combination of QC and Circuit judge and bencher is suggestive of a higher degree of notability than either on its own. This is not an RfC on all your previous deletion discussions, so please don't try to turn it into one! I'm sorry that you find it frustrating that we are expressing our own opinions, rather than blindly parroting your preferred selection of previous deletions. DuncanHill (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator in the introduction says "each AfD should still be judged independently." I agree with this. Despite this, the nominator's case seems built around the idea that as Peters was a circuit judge and that other circuit judges have recently had their articles deleted, then his should be too. That is not a good enough reason. Peters was demonstrably notable beyond being a circuit judge. Graemp (talk) 20:42, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Akhzam[edit]

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

Actor with just one role. Granted it was a notable film he was in, but nothing else seems to be going for it-either delete or a redirect be the best I think. Wgolf (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Babel (film). I couldn't find any coverage whatsoever, at best extremely brief mentions in articles about the film, so even a redirect is strenuous. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACTORBIO, as he has had only one major film role, has no known cult following, and has not made a significant contribution to a field of entertainment. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly doesn't look finished. After searching I can only find mention of him in production lists rather than highlighted specifically for his contribution. It appears he played Anwar in Babel (2006) and worked as third assistant director in L' ARNACOEUR (2010). I'd vote for Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 07:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babel (film). Ross-c (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not redirect as there's simply nothing convincing for the applicable actor notability, also vulnerable to restarting if there's an open link so best simply deleted. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 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 redirect to Right-wing terrorism. If anybody wants to merge some content, be my guest, but there's probably not much. I also picked Right-wing terrorism as a target based on the discussion, but this close in no way prevents this from being boldly changed or taken to RfD. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White terrorism[edit]

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

The term lacks notability. The article used in the lead to establish notability does not use the term and is an opinion piece. Nor is there evidence that terrorist acts committed by white people, particularly acts that are not motivated by racism are typically called "white terrorism." Furthermore most of the first hits on Google books return "Jonathan R. White, Terrorism:An Introduction. TFD (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect We already have Right-wing terrorism. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Aside from being used by Hillary Clinton a few times, the term does seem to lack notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Term lacks notability and article is written with a will a clear POV. Meatsgains (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Right-wing terrorism, White pride, White nationalism, or something similar. As it stands, this article is blatantly POV. GAB^Hello! 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to any of the suggestions above. WP:NAD Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. — Maile (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I only really made this an article even though the concept of describing terrorism by demographic of person, rather than ideology of person, drives me up the wall. It's because it seemed to be a buzzword progressives like to use, such as this and this. IMO, the whole thing seems to be all about the idea of "equivalence". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - There are plenty of sources and various meanings.

"Although federal policy and actions (Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871) effectively eliminated the most organized forms of white terrorism in the 1870s, they did little to assist the formerly enslaved in gaining economic security". http://www.hatboro-horsham.org/cms/lib2/PA01000027/Centricity/Domain/374/Jim_Crow_Era-Lynching.pdf
"and countenenced white terrorism of blacks" http://www.jstor.org/stable/30150329?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
"DeLillo omits any sustained reference to late twentieth-century "white" terrorism, for example of white American militias or the IRA. " http://www.jstor.org/stable/20831902?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
"Written during Reconstruction and directed, importantly, toward an African-American audience, this novel, though more explicit in its denunciation of white terrorism, anticipates Iola Leroy". http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/yale_journal_of_criticism/v010/10.2foreman.html
plus all the other sources listed on the talk page. Read through them, plenty of references.
copied and pasted below for your pleasure:
http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/Top%20Ten%20Differences%20Between%20White%20Terrorists%20and%20Others.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4232730?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/alabcrcl4&div=5&id=&page=
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00483489710157760
Forty Acres and a Mule in the 21st Century - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00555.x/pdf
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/hillary-white-terrorism-and-police-violence-are-just-as-big-a-threat-as-isis-video/
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/30/3725562/you-are-more-than-7-times-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extemist-than-by-muslim-terrorists/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/18/call-the-charleston-church-shooting-what-it-is-terrorism/
http://www.thenation.com/article/how-to-understand-white-male-terrorism/

--Potguru (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has different meanings because it is not a topic, just a noun modified by an adjective. So there are white criminals, white senators, white businessmen, white bus drivers, etc. (Ralph Kramden was a white bus driver.) It does not mean these are all actual topics. TFD (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a research paper called "Freedmen with Firearms: White Terrorism and Black Disarmament During Reconstruction" whose abstract reads: "New laws, mob actions and acts of organized white terrorism were used to subjugate free citizens and return them to their former stations of labor.". Cited only two times, but worth consideration, perhaps? http://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gcjcwe/vol4/iss1/4/ --Potguru (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should all be merged to this article? White_Terror_(Taiwan)? --Potguru (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read these two articles...? They have nothing in common. More than that I agree with TFD, this is not a topic, but rather a descriptive term with many disparate uses and deffinitions. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:19, 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mybridge[edit]

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

Notability. Another startup with a promotional {{spa}} Wikionearth account building an article, another one adding links to it, but a real lack of the truly independent sources we require. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An edit-warring spa [6] [7] [8] at that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With a friend, Beautifulday88 (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't really find any coverage. There were two fairly promotional articles in the sources (which I weren't able to find normally for some reason), but the Code with Coffee one is just a republication of the Web Design Ledger one. When I googled for their name, I foremost found other stuff. Even just "Mybridge" (without space inbetween) gave such results. The most notable and covered Mybridge seemed to be MyBridge Radio. The amount of Twitter followers they have is dubious, as it's gotten popular these days to simply purchase followers by the dekaton. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has publications with Web Design Ledger and Product Hunt. Searching on Duckduckgo, Yahoo, Bing or Baidu places Mybridge first or superior rank. According to TwitterAudit, the report shows 99% of Mybridge's followers are real ^[1]. Cristinaboz (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked into who are following Mybridge and it's a bunch of Twitter SPAs who posted a few tweets on April 23 2015: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Mind you I just scrolled down a bit and got a bunch of people without skipping any. This was all there was. The first ones at the top of the list tend to be actual ones because of a bit of gaming of the system. The profile pictures seemed to be stolen from regular Twitter accounts as I reverse searched a few of the images. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 6 "unpopular" accounts linked in your argument does not seem to constitute any evidence whether Mybridge is fake or it purchased fake accounts. Having searched "Mybridge" on Twitter^[2], we can see there are numerous mentions from "popular" accounts and we can also see there are 4 accounts concerning Mybridge.Cristinaboz (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Cristinaboz (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of HiRayne (talk • contribs). Elaenia (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any notability. Written like a promo piece. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have re-checked it with regard to Notability. Mybridge (application) comes out 1st in various keyword rankings related to Technology on Apple Store -- "Web developers", "Web developers news", "Web designers news", etc. ^[3] Therefore I stand by my edits and this page should stay on Wikipedia for the public to learn more about it. --Wikionearth (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Wikionearth (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of HiRayne (talk • contribs). Elaenia (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of 16 March 2016, MyBridge is 6th result on the keyword "Web Developers." This doesn't support notability. Even this seems quite narrow, as MyBridge is not in the top results for "Web Developer" or "Web Development." Chris vLS (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to identify any sources which aren't press releases or other first-party promotional content. Highly doubt there would be anything to indicate notability for such a new project either. There are also 3 single purpose accounts who appear to be connected and are spamming links to the subject in question - see Special:Contributions/Beautifulday88 for spam. Special:Contributions/Wikionearth and Special:Contributions/Cristinaboz SPAs. Elaenia (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note It was probably obvious but Wikionearth and Cristinaboz along with a few others have now been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Blythwood (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG not met. That Mybridge has an SEO-oriented arm, which has a similar twitteraudit "genuine" user profile, makes the SPA arguments highly questionable at best. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 08:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:WEB. Mybridge has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial, non-self published sources (Twitter posts can not be used as references, so those listed are void per violation of self-publication; additionally, the Mybridge website is also self-published, which means this reference is also inapplicable. When looking at the remaining sources, none seem notable enough to qualify as non-trivial, which, in essence, leaves this article unsourced). In addition, neither the website itself or any of its content has won an award from a well-known independent organization (again, well known is key here; we can't just take anything written on the internet as a reliable source). This evidence, combined with the alleged interference provided by sock puppets throughout the article's history and this deletion discussion, render Mybridge viable for deletion per WP:WEB, WP:COI, WP:GNG, and WP:IRS. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. Without getting into the source status of Product Hunt, the Product Hunt entry doesn't rise to indicate notability. Without getting into the source status of Web Design Ledger, and while the Web Design Ledger article is positive, it doesn't make any claims that MyBridge is notable. The Code with Coffee is just a re-print of the Web Design Ledger article. The BuiltWith reference is just a probe of the domain. So, no sources found indicating notability. Chris vLS (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.twitteraudit.com/mybridge
^ https://twitter.com/search?f=users&vertical=default&q=mybridge&src=typd
^ https://twitter.com/Mybridge/status/705541825465987072

Delete as none of this satisfies the companies notability, the listed coverage is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 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.

[1] ttps://www.twitteraudit.com/mybridge

[2] ttps://twitter.com/search?f=users&vertical=default&q=mybridge&src=typd

[3] ttps://twitter.com/Mybridge/status/705541825465987072

[1]

[2]

[3]