Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 March 22 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything (Stacie Orrico song)[edit]

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

Not noteable. No valid references Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing to suggest obvious independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the album it came from seems notable enough, that does not mean that this particular song is notable (per WP:INHERIT). Additionally, looking at the article's edit history, it seems as if we may have a conflict of interest here; the main editor (Mauricedeshawn) has edited only articles relating to Stacie Orrico (though this may just be a bit of fanboyism). Either way, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, and thus should be deleted. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 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) 09:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MixSCAN[edit]

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

Promotional piece. No notability (A7 tag removed). I'd have tagged it G11 too for its tone. It came to attention today after >4 years because of related article (MixBANK) created by the software's publisher Dubset Media. At the very least needs more pairs of eyes to consider its tone/notability. Bazj (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and non-notable. I deleted earlier MixBANK and blocked the user account due to username issues. They created that article solely to promote their product. They contributed to the related article in question here, which prompted an A7 notice. This was changed and here we are. It would need work to asseert notability. Current sources as of this writing are non-RS -- Alexf(talk) 12:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why do we even have a separate article for this? There is a already a subsection on the article of the company which mentions this software and that is sufficient. This page seems to be only useful for promoting the product. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have nothing to do with the company but wrote the list of music software article and this software has importance to the DJ community just as other royalty trackers are important to the intellectual property of songwriters and artists. I agree with the delete crew that it IS promotional, but suggest fixing rather than the much easier action of just deleting. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, and just because it's currently hype doesn't mean it is not notable, and if edited, important for wiki. I'm happy with wiser minds and consensus however.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdecalculus (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 March 2016‎
  • Delete as my searches only found a few expected links. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The creator of this article (Mattbishop543) has edited only this article and Thefuture.fm, which is connected to the subject of this article. This suggests some sort of WP:NPOV or WP:COI violation. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references with significant coverage. Mashable ref is mainly about the company, not the software; Mixscan is mentioned only incidentally. Business Insider article is very short, and again only an incidental mention of the software, not in depth coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage focused on the software rather than the company.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 29 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 seems to be that this term is too fringe to cover in an article or even to merge some of the content elsewhere.  Sandstein  21:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake storm[edit]

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

This term has not become established in the seismological literature and this page should be redirected to coulomb stress transfer, which covers the same topic Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term appears to have been coined by one archaeologist to refer to a particular earthquake swarm, and (as Mikenorton says) is not notable within the seismological literature. As an archaeological term it is improperly classified as an earthquake article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nom is requesting a merge, not a deletion. Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD. J. Johnson, although supporting a delete here and upset by my WP:DEPROD, did not seem to want to bring this to AfD (see Talk:Earthquake_storm#WP:DEPROD). ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am suggesting a redirect as the best solution, effectively deleting this page. It would probably be worth mentioning the term in the text of coulomb stress transfer, which anyway needs a rewrite. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you just said in your prior comment, "Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD." On that basis I therefore invite you to strike your "Merge" comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators are supposed to consider a merge WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. We don't generally cancel the AfD discussion if nominators fail to do this. We carry on and allow Merge to be considered as one of the possible AfD outcomes. ~Kvng (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you say now. But just seven hours ago, and only some dozen lines above, you said: "Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD." You seem to be quite flexible in your statements. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For a such a blatantly non-notable (and one-sourced) topic I thought a WP:PROD would be sufficient. But Kvng, seeing controversy where no one else does, applied a WP:DEPROD, forcing the discussion here, where he raises these other objections. Kvng has a history of doing this, with what looks nine or so DEPRODs so far today, and around twenty on the 20th. He has not shown that this term "earthquake storm" has any notability in the seismological literature, nor has he proposed to "fix" the article in any way. His effort here (and elsewhere) seems to be solely to the end of obstructing the deletion of articles by making more work for others. This is not good-faith dealing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am an active member of WP:PRODPATROL so, yes, I have been doing a lot of WP:DEPRODding. ~Kvng (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal Keep or merge. In addition to the Nur references, there is a popular book on the topic, Earthquake Storms: The Fascinating History and Volatile Future of the San Andreas Fault, a Salon article and the BBC piece cited in article. With just one academic proponent, the theory of earthquake storms is not yet mainstream geology. Yet the concept has gained attention in the popular press and could be considered as a notable non-mainstream idea. If the concept is explicitly treated as a non-mainstream theory in the article, this could perhaps satisfy our academic colleagues while acknowledging the concept has some notability in the popular press. In the interest of consensus, a merge to a related article like coulomb stress transfer or to a more general article like earthquake sequence, would be fine, too. But the verifiability of the concept precludes deletion. Update: I found a couple of mentions of earthquake storms in the geology literature, one a secondary review article, in my reply to Dawnseeker below. These provide further sources for the article and show it to be not pure fringe. --Mark viking (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this topic is "treated as a non-mainstream theory" the principle of WP:NPOV requires it to not be given undue weight, and for that the key considerations are:
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
In the seismological literature there seems to be absolutely zero mention of this topic (it is simply not a seismological theory), and Dvorak's book that uses this term is in the popular media; it is not a reliable source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The WP:FRINGE guidelines are helpful here. Nur, who looks to be the main proponent, is an archaeologist at Stanford who has proposed the idea of earthquake storms based on evidence they see in the archaeological record. By the criteria of WP:FRINGE/PS, this falls into the alternative theoretical formulation category. Further, this theory has gained some popular acceptance and may be "notable in the public eye", as it is termed in WP:FRINGELEVEL. One can write an article on this that consistent with neutrality and due weight by explaining that this alternative theory currently has no acceptance within the geology community, but has caught the public's interest. --Mark viking (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you said above, with "just one academic proponent, the theory of earthquake storms is not yet mainstream geology. A sensationalistic book (and associated articles) in the popular press is not a reliable source determining the notability of scientific topics, and I question whether that book meets even the "notable ideas in the public eye." Note that WP:FRINGELEVEL also says: "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." (Emphasis added.) Splitting hairs with WP:FRINGE/PS is pointless, as that is about distinguishing pseudoscience from questionable science, and this topic has not reached notability as either. As to being an "alternative theoretical formulation": I ask, alternative to what? Perhaps as an explanation of the demise of some Bronze Age civiliation, but this article is not about archaeology. At best the viewpoint here is "held by an extremely small" minority (i.e., "just one"), and therefore "does not belong in Wikipedia". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and don't leave a redirect) – Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the term from WP completely? By leaving the redirect, we are essentially (because of our broad reach) validating the term. I'm not sure that we should perpetuate its use if there has only been limited use by journalists and not at all by seismologists. Dawnseeker2000 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attractive as it might sound, this is not our call to make on that basis. Editorially, Wikipedia follows reliable secondary sources. We don't make our own merit-based evaluations about what should and shouldn't be covered in the encyclopedia. We cover everything that meets notability requirements and for which we receive editorial contributions. ~Kvng (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely our call. Can I ask if you would create an article on the topic using the John Dvorak book as its source? I wouldn't, and that's because it's critical that we use appropriate sources for the topic. There are none, so I'm not sure why this discussion has gotten so long-winded. Mikenorton stated it succinctly in one sentence, but with a lenient outcome by leaving the redirect. Yes, it effectively deletes the content, but I'm a little less forgiving and would like to take it a step further. Dawnseeker2000 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences):

Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides.

It goes on about preferring sources that are "robust in methodology, published in high quality venues, and authored by widely cited researchers", etc. Dvorak doesn't qualify on any of this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fringe theory with no claim to mainstream notability. I would support a redirect if there was a suitable target; but eartquake swarm does not seem appropriate. "Eartquake storm" implies a causal cascade of events (eartquake A triggers eartquake B etc.) separated by multiple years, so it is different.
Oh, and may I suggest people to keep a cool head? Tigraan (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per J. Johnson and others. This really doesn't appear notable. Regarding the DEPROD, there's no reason to get frustrated over it. When an article is PRODded, the PROD goes at the first objection, and no explanation is required (requested and suggested, but NOT required). Please AGF on the part of Kvng, he has done a lot of good work here on Wikipedia, as have everyone else involved here in this discussion. Can't we all get along? :) Chrisw80 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We might get along a little better if a certain party did not have a continuing pattern of routinely bumping every PROD up to AfD, regardless of merit, based on incorrect or unsupportable "reasons" that fall quite short of the bar he sets for others, and forcing a bunch of extra work in cases that should have been routine deletions. I, and indeed, all of us, could have done bit more "good work here" but for this obstructionism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD is for deletions expected to be uncontroversial. I'm not sure why you expected no controversy. A previous talk page discussion seemed to reach consensus on doing a redirect, not delete. I'm open to any suggestions about how to improve my WP:PRODPATROL work. Based on previous feedback I'm leaving well-formed reasons in edit comments and additional information on talk pages in many cases. Accusations of obstructionism is not feedback that I can use so I ask that you kindly stop. ~Kvng (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no controversy here about the topic but your initial imagining of controversy where there was none, and your assertion that the Dvorak book establishes notability. The prior discussion raised the possibility of a redirect if there should be any objections to the deletion (there were not); the consensus was that the topic is not notable, and deletion entirely uncontroversial. Your earlier expectation that the article would survive AfD was fanciful (like a SNOWBALL's chance in hell), so forcing this AfD was a foreseeable waste of time, as a simple PROD would have reached the same result. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry to inconvenience you. ~Kvng (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you won't be quite so quick on the DEPROD trigger in the future. As to deletion discussion, would you assent to there being a consensus to delete this article, without a merge or redirect? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given a book on the subject, I would have deprodded as well. The proposed deletion was obviously controversial, as evidenced by this discussion. As far as I am concerned, there is no consensus to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in a position to make an objective call on the outcome of this discussion but, from where I sit, it does not appear to be a WP:SNOW situation.
I'm happy to adjust my WP:PRODPATROL behavior based on usable feedback. Forgive me if I am mistaken but I don't beleive I have received any usable feedback from J. Johnson. ~Kvng (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng: the feedback I am giving you is that you have been too hasty to DEPROD, that you misinterpreted the initial discussion, that you over-valued Dvorak's book, and possibly misunderstand the requirements of notability and reliable sources. Hopefully you might find all of this useful as points to review. If not, then I don't know quite what else could be usefully said.
I am working at WP:PRODPATROL because I have seen a lot of cases (somewhere around 25% of all PRODs) where editors may have been too hasty to PROD. If, due to my own errors and misunderstandings, I have been too hasty to WP:DEPROD in a few cases, that's overhead I think we should be willing to tolerate. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mark: Perhaps you have not paid close enough attention, but quite aside from the meta-controvery about whether there is any actual controversy I would point out there is (currently) one "marginal keep or merge" vote (yours), two Merge votes (Kvng and MaeseLeon), and six Deletes. It seems to me that your concerns were amply addressed. In particular, your view that "this theory has gained some popular acceptance and may be "notable in the public eye"" is not supported by the existence of a single book, and is entirely trumped by "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." Your objection to deletion seems hardly credible. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a bit more of my perspective. User Emperorbma created this article late in December of 2005. From what I gather from their user page, they are an American computer programmer from Texas that speaks a little bit of Japanese, but there's no claim to being some type of scientist. Do you have to be? No, but is it important to know about who created the article? Yeah, I think so. It's part of the story. That's just the way we do things around here; anyone can create an article on anything. But you have to take that into consideration. So, looking at the initial version of the article, his only source was a blurb that was highlighting a BBC documentary on "Earthquake Storms". That probably should not have been accepted as an acceptable source for the article. That source should have been questioned right then and there. What we have here is a random Wikipedian creating an article using a random, less-than-ideal source.

The blurb about the documentary mentions the "earthquake storm" topic several times while introducing the scientists that worked on the stress changes during an impressive sequence of large and very large earthquakes that occurred in Turkey in the 20th century. Geophysicist Geoffrey King and seismologist Ross Stein both coauthored papers on the sequence and I took a look at both. King's paper was published well after the last westward-migrating event (1999 İzmit), but Stein's paper, while highlighting the risk to the city of İzmit, was published just two years prior. That's all quite spectacular, but the point here is that while looking through their papers, it was clear that they did not use the term "earthquake storm". This sequence is mentioned in our article and these scientists are literally at the heart of the matter. We should be following their tone, not the tone of some TV documentary. See the titles below for the tone that appropriate professionals use. It's not about hype, which is probably what the BBC documentary title is. This article was not done with these things in mind and I think that it's fine if we toss it (and create something else, maybe what Mikenorton was considering, if necessary). We won't lose a thing with this gone.

  • Stein, R. S.; Barka, A. A.; Dieterich, J. H. (1997), "Progressive failure on the North Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 129, The Royal Astronomical Society: 594–604
  • King, G. C. P.; Stein, R. S.; Lin, J. (1994), "Static Stress Changes and the Triggering of Earthquakes", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84 (3), Seismological Society of America: 935–953
  • Pondard, N.; Armijo, R.; King, G. C. P.; Meyer, B.; Flerit, F. (2007), "Fault interactions in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart (North anatolian Fault): earthquake clustering and propagating earthquake sequences" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 171, The Royal Astronomical Society: 1185–1197

Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining further your position and the references. I did find a review article The AD 365 Crete earthquake and possible seismic clustering during the fourth to sixth centuries AD in the Eastern Mediterranean: a review of historical and archaeological data in the Journal of Structural Geology which mentions Nur's earthquake storm hypothesis. The reviewer takes the phenomenon of an earthquake storm in this context as unproven, but seems to regard it as a hypothesis worth mentioning. In another article A Physical Basis for Time Clustering of Large Earthquakes in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America the Nur 2000 paper is mentioned as the "most impressive evidence for large scale earthquake clustering". These two mentions don't make the theory mainstream, but they do indicate Nur's hypothesis is taken seriously by some geologists. Perhaps this hypothesis is not so fringe after all. But it does seem that no one in geology likes the term "earthquake storm". --Mark viking (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a random editor that prefers to use appropriate sources, I don't have any further statement, and will let the experts consider these comments. Dawnseeker2000 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Stiros paper linked to above uses the term "earthquake 'storm'", while the Chéry et al paper says "so called earthquake storm", in neither case indicating acceptance of the term. The hypothesis that there are clusters of major earthquakes is not down to Amos Nur, but the suggestion that one of these clusters was responsible for the collapse of the Late Bronze Age is, so that's a very specific thing. Note that Manuel Sintubin in 2013 (his Archaeoseismology entry to the Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering and this 2013 paper) states that "Incorporating modern concepts of seismic storms, the myth of the Late Bronze Age seismic paroxysm around 1200 BC endured to date (e.g., Nur and Cline 2000)", so that link is not unchallenged.Chiaraba et al (2011) use "earthquake storm" to describe any major case of space-time clustering of earthquakes. Kieffer et al (page 79) use "Earthquake “storms”" to describe such a cluster. I think that we need an article that covers space-time clustering of major earthquakes, possibly within the existing coulomb stress transfer article, possibly in an aritlce on sequences, just not under this title or with this content. Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the references. I think we are in agreement that the term "Earthquake storm" is not in wide use in geology and that it should not be used as an umbrella term for spatial or temporal clustering. Indeed Nur's work is one bit of spatiotemporal evidence in a larger picture. I'd be happy with a merge of this article into a broader article on earthquake clustering or sequencing, or merging to the coulomb stress transfer article would be fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Mike. I will note that one of my objections to this article isits being based on a singe source. The inadequacy of single sources, and their myopic POV, is shown with this gloss that "earthquake storms" are a "recently proposed theory" (ca. 2000). But now it appears this is an "old myth".
It would be fine with me if someone wanted to replace this article (i.e., post-deletion) with one about this term and the supposed "paroxysm" it refers to, but it would have to go a lot deeper than Nur. And it would have to clarify that it is NOT a seismological theory about earthquakes, but an archaeological theory about Bronze Age civilziations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps at best as I was uncertain what to say but this article is questionably solid as its own regardless. I would've also considered merging but if that's not the best option, then perhaps not and simply delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 30 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) 10:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AustinFFA[edit]

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

Not a notable YouTuber. No Google news results and less than a million subscribers. JDDJS (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article should not be deleted because i feel AustinFFA is a notable YouTuber with a lot of subscribers. He has been in Google News before, over his "First Time Doing *Drug*" criticism. I feel that he has a very loyal fan-base and that some of the newer fans need to know more about him and get to know his channel better. This is why i believe his wikipedia page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLGRektMaster2k16 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No coverage in reliable secondary sources, so therefore does not meet the notability criteria. In veritas (talk) 20:21, 28 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 02:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Choudhary (police officer)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Choudhary received some brief press for leveling accusations against his employers that he was punished (by receiving poor or unwanted reassignments) for pursuing prosecutions against politically connected persons. As far as I can tell, nothing came of his accusations. This article appears to be an attempt on Choudhary's part to resurrect the matter in a new forum. The article has been extensively pared down from this version, to the point where it asserts no notability at all. Had Choudhary's accusations resulted in an overhaul of the governance of the IPS, that might have made him notable, but as just a person with an axe to grind, no so much. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: definitely not an A7 candidate. You may want to check the article history. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tpdwkouaa: "remnants" from yesterday? VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it stands for "Reminder: Pankaj shouldn't have violated BLP yesterday.[citation needed] Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I understand why it's not speedyable, but there's no real shred of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to hear from the delete !voters what steps they took to evaluate the five news stories from the article that mention the subject, and how they determined that they do not meet WP:BASIC. This subject may well not be notable, but no one has made a decent argument thus far. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @VQuakr: The five sources I presume you are talking about are those used in the last version of the article before Anna Frodesiak cut it down to size. Let's look at them:
      1. This article from Officers' Times (a publication by and for the officers of the Indian Police Service) appears to have been written by Choudhary himself. (The English translation shows Choudhary as the author.)
      2. This, this, this, this and this are all reports about the single incident wherein Choudhary complained about being "shunted" (i.e. transferred to a less desirable posting) for prosecuting the wrong politically connected person. Choudhary's allegations made a spot of noise briefly, but ultimately came to nothing. WP:BLP1E applies here. Generally in the case of BLP1E, we might redirect to an article about the event, except there is no such article. This event was just not that notable. Lots of employees (in the IPS and elsewhere) complain that they are treated badly for wrong reasons. Choudhary might be right, or he might not, but since the case came to nothing, there's no basis of a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though I have to point out that he has been transferred for allegedly investigating politically-connected people not once, but twice (in 2013 and 2015). However, the coverage of both events seems so limited and so routine, especially in the developing world, that they should not really register on Wikipedia. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the sentiments so accurately expressed by WikiDan61 above. Might I add, VQuakr, no decent argument has been made to keep said article either, indeed, no one is officially protesting said deletion with a 'keep'. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @MelbourneStar: VQuakr's point (a valid one) is that arguments made at an AFD discussion should be based on Wikipedia policies, not just WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do point out to me an argument in this said discussion, that has been based on the arguments you mention? —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MelbourneStar: I didn't say there were any such arguments; I just pointed out that VQuakr wanted an explanation why the sources that are available are invalid, because if the sources are valid, then deleting the article might not be a wise choice. But, since we all appear to be in agreement that the sources are not valid indications of lasting notability, we have a valid case for deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fine, I just don't believe the sentiments made prior to VQuakr's comment were inapropriate, as VQuakr so deemed. They certainly went a lot further in explaining why the article ought to be put on the scrap heap – than those who opposed deletion, whom, well.. don't seem to exist in this discussion. Nevertheless, you're right; there is a growing consensus that this article ought to be deleted, so I shall leave it at that. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelbourneStar: in general the tone of the AfD seemed to be much too "let's get this guy for daring to be ignorant of our inclusion criteria" rather than dispassionate assessment of the subject. I also hadn't seen any discussion that addressed the additional sources that existed in earlier versions of the article. WikiDan did a great job in his reply of addressing both issues. Since the default result of an AfD is to keep, the presence (or lack) of keep !votes isn't directly relevant. I do agree that the case for notability has not improved since I proposed its deletion. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have Pankaj Choudhary, which is about a politician. The user editing Pankaj Choudhary (police officer) appears to wish Pankaj Choudhary (police officer) removed and to start fresh by usurping and changing Pankaj Choudhary. See here. Please also see the history of Pankaj Choudhary to see what happened there. I'd suggest watchlisting that one. Thanks. This is all just FYI and I thought this a good place for it seeing that the editor wished this article to be promotional and now wishes it blanked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mid-ranking officer (superintendent) far too junior for an article without a very good reason, which there doesn't appear to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--no claim of significance.. autobiography written by self — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstraw99 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5)[edit]

Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not found anything on a fifth cycle of Asia's Next Top Model. I believe this page is a hoax. Linguist 111talk 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also suspect that this is a hoax Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, I've been looking for sources and I can't find anything for a cycle/season 5. At the very least, not verifiable. Appable (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going to speedy this as a hoax. I remember blocking someone for creating similar pages in their userspace so I'm unsure if this is a sockpuppet or not - although I am still going to block them as trying to create a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article was discussed long enough, and I do not see any consensus emerging from the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Loxley[edit]

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

Non notable aviator. He is mentioned in thepeerage.com but can't find him in Burke's Peerage (via a free search). Nothing in this article indicates notability besides being related to Lord Byron Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "free search" in Burke's Peerage - qv: BOOTH, Bt Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (incl already in refs)

  • Question Delete. Does receiving the Légion d'honneur confer notability? There is nothing else to make him notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to the above, in my view, is that conferral of the Légion d'honneur in itself may not justify sufficient notability for a Wiki entry, although it is undeniably a great honour. However, Wiki notes elsewhere qv: Aerial reconnaissance in World War a "recurrent pattern of reconnaissance not gaining recognition commensurate with its importance developed during these years". Here is a chance to redress that imbalance, not to mention his family connections (ie. with the Lords Byron & Lord Bingham of Cornhill) which, in other articles, seemingly would also qualify for his inclusion. Not sure why there is an issue? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This article is not linked to by any except the lists of medal recipients. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for righting perceived wrongs. Family connections are no indicator of notability, nor is there any other. In short, that is the issue here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too, but this is not an attempt to right any wrong perceived or not. The fact remains that Major Loxley was a notable and decorated aviator of the First World War, qv. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk but because of the nature of his military service much of the juicy info about him will remain classified until 2018 (100 years from the end of the Great War). Let me check what is permissible to include on Wiki and revert. L'honorable —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Légion d'honneur does not confer automatic notability. Although the order is France's highest honour, the lower levels are extremely common, equating to no more than an MBE or low-level bravery decoration in British terms. Many were awarded to British officers in WWI. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise how urgent it is to get permission of Major Loxley's WWI exploits so as to satisfy above? Awaiting clearance for Loxley's military service to be published in addition to http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9750072 (as mentioned on another page not many people have write-ups about them in the National Archives). Many thanks. L'honorable 01:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there are thousands of officers' service records in the National Archives. Purely routine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I closed this discussion with a delete result for the article, but have restored the article and reopened this discussion, per discourse at my talk page (diff). North America1000 08:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reply to the last question from L'honorable (talk · contribs), it is not at all urgent to view his Naval records, it will almost certainly make no difference. They are highly unlikely to reveal anything notable, any more than do the military records of most servicemen. Also, the National Archive record you refer to appears to be a single sheet, probably a standard form maintained for every serviceman with the Navy, and as such it would contain nothing to support his notability. So this is just a non-issue here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steelpillow: not much is known about Major Loxley publicly for the very good reason that his role in the First World War was highly secretive. It is beyond doubt that he was a notable WWI military officer; I, and others, will be in a position to disclose more info once the time bar about his military activities is lifted. Loxley's achievements are worth wider appreciation, but not worth getting into difficulties with the authorities. You seem thoroughly opposed to this pioneering British aviator of WWI, who later worked for the UN, appearing on Wiki's pages & I don't know why - perhaps because he was nominally based in Paris (or you simply don't know anything about him)? Can't think of any other reasons. Cheers, L'honorable (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      LOL. That is some of the most absurd paranoia I have met in a long time. More to the point here, you challenge my WP:GOODFAITH. No, I have no knowledge of him. My opposition is based solely on the encyclopedic need for WP:VERIFICATION, which cannot be met unless your claims can be verified by an independent account of his exploits. If he is as notable a spy as you suggest, then I am sure that such an account will eventually be told. Until then, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Once deleted, it can always be recreated again when the time is right. I am sorry that you must wait so long, but that is Wikipedia's way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say other than that I bow to your superior judgement (& look at the reference notes)? Au revoir, L'honorable (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I am bowing out of this discussion since the tone of this commentary is becoming highly patronising... (eg. LOL)
  • Keep. Borderline, but I think the AFC and four foreign decorations push him over the notability bar. That is quite an unusual haul for a mid-ranking officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that a fistful of medals is notable in its own right, they are all run-of-the-mill and plenty of old campaigners had similar collections. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gbawden: noting that you initially tabled this article for deletion, I trust you don't mind my highlighting its being relisted today? Presuming that it is not my place to participate in such deliberations, after subsequent review (since the deletion notice) I compared Major Gerald Loxley's WWI and later UN service with those of others already included in Wikipedia's pages qv: Category:Royal Air Force officers & Category:Royal Naval Air Service aviators and fail to see how Loxley is in any way less notable than many included in these pages. Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I should hope there will be a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, but how can this be achieved?
PPS. qv: Syria-Cilicia Commemorative Medal article - please advise - Major Loxley did not have two clasps so the only image available on Wikipedia is an incorrect representation (perhaps it should be taken down?) L'honorable (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a correct image of this medal for Wikipedia's use. L'honorable (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, answer was there all along. Thanks, Necrothesp! (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after having a tidy up of the article and a search for better references I have to come to the conclusion that the supported facts dont really support notability, only the Legion d'honneur is supported by a reference most of the article is puffed out by what is non-relevant family history type stuff, I cant find any evidence that he was a pilot (certainly didnt have a RAeC licence) or was awarded an AFC. Just another British officer who did some good stuff but we have no evidence of the notability bar being passed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am frankly amazed by the amount of discussion that has emanated from my creation of this article about Gerald Loxley. I have been going through other articles of RAF & RNAS pilots/aviators and unless I am thoroughly mistaken his bio is as, if not more, worthy than many of them. I should hope that Wikipedia likes to be consistent in its approach & not because once one or two folk decree to see articles damned for no other reason than it is difficult, sometimes, to change one's mind. I am wading through a list of Grandees of Spain at the moment, and even though I know a great deal about the subject I am having difficulty in understanding some (you might say, many) of the edits made on this subject. Could somebody tell me what is wrong with Major Gerald Loxley as compared with other RAF officers on Wikipedia? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • & whilst this experience has been illuminating, should any doubts remain, please do not hesitate to ask at L'honorable (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC) and I trust you can see your way to removing the article for deletion tag before too much further energy is expended?[reply]
      WP:OTHER is not an argument in its own right. It may well be that articles on some other airmen also need deleting. What is important with the present article is whether it meets the criteria at WP:PERSON and WP:MILPEOPLE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      But you are right that we sometimes make inexplicable or downright bad edits, we are all guilty of that at one time or another. I think you were just unlucky to pick such a borderline case for one of your first articles and I do hope you will not hold it against us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelpillow: your message above is appreciated; I certainly won't hold the fact that Wikipedia applies such scrutiny against anyone! Having reviewed Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would seem to me that Loxley more than qualifies, not least on account of being director of surveillance aircraft production at Paris (1916-18). I also note that Gbawden launched a somewhat partisan appeal for comment among Wikipedians: "Can Milhistorians please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Loxley?" Is this the best way for Wikipedians to petition to get their way? Thank you again for your helpful comments, and I trust you may be able to view Loxley's inclusion on Wikipedia favourably. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Loxley interest will no doubt extend beyond military to social history, Europe in the early 20c, etc..., but let's get over this hurdle first - many thanks
May not be notable but "director of surveillance aircraft production at Paris (1916-18)" is not something in the article and we can only work on what we can see, we cant base discusssion on unknown attributes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
L'honorable Do not mistake a request for additional input into this discussion as a partisan attempt to get rid of this article. Nothing in my request on the MILHIST page indicated any bias. Having said that I still think this person fails GNG and is not notable but we are scrabbling for reasons to keep it. Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden: much appreciate your being in touch and for endeavouring to keep this article. What is GNG by the way? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is Wikipdedia's general notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, often linked to using the shorthand WP:GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Necrothesp's final view that Loxley's decorations signify considerable if unobtrusive notability. Such unobtrusiveness was only to be expected of someone successfully engaged in military intelligence. But his military decorations, reflecting this success, speak for themselves. Ammochostos Ammochostos (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that with the references provided here and in the article, that this person does meet WP:GNG, if barely - there are many primary/non-reliable sources to wade through here unfortunately. I think one of the confusing parts of all of this is that the article suffers from quite a bit of WP:OR. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is convincing enough to keep at best. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are aware that we have no reliable references that he was awarded anything other than the Legion d'honneur and the Order of the Crown of Italy. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @MilborneOne: I am beginning to think that I am wasting my time here - you have reworded the Loxley article making it read incorrectly. I have now amended it to read correctly again, ie. he did not receive the Order of the Crown of Italy in 1919 - he received it in 1916. This tag for deletion is a major put off for anyone wishing to add anything sensible to the article, particularly since so much argument has ensued - only seasoned Wikipedians know the significance of this tag & to me it looks pretty serious. Major Loxley's endeavours relate to Spain as well - there was much to keep an eye on in that country during the First World War - he was also fluent in French as somebody blandly noted above (but didn't care to point out its significance). Loxley was very much a pioneer in military intelligence which involved him in flying the planes - they weren't big enough to have crews in those days. Also someone I think you has gone to the trouble of deleting many of his military decorations (including the Imperial War Museum website entry - citing it as being a blog!), which can I only presume to be some sort of attempt to dumb down his article thereby reducing the likelihood of Loxley as being regarded as notable. So concerned am I about some Wikipedians' apparent disregard for British WWI veterans that I have had the privilege of being allowed by a member of his family to take a photo of his baptismal bible & a family photograph which I have now uploaded for the benefit of Wikipedia. It should go without saying that there should be no more messing around with this entry, such as deleting Loxley's being a recipient of the French and Belgian Croix de guerre (he had many more decorations for your information), and a decision should be made promptly as to whether or not it should be kept. I suggest keep. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      PS. This whole process started out with Gbawden falsely stating Loxley couldn't be found in Burke's Peerage & Baronetage - when will it stop?
The main problem is you keep bringing out information that is not supported by the references and not mentioned in the article, clearly if you have sources that support what you have said on this it could swing the argument. I removed the "IWM" reference as it is actually a family history blog that was being used to support the AFC, it is user provided content so is not official and not reliable, if he did in fact have an AFC why is it not mentioned in the London Gazette? The other awards are not supported by references either which is why they are removed. You clearly have a source for this information, if it is reliable then just add it to the the article, I would suggest that some of this discussion is best taken up on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding Loxley did not return to the UK until a couple of years after the Great War being awarded his gongs by Special Dispensation (since he was abroad). HMG no doubt didn't necessarily want to highlight his military activities overseas, and I see no need for yet another layer of bureaucracy by way of a Talk page, which you have set up. What will this achieve? Also it would appear that the Imperial War Museum website is regulated by an IWM curator, namely Charlotte Czyzyk: qv. https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/ . If Major Loxley is not of sufficient note in your opinion so be it - I really had not anticipated getting so bogged down with this so please make a decision - much appreciated. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is where discussion not related to deletion should happen not here, His notability for an article must be based opn reliable sourced facts, we cant make a decision on what we can not see or prove. The decision to delete will be taken by a somebody else not involved in the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - there is/was/has been clearly plenty of info about Major Loxley (both present and deleted) which can enable an independent arbitrator in the decision-making process, so unless you have other plans I suggest we leave the arbitrator to it. By the way, I trust "we can't make a decision" refers to the collective "we", ie. an abstract concept of all Wikipedians together ..... "the decision to delete" statement also smacks of some degree of certainty on your part of its being deleted (unless you meant to say "decision to delete or not")? Or, are you judge, jury and..? It's all getting a bit much - there will surely be thousands and thousands of articles on Wikipedia worthy of deletion if Loxley is deemed unnotable. ¡Que pasa! L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Gerald Loxley @MilborneOne: you still carry on - I've already explained it, except I suppose your only saving grace is that the wording keeps getting mangled. 1. he flew airplanes; 2. he was spotted for aerial reconnaissance; 3. he still flew airplanes (for reconnaissance); 4. this is the bit you keep protesting about.... However, I still fail to understand what your problem is with this article? Why oh why set up yet another layer of chat show - nothing useful will come out of it. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not least to free MilborneOne for more Wiki-useful missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks![reply]

@MilborneOne: so as to save wasting a lot more time: what is your preference? Delete / Keep ? Many thanks L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already declared one way or the other further up the page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which way? L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. quoting your "Comment just to note that his RAF Officer's service record says very little, temporary lieutenant in the RNVR in March 1915, Lieutenant Commander RNVR December 1916, mention he worked at the Ministry of Munitions in Paris, had two hospital visits August 1919 and November 1919, spoke French and Spanish, demobbed January 1920. Nothing remarkable, no mention of an AFC only the Legion d'honneur. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)"
Please could we bring an end to this childish contre-temps? By now if you have not got a handle on who Loxley was & what he did for the war effort (qv. "nothing remarkable"!) then I cannot see what will ever satisfy you. L'honorable (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to end it is to stop rising to the bait. Just don't reply. Whoever makes the final judgement will not be a child but will make up their own mind as to whose points are the more valid - whoever had the last word is not going to impress anybody. (and I stand by that even if it's me). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 29 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 as this seems clear enough and continuing it is unlikely to clarify any better, it's worth noting that degree-awarding schools are notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad[edit]

People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable private college. Article is purely promotional, created by someone with a COI. Harry Let us have speaks 08:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The above is by the article's creator. The link provided does not mention Kannur University. Even if it did, this Institute is not notable and the article appears to have been created simply to promote a commercial organisation. Wikipedia is not a directory of organisations. Harry Let us have speaks 09:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kannur University doesn't give the name of the university in it's sub pages. It is strange. --Prof TPMS (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that we are dealing with: "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." It is being claimed that this is a department of Kannur University and there is no indication that it has made any significant contributions in its field. What we have is a bare bones directory entry which at the very least should be merged with the University's article. Harry Let us have speaks 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AusLondonder, please review your !vote, as the consensus you are citing does not appear to apply to this page, per Harry's comment above. Thanks. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kannur University. I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be a non-notable subunit or department of a university. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification from the author: Kannur University has its own departments in different parts of Kannur and Kasaragod. In addition, they also have affiliated colleges in these areas. People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad is a duly affiliated college of Kannur University and the fact is clearly mentioned in the website of the University which is given as a reference in the page. The college is certainly new but not very new:it is already six years old. It is a very notable organization because it is an MBA college and the infrastructure requirements and other conditions for MBA colleges is quite extensive in the Kannur University jurisdiction, as far as I can understand.
  • Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. In India there are thousands of colleges affiliated to large universities; these are, however, independent institutions, not sub-units of those universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This is an independent college, NOT a sub-unit or a department of Kannur University. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please make arguments based on guidelines and policies, rather than outcomes.  Sandstein  19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Outcomes reflect consensus. And consensus drives AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:13, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Caforio[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article subject is a congressional candidate who has never held elective office and who fails to meet WP:GNG apart from political candidacy. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete Completely disagree with deleting. The decision was already made that this article meets the notability criteria. Caforio is not a candidate for a minor position in an small city, but rather a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in a hotly contested election year. His candidacy is being covered by the L.A. Times. Removing the article would be viewed as politically motivated and a form of censorship. In addition, Caforio is notable for being a U.S. collegiate mock trial champion, not once but twice. KentSteelman (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see point #3 under WP:POLITICIAN, which states: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." It looks to me like the only significant coverage Caforio has received is in regards to his congressional candidacy, which would fail WP:POLITICIAN. I don't think the mock trial championship, covered only in the college newspaper The Daily Bruin, is enough to pass notability requirements. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "The decision was already made that this article meets the notability criteria" you mean the edit where I deleted the speedy deletion notice, no, that's not a determination that the article is sufficiently notable. It was just my finding that the article did not meet the requirements for the WP:SPEEDY deletion process, which
  1. merely requires a claim of significance, which is a lower bar than the notability standard;
  2. is just the opinion of one editor (me), and doesn't override a consensus that may form. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016#District 25. I find it odd that this candidate isn't presently mentioned there. I also agree with Champaign Supernova that the individual does not presently meet GNG. He may or may not ever reach that level, hence the redirect to the relevant section of the election article as he has had some coverage in the context of his campaign and is a reasonable search term. This is neither "politically motivated" nor "a form of censorship." I've created redirects for several 2016 candidates who don't presently meet GNG (Jimmy Panetta is one redirected to this page). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand what Muboshgu is talking about. Here's what I just saw on United States House of Representatives elections, 2016:

Steve Knight (Republican)[134] Bryan Caforio (Democratic)[135] Jeffrey Moffatt (Republican)[136] Lou Vince (Democratic)[137]

In addition, notability is clear from the fact that the Los Angeles Times has followed his candidacy and references in the article are from that newspaper" 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'. Given that there is no agreement here, the article should stay.

KentSteelman (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the page I linked: United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016, where he isn't mentioned at all. Notability is not "clear" as the LA Times has mentioned him, but I do not agree that they've given him "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Local media have an obligation to cover local elections taking place in their own local coverage area, so coverage of a candidate in that context falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot confer the passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as indicated by Muboshgu, per WP:BLP1E. His candidacy is getting coverage, but basically in the local press (LA Times is local to his candidacy). Mock trial coverage shown is just his own school's paper; the championship was not for him but for the team. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think its time we changed the rule, and allowed that in a two party system the candidate of each party for national office is sufficiently notable. But I would be much more skeptical of candidates who have not yet won their party's nomination,as is the case here. They don't become of more than local interest until they do win the primary, for only then is it clear that their election might change the balance of power in the legislature. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What DGG proposes couldn't apply exactly in this case, as there are not party nominations, per se. California uses a Top Two system - the top two vote getters from the primary, regardless of party, go to the general election. This means that the final race can be two members of the same party. Parties are specifically barred from "nominating" anyone, although they can endorse a candidate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteMuboshgu (talk) Really, if you had looked at that section you would have seen that the last time United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016 for the 25th district was updated was in mid-year 2015, and you know from the article about Caforio that he declared his candidacy at the end of 2015, as clearly documented in the Los Angeles Times (an internationally recognized newspaper, not a "local" rag.) It would have taken less time to update it than to write about how "odd" it is here. I just updated the site with the info about Caforio entering the race and Gutzeit withdrawing from the race, and it took me 2 minutes.
Referring to the Los Angeles Times as a "local" reference is misguided. The LA Times is, according to Wikipedia the 4th largest US newspaper by circulation and therefore represents the "significant coverage":
Rank # 4 Los Angeles Times Los Angeles California circulation: 653,868 Tribune Publishing
There is absolutely no pressing need to delete the Caforio article now. We have a disagreement, and it therefore should not be deleted, particularly since the article is very well referenced. The California primary takes place June 7th, less than three months from now. I suggest everyone just follow good Wikipedia advice, back away and breathe deeply until then. No hurry. KentSteelman (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the Times has a wide circulation, it is LA based and is expected to cover local elections just like any other paper; the district the campaign is for is in good part within Los Angeles county. This is not indicative of import the way that a similar-sized paper not local to the election (say, The Chicago Tribune) offering a couple-dozen sentences on his candidacy would be. --13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing you have said has changed my !vote, because nothing you've said has argued that he has received "significant" coverage. One piece in the local newspaper, no matter how big that paper is, is not significant coverage. Another example: Josh Gottheimer is a candidate for Congress this cycle, and I created his article this cycle. A previous version was deleted in 2014 despite having a reference from The New York Times. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As yet unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy (e.g. having preexisting notability as a writer, an athlete, an actor, etc.), then he has to win the election, not just run for it, to qualify for a Wikipedia article. And local media covering the campaign does not get him over the bar, because local media have an obligation to cover local politics — so such coverage is merely routine and cannot confer notability. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as he's still questionable for the applicable politicians notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete candidates for the United States house are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - under the current guidelines, does not pass notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Caforio is notable for his U.S. mock trial championships and All-American status alone. Just because the references to his mock trial leadership and wins so far are local newspapers, it doesn't mean that wasn't covered elsewhere, and Wikipedia guidelines say such an article should be allotted time to provide more references, not be deleted. Caforio was also highlighted in the New York Times today more as a spokesman for the people affected by the disaster caused of the Aliso Canyon gas leak. I can imagine SoCal Gas (see: Southern California Gas Company) would love to have the article about Caforio deleted, but let's not. Bruriyah (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No guideline on Wikipedia says a U.S. mock trial championship or status as an "All-American" mock trial lawyer grants notability. A lack of sources on this person suggests why that is the case. You have to show us where it was covered, because it doesn't seem to have been covered anywhere else. Regarding the NYT story you mention, he seems like a bit player in a story on a different subject. It's not in depth coverage of him. I can imagine SoCal Gas couldn't care less about whether or not Caforio has a Wikipedia article. It's not a factor here because Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 31 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. --Kinu t/c 04:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Tomson[edit]

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

Not many citations of his works (collaborations), and little other coverage found of either himself or his company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A number of sources have been added to the article, but most of them are connected to Tomson, press releases, or simply "Ross Tomson said" attributions in a discussion of something else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment Article was added to add clarity to who Ross Tomson is and his current career and overall biography as he has started to become a figure in Houston business and through that and his dealings is thereby notable. Article is heavily cited and well verified by independent sources that verify what is written to be factually accurate.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are numerous citations to articles written by others about Ross Tomson and his companies. See the following citations: Houston Business Journal citation, Rice News citation, Offshore Magazine citation, Energy.gov citation, and the Texas Bar citations -- all of which are independent sources not tied to Tomson, but written about him or his companies. Tomsontech (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review these. I pretty much covered them in my first comment, above.
  • Rice: A single sentence out of an entire article, "The Rice team is working with project leader Brine Chemistry Solutions LLC, a Houston company founded by Tomson’s son, Rice alumnus Ross Tomson" isn't substantial coverage of Ross Tomson. Nor, when this Rice project is written about on Rice's own website, is it independent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rice: User should understand that this project was a joint Rice University Brine Chemistry Solutions project. The cited source is about Ross Tomson's wholly owned company - Brine Chemistry Solutions and is referenced to show the collaboration between Rice University and Brine Chemistry Solutions, as this was done under Ross Tomson's direct supervision and part of his leadership of the company.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, it says a lot about Brine Chemistry Solutions. It says nothing about Ross Tomson. And it's Rice talking about Rice's own project. Not independent. A similar example: an actor may be profiled on the websites of numerous theaters in connection with shows at those theaters in which the actor is performing. These profiles aren't independent coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It in fact mentions Ross Tomson by name. It is also talking about a US DOE project that is partly being performed at Rice, not Rice's own project. Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've begun repeatedly bringing up points I've already addressed. In this case, it was above, when I wrote that a mention by name "isn't substantial coverage" of the person whose name it is. And it is about activity going on at Rice. It isn't arms-length coverage of a person with whom Rice has no involvement. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offshore: This is an example of one of the scenarios I already noted. He is merely being quoted. Though the article is about his company, it isn't about him. (Notability is generally not considered to be inherited.)
  • Offshore: As should be clear by the article on Ross Tomson, his companies and Ross Tomson are intertwined because the company the wholly owned (and founded) by Ross Tomson and thereby this article discusses activities that Ross Tomson was engaged in through his company Brine Chemistry Solutions. What makes Ross Tomson notable is the fact that he has started this company that works on numerous projects like this one, which garner support from the media including this which was by Rice's media. In addition, this has nothing to do with inherited notability. Suggest a detailed read of the citation. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Energy.gov: This can hardly be considered significant coverage of him when neither his first nor last name appears on the page.
  • Energy.gov: Again this user fails to see that this coverage is directly about Ross Tomson's company - Brine Chemistry Solutions (now part of Tomson Technologies) and this project was directly overseen by Ross Tomson himself. I suggest edits to the Ross Tomson page to make direct involvement more obvious to the casual reader. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my previous reply. Also, it's the page on Energy.gov that someone would have to update to talk at length about Ross Tomson himself, for it to serve as a source for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas Bar Association: It's a routine database listing that, at best, verifies that he's a lawyer. It isn't "coverage", per se. No contribution to a finding of notability, any more than being listed in the phonebook is.
  • Texas Bar Association: Yes, that's the point of this citation, to verify that part of the Ross Tomson article.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine that it's serving that role, verification, in the article. But you brought it up to me in the context of this discussion of his notability. And I'm responding to that by explaining that it has no role in assessing this person's notability.
Of all these, the Houston Business Journal is the only one that comes close. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Houston Business Journal: This unsolicited article about Ross Tomson verifies the notability of Ross Tomson and factually verifies parts of the Ross Tomson article. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. This article is written about Ross Tomson is meets all the guidelines for notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to the citations above verifying factual information throughout the article, Tomson's journal publications have 10 citation from other publications and are themselves valid citations not originated by Tomson. Tomsontech (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another citation to an outside written source was added, supporting the Ross Tomson page. Please see citation to Materials & Performance magazine - August 2013. Tomsontech (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let username Tomsontech (name change request pending to be in line with wikipedia guidelines) know how to best prevent deletion of the page and also allow for review / verification of the contents of the page.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namechange successful. Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Getting outside of a few counterpoints from above, it's clear that while there are some citations that may be useful for verification of this page, there are some that clearly show notability at a level to satisfy the Wikipedia standards and thereby this deletion request should be removed and the page allowed to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxglove2016 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears well-written and, despite the conflict of interest (user Tompsontech writing an article about the founder of Tompson Technologies), appears to have been written from a relatively neutral point of view. My biggest concerns are the question of notability, the unsourced nature of some of the biographical information, the fact that most of the references are self-published, and the aforementioned conflict of interest. The latter especially leads me to believe the intent behind this article was self-promotion.

Regarding the question of notability, while there are a handful of secondary sources to support the subject's importance, I don't know that the coverage necessarily qualifies as "significant," per the notability guidelines for people. As such, I second Largo Plazo's nomination for deletion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks Erick Shepherd, however please consider this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics. This subject matter is clearly, among other things, an academic (scientist and researcher) having over a dozen journal articles published. This of course gives a different threshold for notability as per the article referenced. It would appear that he falls within a few different categories of people as per the notability article and on the whole appears to pass this notability test for people. In addition, may I suggest that some edits perhaps are necessary to address your biggest concern of the biographical information -- if that is the area you identify, perhaps removal of those non-referenced parts should be removed without deletion of the page.Foxglove2016 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the notability guidelines for academics, "having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." His publications do not in themselves contribute to his notability unless they have had significant impact in their respective fields. That isn't to say that they have not, but there is little yet in the references to indicate that they have, and so the question of whether notability has been established is still somewhat unclear.
With regards to the biographical information, I don't think that their presence or removal would impact the outcome of the deletion proposal since the challenge initially posed was one of notability. However, should the proposal result in the article being kept, removal of the content in question or relevant citation to support it would be warranted in order to keep the article encyclopedic. If that is the verdict, I will be happy to help implement those edits. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the aforementioned issues. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Someone has gone to an awful lot of trouble to cobble together a long set of laregely weak and irrelevant and references that as a while fail to establish any kind of real-world notability for this individual.
  • Delete. There is nothing here that wouldn't be better in a LinkedIn profile, but really, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aniela Majewski[edit]

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

Simply receiving a patent does not alone confer notability. Sources on the page include a blog post and a link to the historical patent. The trivial mentions online don't seem to suggest anything notable about her. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete- As said in the nomination, there are not enough contributions which make Aniela Majewski notable. Fails general notability.Nik.gourley (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say, if deleted, leave a redirect to Sanitary napkin. But I say she isn't mentioned there at all, which is not encouraging. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing better and this current article is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Getting a patent does not make someone notable, or even show that the product was ever actually made. Total lack of secondary sources to show anything appraoching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 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) 02:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scarselli diamonds[edit]

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

Notability here is very minor, and limited essentially to a) they have occasionally sold very large diamonds, and b) they were interviewed by CBS news for a fluff piece: "wow, that's a big diamond".

The article in its initial state was nauseatingly promotional. Once the advertising speak was cut out, what is left is really not much beyond a company listing. Does not meet WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find any significant coverage about the company. There are a few mentions, mostly trivial. The article itself is too promotional. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. OR, POV, not notable, unencyclopaedic tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality architecture[edit]

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

I would nominate this for speedy deletion if I felt it fit any of the categories. This is clearly a paper with very notable OR and POV writing and is not notable. JDDJS (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Copyright infringement. Per Earwig much of this article is copied word for word from several sources. — Maile (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - yes, this appears to be a copyvio. It is written in what we'd consider to be an essay-like way, all WP:OR and WP:POV, and it has the hallmarks of a copy-and-paste straight into the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - this does appear to be copyright violation. It is apparently a term used to refer a sub-field of architecture, but not sure if it's a notable area for its own article. Given the copyright issue, that question must be left for another day. Chris vLS (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge as this seems clear enough to close and history is still archived so it's mergeable if needed later (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Waring Darwin (infant)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, notability mostly derived from his father The Banner talk 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found a chapter of this book (published by Oxford University Press) dedicated to the subject. Mhhossein (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The relevance to Darwin's writings is notable. Could it be merged with Darwin's page? Chris vLS (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources. Also, the article potentially covers the coincidences and connections between the infant being born and dying at Down House, the infant being son of Charles Darwin who described evolution (requires genetics), the child's Down syndrome being a genetic disease, and the Down for whom Down's syndrome is named being a relative, John Langdon Down (one of whose sisters married into the Darwin family). That Charles Darwin had this son, and that it affected his thinking about evolution, is highly significant. And that Darwin himself advised against consanguinity (e.g. marrying a first cousin, as he had done), based on his developed knowledge of genetics/evolution and his having had this son. It would burden the very important Charles Darwin article to go into these conspiracy-theory-like relationships. --doncram 16:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Longish quote from Steensma source:

Much later, Charles Darwin Sr—ever attentive to the workings of biological principles in his own family—worried about to what extent the fact that he and Emma were first cousins had predisposed his deceased children to their illnesses. He publicly advocated collecting such data as part of the British National Census for 1871, a suggestion that was rejected because of concerns over privacy.1(p230) There was growing awareness in the late 19th century that “inbreeding” contributed to the development of certain ailments. Darwin had proposed natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, but he had no mechanistic insights into the potential problems of consanguinity, because the rediscovery of Mendel's work had not yet occurred and there was no clear concept of genetics. If Annie Darwin died of tuberculosis and Charles Waring had Down syndrome, these illnesses indeed started “at home,” but not for the reasons Darwin envisioned. There is no evidence that consanguineous partnerships predispose to either condition.

The tremendous advances in cellular and molecular biology in the century and a half since the publication of Origin of Species have highlighted the analogy between the development of cancer clones and the evolution of new species. Only very recently has it been demonstrated that one of the clearest examples involves GATA1 mutations arising in infants with the very illness that likely afflicted the great naturalist's youngest son. What would Darwin have thought?

I think this is worth explicating in the encyclopedia and the appropriate place is this separate article. --doncram 17:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what did baby Darwin do to reach notability? As far as I know, notability is not inherited but this article derives its notability from daddy Charles Darwin. The Banner talk 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As not being notable on his own. It's interesting, though. MelanieLamont (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the mite deserves a paragraph and a redirect, but not an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Redirect per ChiswickChap. Blythwood (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olja Hrustic[edit]

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

Non-notable actress: lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER, simply background characters. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can not agree that she is non-notable actress. I think that the IMDB and the Playbillvault are appropriate and reliable sources. The fact that she has played leading and supporting roles in more than 20 movies and shows is additional reference, which proves that this actress has significant career. I ask you to reconsider your stances. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet of Lesko11. Mike V • Talk 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, this article has all necessary references in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I highlight the IMDB as one of the most relevant sites related to the World filmography. It is clear that the Wikipedia`s mission is to increase its database with new articles, which have to be covered with appropriate sources. I appreciate the effort of administrators and contributors who daily patrol new articles, but I also appreciate the work of those who created mentioned article. So, my suggestion is: do not delete. Regards, NatasaGav — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatasaGav (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — NatasaGav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I present you another reference for mentioned article. It is the Playbill magazine, edition from 2012. On this link you can check it: Olja Hrustic. When you click on "Inside the Playbill" you can read some details from actress` biography. Since the Playbil is a well renowned magazine I suggest you once again to keep this article. Also, via broadway.com you can witness that she used to play in The best man by Gore Vidal. By the way, I still think that the IMDB is well reliable source, since their staff are checking accuracy of editing, similar as on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2016
  • IMDb is not a reliable source. The Playbill and Broadway.com sources do not represent significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has had some prominent roles in feature films, a third and a fourth billing and a lot of tv one-episode billings, am looking for better refs. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but in Wikipedia`s article related to the citing IMDb is not stated that IMDb is not a reliable source. There are questions regarding the appropriate and inappropriate uses, but it is an issue for another debate. However, if citing IMDb is not reliable, then we have a problem with a plenty of articles related to living persons from the film industry. I will not point on any of them, but many of articles provide coverage only from IMDb or some tabloids. On the other hand, I cannot agree that The Playbill magazine is not independent reliable source. Since this article provides objective information, I believe that Wikipedia policy is not violated at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After seven days of a constructive discussion, I have the same stance: this article should be on Wikipedia. I am sure that the Playbill magazine is a reliable source. Also, citing IMDb is not inappropriate. Once again, the information on this article is general and objective. The actress is relatively renowned in the US independent film industry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've un-bolded your second !vote, and struck your third. You only get one !vote per discussion here, although you are welcome to continue to contribute to the discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Playbill does not contain significant coverage of the subject. IMDb should only by used to cite writing credits marked "WGA" and MPAA ratings reasons supplied by the MPAA.WP:Citing IMDb IMDb contains user-generated content. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has been in many notable films. She has plenty of references from reliable sources. I see no reason why she would be considered non-notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited. What sources are those? — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet the notability standard for persons nor that for entertainers. Insufficent coverage in reliable third party sources. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Uncle Milty, I understood. Talking about her education, the William Esper Studio is quite notable among the schools of performing arts. During her career, she used to work with John Larroquette and Michael Wilson, Robert Rodriguez, Rob Zombie, Maria Beatty etc. There is a lot of references which confirm that cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Her credits aren't significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within the Notability (people) article has been stated as follows: “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.“ It is obvious that her career meets this criteria. Honestly speaking, I do not know which measures you use for assessment whose credits are significant or not. The most important, we should insist on the same standards. I highlight that the independent film industry is much different from the Hollywood A production, thus the notability of actors/ actress varies. We could discuss all day long which production is more artistic, but the point is that both of them should be represented on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice, due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of bit parts ("Blues girl","student","Russian girlfriend") don't come close to establishing WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 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 Straight Line Stitch. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight of Our Lives[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. XXN, 15:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
alts:
(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)
  • Keep because while a redirect might serve, BEFORE seems to show this album as getting enough genre attention to meet WP:NALBUMS. IE: [1] and [2] for instance. Jus' sayin. And while nice were it done, WP:NEXIST does not mandate the thing be sourced just that is eventually sourcable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The two reviews given by MichaelQSchmidt don't constitute substantial coverage in significant sources. The king of the sun (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as there's still nothing for a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the clear consensus here is that notability is lacking. If anyone's interested in working on it, will be happy to move to userspace or a draft, just ask. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Earth Ghana[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches found nothing better and I should note I myself patrolled this at NPP, keeping to mind plans to deletion since it seemed questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable about the organisation. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete why is this not notable to you? for Ghanaians this is an interesting topic since the organisation is the biggest (i believe) environmental organisation in their country. you would not delete the article of greepeace USA, so why this one?. —User:macsbetter
    • That is a misunderstanding of what "notable" means on Wikipedia, macsbetter. Essentially, it refers to the coverage of a subject in reliable, independent sources. Greenpeace is the subject of that coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakKeep - based on a quick search, I have found some sources that might be considered to establish notability. See, for example, this book chapter, some newspaper coverage, and some agency coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Some" press coverage, yes, but substantial coverage, no. And "for Ghanaians this is an interesting topic" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The king of the sun (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The recommendations to delete seem to be ignoring alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting to Friends of the Earth. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy because the author, who is new to Wikipedia, appears committed to trying to improve it, and because although the organization is not obviously notable, neither is it obviously non-notable. As Ghana's first environmental NGO (established in 1986) it makes a reasonable claim to significance. I'm impressed that it drew several paragraphs in the Chicago Tribune 30 years ago.[3] There is international coverage throughout the 1990s and 2000s relating to its position on logging, mining, oil and gas development, and geneticially modified crops; and there is continuing local coverage, such as [4] and [5] (the text portion of which is only part of the introduction to the audio). More time is needed to properly search the period and assess the aggregate depth of the sources found. Even if that determines that this is not a viable stand-alone topic, material from the research and the userfied article could be used to significantly improve Friends of the Earth, Forestry in Ghana, and related articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article clearly needs lots of work, but that could be a good alternative to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - Current article does not warrant keeping, but Worldbruce's assessment is spot on. Onel5969 TT me 13:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I am impressed with the Chicago Tribune coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Havdalah.com[edit]

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

Was prodded by User:DGG but then deprodded by User:Kvng; I agree with DGG so I'm bringing it to AfD. There's no indication of notability at all. Having thousands of viewers is maybe a credible claim of significance (which is why I'm not speedy deleting), but it's not even close to being a sufficient indicator of notability, and there's no other claim of notability in the article. IagoQnsi (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Could not find any additional sources to establish notability. The one cited in the article ([6]) does seem workable so if someone finds another, I could be convinced to change my !vote. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. there are a number of such websites. There is no evidence that this particular one is significant. the only material I can find is he same as cited just above, and it is merely an announcement that it is going to be started. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability, best deleted for now restarted when better is available. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only thing noteworthy about the site is its creator. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 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) 02:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Anderson[edit]

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

Seems like an obvious case of one event. Subject is only known because he deserted, a subject covered by List of Iraq War resisters. Bonewah (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kal & Ada volleycup[edit]

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

No RS source. Greek Legend (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now - Needs sourcing rather than deletion. A quick search indicates that there is quite a bit of interest in this subject, although nearly all of it is in Swedish. perhaps it is suitable for Swedish wikipedia, but in light of the comments of others, I've decided to change my !vote to Delete.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think, Sports related articles are given leniency in Wikipedia. They will not pass general notability guidelines, still they will be kept. Even Swedish name search has no news --Greek Legend (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because niche sport articles are still useful for the people who are in that sport, even if that isn't that many people.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying anything about this topic only, I have seen that few sports articles are unsourced and there is no Google news result. Even though wikipedians talks about WP:GNG, in case of sports related clubs, teams and tournaments this WP:GNG policy is not followed. Greek Legend (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specific guidance on notability for sporting subjects is at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the guidelines for sporting persons, sporting events are not really covered there.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for now. If there are no references, it should be moved out of article space into user space to allow the user to add sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, and it's claim to be "one of Sweden's biggest senior volleyball tournaments" is not enough. I guess userfy would be okay, but I'm not convinced it'll ever be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move to Draft instead as this is not yet acceptable with its current state and could be salvaged aside if needed for further work. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG. If someone wants to take over the article, wouldn't be against moving it to draft space.Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 31 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) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Cummings[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; Google offers nothing. —swpbT 16:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the user's contribution history, it seems to be a single purpose account. I suspect possible self-promotion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced BLP lacking notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's simply nothing imaginable for better notability, best deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of proper notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Meatsgains FiendYT ★ 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the aforementioned question of notability. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 28 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) 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CandyFlip (film)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. Unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources, except the sole link cited as reference. utcursch | talk 15:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In looking further:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
and through WP:INDAFD: "CandyFlip" "Shanawaz Nelikunnil" "Shanawaz NK" "Balasubramanyam TC" "Prashant Prakash" "Prakash Raj" "Kalki Koechlin" "Gulshan Devaiah" "Valeriya Polyanychko"
  • Keep. In not being dismissive, the TImes of India article is quite in-depth and informative about this completed film, and in looking further, we have other sources available with which this stub can be expanded and sourced. WP:NFis met. No need to delete what can be improved through regulasr editing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: Which "other sources" are you referring to? I performed an extensive search with both "CandyFlip" and "Candy Flip" before initiating this AfD. Ignoring random blogs (which are not WP:RS), I found exactly 4 news stories which mention this movie:
  1. The Times of India article linked above.
  2. [7] The article is about another topic, and contains a passing mention that the film is being shot.
  3. [8] An interview; contains exactly one line about the film: "There’s an indie called Candy Flip set in a shack in Goa that I’m also doing."
  4. [9] Another interview that contains only one line about the film: "Candyflip is also in the pipeline."
I don't think an unreleased indie film passes WP:GNG when there is exactly one news article (from 2014) that covers it substantially. utcursch | talk 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You offer no proof that it was not released, but then I admittedly do not have access to Hindi offline hardcopy news sources. And even if not-yet-released, we may then instead look to WP:NFF (paragraoh 3) and decide if the lengthy Times of India article speaks directly and in detail about the film. I feel it does. You feel it does not. Fine to disagree. And a note, blogs are not all automatically unusable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself says that the film is "currently in the post production phase". The only references available say it's not released. I understand that some blog posts can be acceptable sources, but I couldn't find any in this case. As for WP:NFF, here is a direct quote: "...should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I don't know of any notability guidelines that consider one news article as sufficient criteria. utcursch | talk 06:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, fine to disagree, but I find that the lengthy article in India's most major newspaper Times of India does speak specifically and in detail about the film's production... enough so to meet the WP:NFF (paragraph 3) guide about the film's production. Perhaps Indian editors with ability to search fr and offer online or hardcopy non-English sources will weigh in. WIth relistings, we'll have the time to wait. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps even if not confidently as the one article may be enough at best to source. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 27 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 as this is convincing enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money-rich, time-poor[edit]

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

unsourced article, might not be notable and could be a violation of WP:NEOLOGISM. Also seems like a wp:coatrack for discussing income and leisure time in general. Prisencolin (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this isn't a concept, like work-life balance. Mduvekot (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I did find this. GABHello! 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is poor, but the phrase is pretty certainly not a neologism, even in Wikipedia terms - it has been around (though often as "cash-rich" or "work-rich" rather than "money-rich") for over 25 years both as a marketing category and as an element of a sociological critique of modern society and consumerism (the earliest use I have found of the first is this from 1988, and of the second is this from 1990), and while treatments tend to be brief, they frequently take the trouble to explain the term and/or state why it is important in their more general discussions (see, for example, this, this, this and this). I am not entirely certain that the topic is best treated in a standalone article (it is part of a classification that would probably be best treated as a whole, and the classification itself is similar enough to several others that it might be better discussed in a wider context), but I can't currently find a suitable target for a redirect or where information from here would naturally slot into an exiting article - and the term does seem to be a valid search term for which we should be supplying at least some limited information on Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/ Merge - the article is poor quality, but the concept seems notable. It is one configuration of work-life balance, I would be happy for Money-rich, time-poor to be merged with that article - unless article was improved enough to be standalone. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always wondered what the term for this specific concept is, and why no article exists. Thankfully it does now. Hawaan12 (talk) 13:54, 23 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) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kye McGuire[edit]

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

This is an artist at the beginning of her career, with one award and a few group exhibitons. There are no solo shows and reviews of her work, which are the traditional indicator of artistic success. Does not come close to meeting WP:ARTIST. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the one award won was minor. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 28 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 as there are obviously no serious needs for deletion her (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India vs Pakistan in World Cup and World T20 matches[edit]

India vs Pakistan in World Cup and World T20 matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This statistics or other details about two teams in WT20 or CWC is never needed at all..If this continues then there will be bundle of articles relating any two teams and making its rivalry an important topic on Wikipedia GreenCricket (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:34, 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Super Stars' Bugs Bunny: Wascally Wabbit[edit]

Looney Tunes Super Stars' Bugs Bunny: Wascally Wabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable DVD compilation. Koala15 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Evaluating similar collections, using similar sources to verify their entry, indicates that there is no special reason to delete this particular one. A better case could be made to delete all of the articles on the "Looney Tunes Super Stars" set, but maybe I am being too harsh on the source quality.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 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 as this seems convincing enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HSOPA[edit]

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

Initialism from unofficial and uncommon name. --> WP:COMMONNAME Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is no mention of HSOPA in the article to which this redirects, however a bit of research shows that it stands for High Speed OFDM Packet Access, the original name for the redirect target E-UTRA, and High Speed Packet Access states "After HSPA Evolved, the roadmap leads to E-UTRA (Previously "HSOPA"), the technology specified in 3GPP Releases 8 and 10." This should definitely not be deleted. Meters (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Meters. As one can see from the Talk page archives, this is a redirect coming from an article move from "HSOPA" to "E-UTRA". The redirect should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:25, 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 } Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (website)[edit]

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

This is an "emerging" website which claims notability, but I was unable to find any independent sources, so it fails WP:WEB. GABHello! 20:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- I agree with the comments below, and now think this that is article should be kept. GABHello! 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it has received sufficient attention from independent sources (see the article's references section) to be considered notable. Another indicator of this notability are the ~2,2 million fans of its facebook page. --Fixuture (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Featured by multiple other notable sources, and quite high readership circulation on regular basis. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 23 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. Faryayal has been speedy deleted: CSD A1. Sufficient consensus that Ummarrayal should also be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faryayal[edit]

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

Alleged to be a new upcoming series of Mann Mayal but I am not seeing any evidence of existence. Either a hoax or WP:TOOSOON. Also nominating Ummarrayal for the same reason. SpinningSpark 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Faryayal has already been speedy deleted three times. Ummarrayal should be deleted as well. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax, and the creators edit history does not inspire any faith. JDDJS (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Faryayal has already been CSD'ed. But Ummarrayal still exists so this AfD should focus on that one from this point forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ummarrayal also as this is also currently questionable for a better notable article yet, delete for now and restart later if better is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 27 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) 22:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Gangwar[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:BIO. Unable to find any reliable sources that establish notability. The related article TechSkills Academy was recently deleted as well. utcursch | talk 18:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent notability established by coverage in independent reliable sources. Snow let's rap 03:39, 23 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) 22:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Steele[edit]

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

Voice actor whose only major role was young Krillin in the Dragon Ball series. That's about it. Other roles are way low on the supporting list including Case Closed (Jimmy's mother), Mariko in Witchblade which isn't even listed in the main article, Big Mama in Gangsta which isn't even listed in the main article. Alvida was relevant for One Piece's very first arc and is not considered a major character on List of One Piece characters. No significant appearances in the anime convention circuit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps at best as she's currently questionable for the actors notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 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) 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey A. Lustick[edit]

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

Non-notable person lacking significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:BIO, WP:GNG). Being the lawyer for a notable person does not automatically convey notability - even less so, being mentioned in passing in a local news article about a non-notable case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lacks non-trivial support. Minimal quotes and primary coverage only. Lacks in-depth coverage. Not even sure the cases are significant. reddogsix (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete. More edits have been made. I invite you all to give another critique. I have more to add with regard to Mr. Lustick's work as a sought-after legal analyst for TruTV/Court TV, etc. jjblackshear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjblackshear (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is full of facts and information that show that Lustick is relevant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz643 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Once more, lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he is mentioned in a wide range of sources, but mostly just as someone-or-other's attorney. No significant coverage to suggest that he is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he is still questionably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 27 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) 14:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S.B.Patil MBA Pune[edit]

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

No references. Can't seem to find evidence of notability on Google either [10] Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Insignificant college with no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly exists and is a degree-awarding institution,[11] which we always keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right, but isn't that page saying that this college is a part of the degree-awarding institution "SAVITRIBAI PHULE PUNE UNIVERSITY"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's saying it's affiliated to it. India has thousands of colleges that are affiliated to universities. But they are independent institutions, not actually part of the universities. And we generally keep them as long as we can prove they actually exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have we got an unambiguous RS that says that? Happy to withdraw this nom if that's the case (and thanks also for your work on the article, including the page move that makes it easier to try to find sources). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as if the college has degree-awarding status, it's certainly a keep. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

k*Keep. veery incomplete, but we should still follow he general practice, unless there's an article to merge to. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 27 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) 14:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heo Solji[edit]

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

Not independently notable outside of EXID/Dasoni. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC. Previous AfD discussion (closed as delete): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solji Donottroll (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She released several EPs and singles. and also she has became a champion of King of Mask Singer -- Kanghuitari (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Donottroll (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Donottroll (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm just working on finding sources to help improve this page and am finding independant reports of her as a performer, aside from her work with Exid, re: [12], [13] and have yet to look at Korean language sources. Thanks--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although she did release some EPs and singles, they were not very successful. I also don't think that wining the pilot episode of the show is enough for her to be considered notable. At its current state, the article is also just like a resume for her. Equil빵(talk) 09:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She did release many songs for TV series theme songs, It's notable point. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep only if this can be better improved for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some several new sources with searching her native name on naver.com --TheDomain (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that she released many singles is notable whether her singles were successful or not. She is member of EXID, but her singles are not much related to EXID. In addition, she has became a champion of King of Mask Singer as stated above and I think this article is necessary to deal with her single works. --Ji-soo Seo (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - She was on air alone like "my litte television" and "king of mask singer". Also she has featured other singer's songs. So I think she is independantly notable outside of EXID or Dasoni.--Beatlehoon (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think she has recently become more independently notable. See this ref: [14] (now added to article). Random86 (talk) 05:26, 28 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 Tell Me Why (Jann Browne album). Overall consensus is for redirection. North America1000 05:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville (Jann Browne song)[edit]

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

Song charted, but spent only one week at what was then the lowest position (the country airplay chart only goes to 60 now). There are no secondary sourcings anywhere that verify anything about this song other than it existed, and precedent is to redirect individually non-notable songs to their albums or artists. However, every time I've done this, it has been rejected by Frietjes (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading of the general notability guideline, that would make this a delete or a redirect. I come across song articles without significant coverage in reliable sources all the time – there must be thousands of them – and asked this question in a general way at WT:SONGS. I did not receive any useful answer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, according to this article in the LA Times it was "was named Country Song of the Year by the California Country Music Assn". Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonesey95, I would think being named song of the year by the California Country Music Association, as documented by the LA Times would satisfy notability requirements. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, let's keep this one, since the article documents coverage in reliable sources. That's one unreferenced song article fixed, a thousand to go.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but this discussion is not about California Country Music Association, it's about the song, which has been covered in at least one reliable source. I'm not a notability guru, but I think that means it passes. I'm happy to be set straight if I am wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Would you object to redirecting to the album then, as that is the precedent for seemingly non notable songs? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to album as this may be best, even with the current article seeming enough, it may be bested connected to the album. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:03, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Brock Flynn Show[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; one source not primarily about the subject, the other not independent. PROD removed w/o comment. —swpbT 13:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's simply nothing imaginably better for applicable notability and thus keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary reliable sources, so fails to meet notability criteria. In veritas (talk) 20:27, 28 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) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CollegeGrad[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Scant news coverage, most of which is simply references to press releases. Site itself appears to be just an affiliate of Glassdoor, all the jobs go to glassdoor.com via an affiliate link. Only just scrapes into the top 20,000 of US sites according to Alexa. Shritwod (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found only expected coverage, nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G6: Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life Like (pencil sketch) (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation doe not actual disambiguate. A redirect is not appropriate as the only pencil sketch article is utterly non-notable and will be deleted. Whpq (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it isn't "a patriotic written of the Urdu language." That's just nonsense, isn't it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is almost CSD A3 worthy as there is very little context in the article. Also as Shawn just stated this could be nonsense. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Pick your poison but I like WP:G6: "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to only one extant article and whose title includes "(disambiguation)"" -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fleming (Scottish footballer)[edit]

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

Challenged PROD. Concern was "No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league." C679 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 14:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 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 05:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Pérez Garrido[edit]

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

This article - which has been around for quite a long time - is about someone purporting to be a composer and clarinetist. The article cites no sources, and was written entirely by a user called User:William952, whose entire oevre in Wikipedia is this article, and edits of other articles inserting information about this purported composer. A google search for the composer reveals a good reason that no sources are cited - there simply are none. No reviews, no articles, no published works. The many awards that this composer has purportedly won, if they exist, are a well-protected secret, as there is no reference to them anywhere other than in this article.

Perhaps I am being generous in proposing this article for deletion. Perhaps it deserves speedy delete. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Strictly speaking, the article does at least cite some external links—all of which appear to be self-published by the subject of the article, making them unreliable at best. The fact that none of these are actually cited in the article only compounds the problem. I had not attempted to track down any of the awards mentioned, and am a little startled (but on reflection not wholly surprised) to hear that they appear to be fictions. The case for deletion seems overwhelming, though I think it is fair to give the creator the opportunity to demonstrate the notability of the subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the very start of a career, which may become significant eventually, but isn't now. Fails the general criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. The venues where his compositions have been premiered are not leading concert venues, and I cannot find any reviews of these premieres to verify the claims. Ditto the orchestras he's played for, minor local ones and youth orchestras/bands. I checked out two of the "awards". This page on "The Global Music Awards" website is quite revealing. They're basically for sale. His article states that he "Won", but that means he was one of the 60 people awarded "Gold Medals" that year. The "Bronze Medal" which he received for a different category simply signifies "Finalist" and was awarded to 70 people that year. (New sets of "winners" are announced every three months.) As for being nominated for the "Hollywood Music in Media Awards" (which looks like a similar outfit to "The Global Music Awards" ), he was one of 40 "Nominees" in that genre alone. These awards are meaningless, but true to the promises of the organizations bestowing them, the entrants do get a guaranteed press release out of it. The article was speedy deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia 18 months ago for advertising/copyvio [15]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Voceditenore. Sound analysis of the situation, and the fact that this was deleted in the Spanish WP only adds to the rationale behind deleting this here as well.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hurricane Katrina. There is overwhelming consensus that this should not be kept in its current form. Opinion is split between merging and a straight delete, and I don't see any killer arguments on either side.

Those who are arguing to merge pretty much all agree that any merge should be of an extremely limited extent, perhaps a couple of sentences or one short paragraph. So let's go with that.

Normally, when you do a merge, you leave a redirect behind. I don't see anybody addressing that point in the arguments here. My personal take is that redirects are mostly intended to help searching, and this title is an unlikely search term, so it wouldn't make a useful redirect. On the other hand, redirects are cheap. I'll leave it up to whoever does the merge whether to redirect or not, but if they do elect to not redirect, make sure you provide the proper attribution in the edit summary or talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution[edit]

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

This article is simply a loose collection of un-notable opinions. The fact that some people said that such and such a thing is god's wrath is unremarkable, that sort of rhetoric exists for nearly every event. There is no indication that claims that this event was divine retribution are noteworthy.

The sourcing on this article all link back to editorials or dead links. Nothing indicates that these opinions are widespread or noteworthy enough for a stand alone article. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an unsalvageable coat-rack of views that should never have been assimilated into article form. If someone wants to write an article based on reliable secondary sources, then they are free to start a new article. But an article synthesizing a collection of extremist quotes (albeit from rather different religious extremes) is definitely not something we want here. Sławomir
    Biały     15:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although it's kind of interesting in an off-the-wall-nutty sort of way. I guess it could be folded into an article about alternate theories about Katrina should anyone ever write such a thing. Shritwod (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is like a hoax article. It was sent as a divine retribution for the sins of New Orleans? The page is nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hurricane Katrina. There is not much here that needs to be kept and I don't see this warranting it's own article. But there were/are a number of people, some of them prominent, who promoted this bilge. It probably merits a mention somewhere in the main article. I think that this entire article can be adequately summarized in a few sentences and given its own section near the bottom of the parent article. Per WP:FRINGE I would make sure to include RS sourcing and a clear refutation also properly sourced. In summary... Mention it, but keep it brief and make it clear that all but the lunatic fringe consider this to be idiocy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge as well. I've fixed the dead links, and removed and replaced another one that seemed infected. --Auric talk 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina. There is a whole series of articles about katrina, if merge is the consensus, im sure we can find some place to put this info, but what, in your guys' view, should be saved? Bonewah (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Michael Eric Dyson (2006). Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster. Basic Civitas Books. pp. 178–202. ISBN 0-465-01761-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Douglas Brinkley, The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast (2006), p. 618.
  3. ^ Some evacuees see religious message in Katrina, MSNBC.
  • Keep. Notable nonsense. It's not a miscellaneous collection--it's organized fairly systematically. That some of the material is utterly fantastical does not mean it isn't notable--people believe and say many ridiculous things,as all our articles on conspiracy theories prove. I think this sort of material is much better in an article of its own, than in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nonsense part, but im not sure what, exactly makes this material notable? The fact that it appears in a reliable source? That the person making the claims is notable? Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing especially wrong with including nutty theories in an encyclopedia, as long as they go to prove some sort of point. For instance, I can see all of the quotes used in this articles appearing in an encyclopedia, but in articles about the particular person making the claim. The quotes throw light on the source. But collecting various conflicting nutty theories, just because they are about a single subject, doesn't prove anything except: There are a lot of nutty theories about this subject. If that is a basis for making an encyclopedia entry, then there will be no end to such articles. Especially in the US, our public discourse has become so debased that celebrities (that is, non-experts) feel free to say anything that pops into their minds, the more outrageous the better. Do we make an article about each one? What about, for example, Ben Carson's view that the pyramids were designed by Joseph to store grain? Should there be an article on "Alternate theories of the origin and use of pyramids"? And if the answer is "yes," it can only be because the person making the statement is famous, not because he or she has any knowledge on the subject. Otherwise, I have a list of things my great aunt believed that could make fascinating articles. The problem with making articles about nutty sayings by famous people (which contradict each other) on a subject is that it feeds the troll. Many people (some quoted in this article) say nutty things just to be quoted and thereby become more famous. And if all of this is not enough, imagine some editor every week buying all the tabloids in the supermarket to compile the latest article on nutty theories. AnthroMimus (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree with the GeneralizationsAreBad and Bonewah - at most one or two sentences of this, with 3 or so sources, should be merged into the one of the other Katrina articles and the bulk of it dumped. -- Krelnik (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it turns out, there is something similar at Political_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina#Speculations_for_the_cause_of_Hurricane_Katrina. Perhaps that could be re-worded if necessary and citations added. Bonewah (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be surprised if this was an isolated incident, but every single bad thing that ever happened to anybody anywhere ever is always somehow related to God's divine wrath. This is old news, and the article itself would need a lot of help to stay on site. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG as notable nonsense. Multiple RS'es document the phenomenon of people reading God's will into the event. The fact that they come from across the religious spectrum is even more reason that this set of speculations represents an encyclopedic phenomenon. Merging this to a greater article on the event itself would be as UNDUE as merging Moon landing conspiracy theories into Apollo 11. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor into an article on the notable nonsense that is ascribing divine retribution as the cause of natural disasters (which is not restricted to Katrina). Guy (Help!) 12:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I like Bishonen's proposed merger. For comparison's sake, 1692 Jamaica earthquake covers contemporary ideas about that event being divine retribution in just three sentences, an idea that doubtless was considerably more mainstream in 1692 than 2005. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps as this may be convincing for its own article. The overall basis seems to be this should not outstandingly be deleted altogether and any plans of necessary merge can be accomplished later. The overall information seems to be enough for a religious article of the subject. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does not pass notability guidelines. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:15MOF also should apply here, its coverage was temporary, it existed shortly and provided clickbait for news orgs, but has since vanished. It does not need to continue here. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Were you looking at the right article? It most certainly does pass WP:N. I suggest taking a(nother) look at the references and WP:GNG. A strong argument could be made that it is an unnecessary WP:FORK and that even with all of the coverage it got doesn't warrant a stand alone article. But a claim that it lacks notability is patently wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Huh?-WP:NOTTEMPORARY-Xcuref1endx (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I forgot to cite that guideline as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that we should have a series of articles on topics such as AIDS as divine retribution, cancer as divine retribution, lynching as divine retribution and so on? Sorry, I disagree. You will find many more sources describing AIDS as divine retribution, and we don't have an article on that not because the people who promote this idea are, at best, outliers in the continuum of rationality (though they undoubtedly are, if not outright insane), but because it would be needlessly offensive, and the substantive content can be (and indeed is) covered in other articles. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge If all the sources that are merely blogs or self-published were removed, the few lines remaining could be really merged into (possibly a footnote) of the main article. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 05:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a small, highly reduced paragraph in Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina or similar. As it stands now, it is almost entirely a "List of people who said Katrina is Divine Retribution" with little to no in depth coverage, sourced analysis or critical response that would show article-worthy notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying it out - looks OK to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 29 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 Dilettantes (album). Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus (song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2 confirmations that the song exists (APRA and ARIA),
a link to an archive of the band’s webpage (which confirms release as a single), and
5 reviews of the album, each of which contains one sentence about the song.
So I remind you of the some of the contents of WP:NSONGS which says, “Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability.” WP:GNG gives “The Blind Mice“ example, which sums up the references for this song so far. Perhaps the call for a redirect has been proven, but not for a separate article.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the APRA reference is confirmation that Tim Rogers wrote the song and the ARIA reference is confirmation of the release date. The reviews are not the same as "The Blind Mice" example as they specifically comment on the song and are not merely a mention that it exists. Dan arndt (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. The Three Blind Mice part of GNG reads, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." --Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Blind Mice example is a trivial mention, the reviews however clearly are not. They are actual critical reviews of the song not a mere mention of the song's existence. Dan arndt (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't pass NSONGS, which is why you tried to hang your opposition on GNG. Do I need to actually list the sentences where the song is mentioned as part of the album review to prove how nn the song is? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dilettantes (album) as the reviews, although they could've been convincing enough to keep, seem to still be thin to support keeping the article altogether so this is best connected to the album. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jreality[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over three years, so time to put up or shut up, so to speak. PRODed and declined in 2013, so AfD is the only option here. The given sources are all industry sources, no indication of notability outside of the software industry. Appears to fail WP:NSOFT. Safiel (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Excuse me, given sources? All of the links are from the developer's uni (exponat, gavrov, etc), one is from a generic scientific paper hosting website (ACM), and the last is a BLOG (Geeks3D). What sources are we talking about here? I improved the article, cleaned it up a bit, searched everywhere (read: google) for sources but NOBODY outside the uni is talking about this wierdo crap. I mean its not ever listed in 3D game engines. We'd have millions of articles if we listed every person hobby project built within a uni campus. Delete it. Wonderfl (reply) 05:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft instead at best as the sourcing is amply enough to notice but this can be drafted aside for now until any further available information and sources are available. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Walter Gorlitz has done a nice job of research, but even with those, I don't see it passing GNG. The IEEE looks like it is a simple blurb from a conference, while the Geeks one is a blog, and I don't think that particular entry passes RS. Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 31 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 as I would've commented myself but it seems enough time has passed for a close at this time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Reed (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say finishing second at the U.S. national championships is sufficient to meet WP:NBOX, especially when combined with a national Golden Gloves title. I have just added the national championship result and source to the article. I do think the article could use better sources since none of them provide significant independent coverage. They now consist of a fight result, a local fight blog giving him its "prospect of the year" award, a link to his fight record at boxrec, and a link to his bio at his promoter's website. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that he lacks any significant coverage but yet appears to meet WP:NBOX again shows that WP:NBOX is too easy to meet. I also don't think that his Golden Gloves title is significant enough to show notability since that's not an AIBA affiliated title. I do have to agree that WP:NBOX appears to be met and that fighting for a national title has been sufficient for plenty of British boxers to be claimed notable. No doubt WP:GNG is not met by this article.Mdtemp (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. FWIW, my interpretation of the current WP:NBOX is not that his amateur success satisfies it, but as has been acknowledged in discussions of that guideline, WP:NBOX is a high bar that pretty much guarantees notability, and many boxers that don't satisfy it will still be notable, so we should never have articles brought to AfD simply based on that guideline alone. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:58, 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSDA District Tournament[edit]

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

While I'm a big proponent of speech and debate, I feel like they're far over-represented on Wikipedia. This article, for instance. It only cites information from the National Speech and Debate Association itself, and looking for more sources none on the topic can be found. I'll grant you that every small-town paper mentions it when someone qualifies, but no substantial coverage exists that rises to general notability. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is pretty much nothing more than a brochure for the district tournaments. It gives us nothing of encyclopedic value that isn't already in the article on the national tournament (which itself doesn't provide much more than does the article on the sponsoring organization). NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for better solid notability, delete at best and restart later when better information and sources is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 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. There is no consensus below as to whether the coverage of the article subject is sufficient to support an article despite the fact that he never appeared in the Major Leagues. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jones (baseball)[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASEBALL Joeykai (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete..had he played in ONE Major League game, then...but he did not, so, no. Antonio Big Balls Martin (aca) 06:57, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
    • Playing in the Major Leagues passes WP:NBASEBALL, but it is not mandatory for notability of a non-Major League player who passes WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very weak deletion rationale. Not playing in the major leagues doesn't automatically disqualify a baseball player from being notable. Passes WP:GNG, earned considerable coverage for his minor league feats. Alex (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Baseball career is unexceptional.. never made the majors or even the high minors, spent much of his time in independent ball. Coverage is of the routine variety that any middling prospect might receive. Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this was the pre-Internet article era (1990s), I'm certain there is considerable in-depth local coverage of a guy who managed over 200 career home runs. Alex (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minor league ballplayers in the pre-internet era got considerably less coverage than they do now. Spanneraol (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWeak keep - The article has significant coverage from 2 independent sources, which can arguably be enough to meet WP:GNG's guideline for "multiple sources." But I would generally want to see more, especially since the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal can be viewed as "local coverage" from a fairly minor source and thus might be considered "routine." But the other source is the Los Angeles Times, which covered him multiple times, and is very major. So I would expect there to be more coverage, if only by more localized sources, if the L.A. Times saw fit to write articles about him, even if that coverage would be difficult to find online just prior to the internet era. And I was able to find at least one more significant article about him in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. So I would pass him under WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as this current article is still questionably better for improvements and is likely best put aside such as Draft so further work can be accomplished. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decide yet because the article is a jumbled mess of text. Alex, we can do better. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It meets the WP:NBASE secondary criteria that "To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Just because an article is poorly written does not justify its deletion. There's the WP:GOCE for help in improving an article's readability.--MarshalN20 Talk 05:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as this is enough time and the fact he's part of the major league football teams, it may be enough to keep at best for now, even if he's not a full-time player (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Bailey[edit]

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

Player does not meet notability standards for WP:NGRIDIRON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowsdower960 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 March 2016

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wouldn't his awards in college football count him for some consideration for at least temporarily staying on here Cliftonsanez (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a simple click on the "news" link above shows oodles of independent, third party reliable sources indicating widespread coverage. Passes WP:GNG--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:06, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2000–01 National Basketball Association Eastern Conference playoff leaders[edit]

2000–01 National Basketball Association Eastern Conference playoff leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, more specifically: excessive listings of statistics. Pichpich (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:26, 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 delete. Per G5 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Steel[edit]

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

Highly contested article about a future Power Rangers TV series. 64.134.65.112 (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the user was block after the article was created. has proper sources. DinoKeeper (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The creator was avoiding a block through SP. I expect both the creator of this AfD and DinoKeeper are the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @PRehse:I actually googled Ninja steel and came up on the article . If the person who created is proven to be banned, then the article should be deleted and rewritten by a legitimate user. DinoKeeper (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF, unless of course someone can prove the criteria of that guideline are met. (I could not find anything.)
I did not check the possible SP issues, but if proven then WP:G5 may be appropriate. Tigraan (talk) 13:13, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Colombo[edit]

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

Vanity article. Another by sock farmer who promo'd sports subjects who fail notability. In this case, very limited local coverage which derived from subject's tragic injury and amateur organization's championship. Still insufficient to pass WP:NKICK or WP:GNG. X4n6 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X4n6 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet the notability standards for kickboxers at WP:NKICK. Mdtemp (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as this currently suggests he's still questionable for the applicable notability and it's quite unlikely the article will improve because of his death. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of association football video games. North America1000 18:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Android association football games[edit]

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

Unnecessary distinction for one operating system. Already covered by List of association football video games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - a sensible solution. GiantSnowman 08:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - no indication that this specific operating system imparts specific notability justifying a separate list. Fenix down (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above, not notable in its own right. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 23 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) X4n6 (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Christopher Allen[edit]

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

Second nomination after murky, non-admin, one-day close some years ago. A vanity article by a years inactive user who created several such articles for cricketers of varied notability. In this case, subject had a non-notable local club career and no significant coverage. Subject's lone List A appearance was at minor county/club level, not an ICC final, which fails WP:NCRICK, WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. X4n6 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No known relevance to Christopher Allen Weller. That AfD history was auto-generated here. X4n6 (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. X4n6 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X4n6 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, passes WP:CRIN per the List A appearance. I don't know what the "murky close" bit means; in any case, the previous AfD was for an article about a different person. StAnselm (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think you've misinterpreted WP:CRIN a little bit (which isn't difficult to do if you're not familiar with how cricket games are classified). WP:CRIN states that players are article-worthy who have appeared in "at least one cricket match […] played at the highest international or domestic level". The 1983 NatWest Trophy, which Allen played in, was the highest level of limited-overs cricket in England for that year. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: WP:CRIN requires: a match "played at the highest international or domestic level." The one first-class match was in county cricket play in a minor county championship, which, if that article is correct, is for clubs that do not have first-class status. So I believe it isn't included in CRIN which only references "major" matches. But it really is clear as mud, having nothing to do with cricket and everything to do with the explanation. But here's that match. Allen played for Dorset, which was one of 13 minor county teams who were allowed to play against the 17 first-class counties in the 1983 NatWest Trophy tournament that year. So does everyone who played that day, on any team, qualify for an article here?
As for the "murky close," as already noted, it references the prior Afd for this subject: which was non-admin closed after just one day. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Christopher Allen Weller. In any event, CRIN is an admittedly generous standard as compared to other sports. But if I've missed something, let me know. I will say the user who created this page, listed several which may have notability issues. Have a look and let me know if you agree. X4n6 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to try and clarify a little bit more, first-class cricket and List A cricket aren't measures of the quality of a team, they're actually different forms of the sport, with different rules – the main difference is that first-class matches are played over multiple days, whereas List A (or limited overs) matches are played in only one day. There is also a third form, Twenty20, which is played over a few hours. So a match (e.g. in the Indian Premier League) can be played at a very high standard and feature a large number of international players without it being called "first-class". CRIN is a bit poorly written, but WikiProject Cricket considers all players who have played in a first-class, List A, or Twenty20 competition to be notable. So, yeah, everyone who played in the 1983 NatWest Trophy is considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, and I would imagine that most of those players already have articles. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The high standard of the match that Allen played in is also demonstrated by the fact that five of his opponents – Graham Gooch, Keith Fletcher, Derek Pringle, Neil Foster, and John Lever – were international players. (Gooch, Pringle, Foster, and Lever were in the middle of their international careers, while Fletcher had recently retired). IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable and qualifies the standard qualification of WP:CRIC GreenCricket (talk) 19:02, 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Reporter[edit]

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

It claims to be the largest print run English newspaper in Cyprus, though unsourced. And I can't find much references. It is an English newspaper. I found only one RS source. Greek Legend (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restart when there's better information and sources available. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 27 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. I can't determine, in a good faith, that discussion leans towards any other outcome. Merging that was proposed by some people in this discussion should be discussed on the article's talk page. Max Semenik (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Temple-Wood[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I realise this might be a sensitive and emotional issue, since we should all be proud of Temple-Wood's work, and appreciative of the acknowledgement she has received. But the sources here do not demonstrate notability: the article really only has one source that has significant coverage. Firstly, it should be clear that none of the pre-March 2016 sources provide significant coverage. Secondly, there is significant coverage of the subject across a number of news outlets in March 2016, but these should be treated as a single source. The reason is that they are all derived from the initial Wikimedia blog post, and none of them have added a scrap of additional information. Any additional commentary concerns Wikipedia and/or systemic bias, and not Temple-Wood herself. Thus, the article demonstrates significant coverage in what is essentially only one source, and thus fails WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The standard for GNG is substantial, third-party coverage. While an initial post may have triggered larger coverage, it isn't uncommon for multiple outlets to pick up a story (last I checked, the echo chamber for Donald Trump seems to sound the same on every TV channel). I point out that Lawnchair Larry still has an article, and that was about a truly trivial single event. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the way you described it were the case, I'd probably agree with you, StAnselm. We shouldn't have articles based on a single story that a bunch of other publications ran with, without adding anything themselves (I argued as much at another Wikipedian's AfD, Seedfeeder, although that one was -- astonishingly -- kept). But that does not look to be the case here for two major reasons. First, there's some coverage preceding the recent flurry, and second, multiple sources within that flurry, while obviously inspired by the Wikimedia blog, added content. So, for example, there are quotes in the BBC article and the Washington Post article that do not appear in the Wikimedia blog. That it has a good amount of the same information doesn't mean it's republished or doesn't "count" as separate coverage. Ok, so then there's the separate coverage. The coverage from before this month wouldn't satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BIO on its own, but there's enough of it such that there's no WP:BLP1E kind of argument to be had. See: an interview in Huffington Post from 2014, another Wikimedia blog profile (which I recognize has limited value as a WP:RS on Wikipedia), Medium, and there are somewhat-more-than-a-mentions in the Telegraph, The Atlantic, and NY Times. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was exaggerating with "not a scrap", but the additions are so trivial. The Washington Post adds how she makes herself a cup of tea. I hadn't noticed the BBC article before, and I see it does add a bit, but it is still essentially the same story. StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the initial Wikimedia blog post (in my day job), I'm not going to !vote here, and I'm making this comment only in my volunteer capacity. That said, for background context, the blog inspired a lot of coverage, sure—but at least five established news outlets felt that the person and story was good enough for their own full interview rather than rewriting my post. Also, StAnselm, you really think that the Washington Post included mention of the tea because they thought it was important? No. It's simply a great way to hook readers into reading a story. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, it seems the five interviews are still producing the same information over and over again. (Which is understandable; they all ask the same sort of questions, and get the same sort of answers.) StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - GNG established per Rhododendrites. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided, I'll admit they're not all perfect but notability is certainly there, It's probably a wise choice to withdraw. –Davey2010Talk 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are a number of reasons that justify keeping it, including the coverage it received as well as the topic itself. This is not a case of WP:RECENTISM like what we are seeing with all the coatracks and soapbox articles popping up because it's election year - here today, forgotten tomorrow. Not so with this BLP, and I'll take it a step further and say we will probably be adding a lot more notable events to the article in the not too distant future. Atsme📞📧 03:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason for saying this that doesn't involve looking into a crystal ball? StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed my validation so I'll repeat it just for you: there are a number of reasons that justify keeping it, including'coverage it received as well as the topic itself. The rest simply took it a step further meaning after my reason for keeping. Atsme📞📧 07:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She has received significant coverage, period. It does not matter where the coverage is derived from. sst✈ 05:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SSTflyer: Could you show me where in policy this is echoed? I don't think I've heard of that sentiment, nor do I believe it to be very reasonable in the first place, especially given the circumstances surrounding "where the coverage is derived from"; for example, does Buzzfeed not rehash a single article a hundred times? →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A single website rehashing the single article multiple times is different from multiple websites independently reporting on the same subject. sst✈ 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the nature of the independent reporting is a factor to consider. We have only seen an enormous spike in articles in the past two weeks, all of them rehashing the same article from the Wikimedia blog. There are no prior sources indicating notability, and to claim that there may be more notable sources in the future is to overlook the entire notion of articles requiring notability in the first place. →Σσς. (Sigma) 18:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Could you elucidate as to why the first two links you've given are relevant? I don't have access to Highbeam, and as for the second, I don't see why it contributes to a claim of notability (see my response below). Thanks, →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Σ The article is a biography. It is not a technical piece requiring peer reviewed articles. Were she still a high school student, the information would have no bearing. She is not. They both show that she been in the news over time, has pursued science with accomplishment since her childhood and the Patch piece gives biographical data not found anywhere else. Would I put her personal information in the file? No, but it exists and adds weight in an evidentiary argument. (Had I made the statement that there was sourcing going back to 2011 without providing evidence that would have been questioned, I have no doubt.) The claim was made that there were no noted accomplishments prior to the blog post, which is an incorrect statement given the chain of evidence that does exist. SusunW (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like many AfDs about notability that I stumble upon, this one began with a concern followed up with a barrage of solid, reliable sources demonstrating, not by quantity, but quality, depth, and breadth, that, to the contrary, yes, the subject is indeed truly timelessly notable and worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

    The above statement is false. Here’s the truth:

    This AfD began with a perfectly legitimate concern. In response, the original claim to deletion has been battered down by the heavy artillery and volleys of cold, hard evidence, doubly counted by a thousand rubber-stamped nods of approval. And yet it remains undamaged by this cannon fodder, standing as high as any Chinese wall.

    Because it really was just cannon fodder, a paper tiger fluffed up and magnified by the amplifier of the mass media. True, the subject has been covered by many news outlets in March 2016. Rhododendrites was kind enough to give us specific links. But looking closer, all of them are derived from the initial Wikimedia blog post, and none of them have added a noteworthy scrap of new information.

    Okay, that last part isn’t entirely true; The Washington Post adds how she makes herself a cup of tea.

    But for some inexplicable reason, people drive by to rubber-stamp a keep vote, none of them adding a noteworthy scrap of new information to the discussion.Although extra eyes are generally good, laziness and the frailty of humans turns them into mirrors, unhealthy for any discussion. If, as an editor who voted keep, you think that the subject is truly notable, consider this: I conducted my own investigation in tandem with my analysis of the arguments presented in the AfD.

    • First, we discount any article mentioning her achievements during high school. Commendable, but ultimately non-notable. We do not create articles for the high school students who win the International Science Olympiads, Intel ISEF, or Siemens Competition (with several exceptions contingent on actual notability).
    • Putting intext:"emily temple-wood" daterange:245161-2456730 (searching only from March 2000 to March 2014) into Google News yields a grand total of one source featuring the subject in one sentence.
    • Putting intext:"emily temple-wood" daterange:2456730-2457095 (searching only from March 2014 to March 2015) yields a grand total of one source featuring the subject in one sentence.
    • Putting intext:"emily temple-wood" daterange:2457095-2457388 (searching only from March 2015 to 1 Jan 2016) yields a grand total of one source featuring the subject in one sentence.
    • I defer to Rhododendrites for a sample of sources after 1 January 2016.

      All else held equal, this is nothing more than a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. As noble as the subject’s actions may be, notable are they not.

      Just because someone is a Wikipedia editor doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to delete their article, but equally it doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to keep it; the means itself is the ends, in this case. The subject of this article is not notable. Hence, it only follows that the article must be deleted. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Keilana: do you actually want this to be kept? sst✈ 07:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am biased, of course, but follow the rationale of Rhododendrites: a woman with an impact covered in excellent reliable publications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I support Gerda, who probably deserves an article about herself for her tieless efforts in this regard. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that she is featured on today's page of BBC News with a photo and link to the article Female scientist fights harassment with Wikipedia, there is absolutely no doubt Keilana is notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't really a "today's page of BBC News", it's a Blog by Taylor Kate Brown. No such user (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A WP:NEWSBLOG is not a WP:SPS. sst✈ 11:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a WP:NEWSBLOG might support WP:V; however, article statements are not being challenged so that issue is moot. We're debating whether it supports WP:N and my answer is "just barely". No such user (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No such user I can assure you that I found it on BBC news. It's now been there for at least the last 12 hours. If you don't believe me, look here. In my opinion, coverage on possibly the world's most respected news site is clearly in support of notability. Since this morning GMT, dozens of other sites in several languages have reported on the same topic.--Ipigott (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it is linked in their sidebar titled "Features & Analysis", and the article itself is in their "BBC Trending: What's popular and why" section, which features interesting (but not really "newsworthy", for lack of better word) stories. I grant it's an interesting story, in terms of BLP1E. I don't grant it translates to long-term significance worthy of an article. No such user (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order: It is in fact a blog. Here it is. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a classic case of WP:BLP1E, with some textbook Wikipedian navel-gazing to boot. Let's just take a look at the article's lead section: Emily Temple-Wood is an American Wikipedia editor... She plans to begin medical school in late 2016. What is notable here? Just looking at the lead, it approaches CSD A7, and, frankly, the situation does not improve much from reading the rest, apart from having a lot of funny giggles like this[1][2][3][4][5][8][9][15]. Let's face it, Wikipedia is under public scrutiny and whichever buzz we do is going to go through press, and a lot of it, because Internet press bytes are equally cheap as the bytes on Wikipedia servers. SSTFlyerUser:Σ above provided some hard evidence about the ephemeral nature of coverage. No such user (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this meet WP:BLP1E? She has been noted for her actions in multiple events, per the evidence provided by other users above. sst✈ 09:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      "Noted"? Let us examine how she was "noted" in your links and what her actions were:
      • [25] The event was a lot of fun and incredibly positive," said Emily Temple-Wood, a junior at Downers Grove North High School who attended last year's event. …
      • 10 Seniors Named to Downers Grove North's Top Two Percent; Meet the students, learn their accomplishments and see where they're going to college. Emily Temple-Wood [...] received second place in the state in extemporaneous speaking, 19th in the nation in international extemporaneous speaking, is a National Merit Finalist and National AP Scholar. She’s been a member of the speech team and marching band...
      • [26] "There are only 1,500 articles about women scientists in Wikipedia. We are missing at least half of them," said Emily Temple-Wood, a 19-year-old student from Loyola University in Chicago. She has been writing about female scientists on Wikipedia since middle school.
      • [27] “There is a sense that if it is not on Wikipedia, then it doesn’t exist,” said Emily Temple-Wood, a 19-year-old molecular biology major at Loyola University of Chicago, who as a volunteer editor is a driving force in increasing the number of female scientists represented on Wikipedia. She has organized meetings at museums and libraries
      • [28] I concede that this is a full-length piece in HuffPo about Emily, however: HuffPost tech The Blog [...] by Netha Hussain; Medical student, blogger, Wikipedian.
      etc. etc. Passing mentions, routine coverage, blogs, most of that about Wikipedia... Is that the kind of coverage we're supposed to base our concept of notability? No such user (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The BBC article, for example, is unarguably a full-length piece on the topic. sst✈ 10:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't see why NEXIST is relevant in this case. I have already conducted a data-driven analysis of sources that exist on the internet. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate, @SSTflyer:. →Σσς. (Sigma) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the articles have shown that she has had coverage over time. The recent articles are the meaty ones, like the BBC, but she has been noticed by the media in the past, over time and that's why she's not BLP1E Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel that a higher bar for notability should be applied to articles about Wikipedia itself, such as bios of Wikipedia editors or admins. A person who is essentially only noteworthy for editing/administrating Wikipedia should not have an article just because that editing/administrating has received media attention. Journalists have, from time to time, profiled individual Wikipedia editors or admins; I don't think that kind of coverage should be enough by itself for notability. SJK (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that a higher bar for notability should be applied to articles about Wikipedia itself What policy or guideline supports this? sst✈ 09:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find a policy or guideline which explicitly states that, but I believe there should be one. Navelgazing ought to be avoided (to me at least, it feels cringeworthy, it makes Wikipedia feel like a non-serious encyclopaedia – would Britannica add an article on one of its contributors just because they had received a short burst of media coverage about their contributions to Britannica?), and having a higher bar for notability for Wikipedia-related articles is a good way to avoid navelgazing. Policies/guidelines evolve in response to specific cases (including this one). SJK (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article certainly meets all GNG guidelines since she has received significant mainstream news coverage. Z105space (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She passes GNG as shown above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Megalibrarygirl: Sorry, but I can't see exactly why you think it passes GNG. Could you elucidate for me, especially in face of the cold, hard data as I mentioned above? Thanks, →Σσς. (Sigma) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Σ, those who have !voted KEEP above have already provided the "cold hard data." Multiple reliable sources and coverage over time leads to GNG. You and I are interpreting the evidence differently. I think you're wrong and that's why I !voted as I did. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who deals with "cold, hard data" as their actual job, and has for some time rather than recreationally for the last few months, the idea that "I searched Google News" is anything close to scientific is hokum and bunkum. Google News is one aggregation of some sources: a simple google search would have shown you several you've missed. Moreover, Wikipedia's standards are not quantitative: while knowing that there are N pieces of coverage is useful it is neither redeeming nor damning but instead one small aspect of the conversation around notability.
  • To suggest that looking at one quantitative aggregation of some sources constitutes the entirety of an argument in an ultimately subjective discussion is to make a tremendous mistake. It is to misunderstand the scientific method, the nature of Wikipedia, and to misuse data. If you want to argue based on Google News hits, do so, but do not go around treating your research as if it is the totality of the conversation, or infallible; it's neither. It's one facet of a wider discussion that's far more nuanced than your work seems to have considered. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds and Megalibrarygirl: Thank you for your response.
a simple google search would have shown you several you've missed I will admit that I did not mention Google-Google in my comments. I did begin with a simple Google search but abandoned it for Google News after being unable to find anything contributing to notability before 2012. I concede that there is a full-length piece in HuffPo about Emily from 2014—my mistake for restricting the date—however: HuffPost tech The Blog [...] by Netha Hussain; Medical student, blogger, Wikipedian. Are there any other sources that you had in mind that haven't already been brought to the table?
My goal is to make the case the subject is non-notable under BLP1E and its article should be deleted. I claim only that this is indeed BLP1E because of an absence of coverage that constitutes notability outside the recent wave of articles prompted by the Wikimedia blog post. I claim that that there is no flexibility in determining whether, for example, the graphs of f(x) = |x-1| or f(x) = sin(x)/x start out near zero, increase greatly at a point, and then return to near zero. Unless you have picked up better tricks at your job and are willing to use them to address the concerns of BLP1E, please don't accuse me of charlatantry, "hokum and bunkum" or otherwise. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"contributing to notability before 2012" sorry, but if your argument that this person is notable for only one event includes knowingly be aware of coverage four years ago, they're not notable for one event. And the fact that you think a deletion discussion is equivalent to a maths problem with a formal, scientific proof - the fact that you think this is a quantitative question at all - indicates that you're still not getting it. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if your argument that this person is notable for only one event includes knowingly be [sic] aware of coverage four years ago Today's your lucky day, because I never claimed that. Sorry, but if you're unwilling to read what I write even 10% as thoroughly as you'd read a paper, neither of us have anything to gain from this engagement and I'm not going to waste time with it. I am willing to wait for you to reconsider but consider this remark a non-response. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete, as it's seems to be a BLP1E case. More importantly, though... would the subject even want this article written about them? Emily is not a "public figure", and I'd be surprised if she wanted to be portrayed as such. Having a Wikipedia article about yourself is a double-edged sword! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 13:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per No such user, SJK and WP:BLP1E. The coverage is ephemeral. The sources do not show the notability of Temple-Wood herself, they just show the notability of Wikipedia. Canaricarnivore (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia editing should be promoted in all possible and "acceptable" ways and this is one of the ways that also corresponds to article writing standards. --ssr (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssr: Would you agree, then, that the subject is non-notable? →Σσς. (Sigma) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable according to reliable sources. --ssr (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssr: That's great, but some users are concerned that the sources do not actually demonstrate notability due to WP:BLP1E, so perhaps you'd be able to start with them. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Eh, I kind of wish this hadn't been created. There is a BLP1E argument that can be batted around, but my greater concern is whether we really want an article on her at this time. It will be vandalized regularly. SJK makes a valid point that "I feel that a higher bar for notability should be applied to articles about Wikipedia itself, such as bios of Wikipedia editors or admin" -- this will only work if there is a consensus of course. I don't want articles on "notable" editors like Eric Corbett either. Should the subject be disinclined to have an article at this time, I would also take that into account (as I typically do in borderline BLP cases of "new found" popularity).--Milowent • hasspoken 17:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good point, but absent a stated preference for deletion I don't think that's something we need to get into too much. I know she's been asked, but haven't seen an explicit answer as to whether she would prefer deletion. @Keilana: I'm sure you're not terribly enthusiastic about jumping into this AfD :) but as this is clearly moving towards keep, if you would prefer it be deleted that's worth bringing up now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been explicitly avoiding all this but apparently the people are asking to hear my voice, the wiki is facing a difficult choice...to be honest, I don't really care, it's up to the community's interpretation of policy. *permanently ducks out of this discussion* :) Keilana (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the editor specifically requests deletion (which I would support out of courtesy) I feel this bio meets the standards set at WP:GNG. However, I feel the nominator, User:StAnselm displayed a serious error of judgement in nominating this article at the moment. Such a pointy nomination serves to do nothing other than confirm the entrenched sexism of the project to the watching media and public. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elucidate as to why questioning the subject's notability constitutes "pointy [...] entrenched sexism"? →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @White Arabian Filly: That's great, but why do you think so? Some users are concerned that the sources do not actually demonstrate notability due to WP:BLP1E, so perhaps you'd be able to start with them. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policies state that the subject must be broadly covered in independent, reliable sources: the sources seem reliable to me, the coverage is broad (entire articles) and they're about her, not necessarily Wikipedia. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) the major sources specifically cover her not Wikipedia. (2) the major sources do have factual information that was not in the Wikimedia Blog, indicating, among other things, independent verification. (3) there are enough reliable sources with in-depth coverage to meet WP:NOTEBLP. (4) This is not the case of WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, this is continuous endeavor in a particular field. Kudos to Rhododendrites for detailed explanation and additional sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bejnar: What would you make of GiraffeData, then? The circumstances are similar: a week's worth of news articles about an editor who spends years tackling a problem. I admit that GiraffeData does not have one or two quotes sprinkled across the past, but I think the fact that the subject of this AfD does get mentioned in one sentence every now and then in articles that talk about Wikipedia or the problems of Wikipedia or the coverage of Wikipedia or the general culture of Wikipedia or other stuff about Wikipedia indicates that it is actually Wikipedia, not her, that is notable. →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Σ: (1) We are not talking about just incidental mentions here, we are talking about in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. (2) Saying that Wikipedia is notable, therefore its individual editors cannot be, is only slightly removed from "Since Congress is notable, its members cannot be notable for their work there." I think the larger issue is one of vanity articles about Wikipedia editors. This instance does not even come close to that line. "Each article to be evaluated on its own merits" is a pretty good rule. --Bejnar (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my response below. Thanks! →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you challenging every Keep vote? It looks like badgering to me, especially when you repeatedly ask similar questions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very few comments by keep voters are actually addressing the primary concern over whether the subject is BLP1E. I am personally very curious, especially because my own original remark has received minimal commentary; I'm not meaning to be a nuisance. →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Σ: Actually several of your comments seem to address the relative non-independence of the main-stream media sources, rather than WP:BLP1E. Or is the one an argument for the other? I think the independence issue has been settled, even if the impetus came from a single specific article. As you noted above, proximity in time of the articles, does not indicate proximity in time of what is covered. --Bejnar (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind response, I appreciate it.
I don't mean to say that because WP is notable, WP editors aren't. I simply claim that the subject of this article is not notable because (ignore the recent wave of articles; I will address them immediately) the only times that she's mentioned in the news is only in passing mention: a sentence-long quote is attributed to her in an article that is ultimately about Wikipedia, not any individual or any group of people.
You're right in that the overarching theme of my argument is that this is BLP1E. I think my own delete vote makes the case best. I continue to maintain that the news articles from last week are little more than "reblogs" and permutations of one another. But even if they weren't we've only been seeing these news articles for a week and all three mentions of the subject before now a) are quote one sentence by her, while holding Wikipedia as the focus, or b) don't contribute to claiming that the subject is notable because they concern non-notable topics (eg high school) or are written by bloggers and Wikipedians (eg the HuffPo and BBC sources).
Maybe this wave of news articles is just because North Korea is quiet this week and everyone's tired of reading about AlphaGo or Donald Trump fifty times, and after this week, she'll never be mentioned again so prominently, just as GiraffeData's brief wave of articles faded to mere memories. If it is, then this is a classic BLP1E and should be deleted as such.
Maybe it isn't. If it isn't, then perhaps the subject of the article will be covered later, and this wave of news articles will transcend just a wave and become something greater. Then perhaps the subject will not be just a fluke of the mass media, but rather, actually notable.
But we Wikipedians don't make predictions like that. So as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are concerned, this is BLP1E until we have new sources to say otherwise. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (actually Delete for pointy reasons discussed.) Article captures the essence of why the Gender Gap is contrived nonsense. Passes for notable female scientist. Well done. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DHeyward (talk · contribs), I'm not sure I fully follow the point you are making. However, if you are saying that the creation of this article says anything significant about the gender gap on Wikipedia, then I don't think that makes much sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think DHeyward has misread the terms of reference: s/he seams to think this AfD is about a "notable female scientist". Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 23:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a bit pointy, but if this level of notability is indicative of the current state of WP coverage of notable women, then we are done. Personally, I can name 100 women in tech with as much or more notability than this subject. If I take gender and tech out of the equation, I'd note that Newyorkbrad has notability beyond the subject but I am unaware of a BLP (correct me if I am wrong, but there are probably 10 more that I could name without a BLP article). This article only trivializes the issue of coverage of women. It does not enhance it. The overwhelming "Keep" votes suggest a culture that trivializes women to the extent that ArbCom Wikipedian interns are "notable" as if the list were exhausted. Even reviewing patent disclosures with female names shows thousands of woman that exist beyond the navel of Wikipedia. The feel good "Keep" votes that exist to counter guilt of systemic bias don't help remove systemic bias, they reinforce it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. "Weak" because I expect Ms. T-W to attain notability in the future even if she hasn't yet attained it by today, and because she herself doesn't object to the article's existence (a factor that I do accord some, though not dispositive, weight). "Delete" because a question I ask myself in judging notability for this sort of article is "if this person, hypothetically (and in this case I expect counterfactually) were never to do anything newsworthy again, in five years would anyone have a reason to be searching for information about her?" It's hard to dispute that the answer, for better or worse, is no. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a look at WP:NTEMP. sst✈ 05:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please rebut my arguments, if you care to, with thoughts and words rather than marginally apposite acronyms. True notability may be permanent, but a longer-term perspective is often warranted in borderline cases, especially where BLPs are concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no disrespect intended to my colleague who is way cooler than me ;) Emily has done some fantastic work, both in creating content herself and in raising awareness of systemic bias to motivate others to create content. This "one article per harassing email" idea is creative online news catnip, I've probably retweeted it or something already, but... come on now guys, the coverage is classic BLP1E and if the article had nothing to do with Wikipedia we wouldn't be arguing the point. And without doubting the good intentions of the article's author, creating articles for individual Wikipedians whose Wikipedia activities occasionally attract news attention but who are not otherwise notable is a bad precedent, even if in this case the subject doesn't object. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the sources are reliable. Looking through, there is enough info to make an article Horsegeek(talk) 00:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek[reply]
  • Delete Ms. Temple-Wood is doing fantastic work expanding the coverage of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. But the arguments of Sigma, Newyorkbrad and Opabinia regalis are spot on in my opinion. The number of sources used in the article (are 4 separate references necessary to confirm Ms. Temple-Wood has been accepted into medical school?) does not help overcome the basic flaw of failing the BLP1E criterion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:DHeyward. But she is an undoubtably talented editor, competent arb com member, and valued community member.Mr Ernie (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all commentators who think this is a WP:BLP1E case: undoubtedly she has received a lot of coverage for her "one article per harassing email" plan, but that is not the only thing that makes her notable. She has also been noted for having created large numbers of articles on Wikipedia, and the "4,400 female scientists" figure. Therefore, WP:BLP1E does not apply. sst✈ 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SSTflyer. You have correctly summed up the various arguments.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source saying she has created a "large" number of articles? She has, in fact, created 366, which in WP is not all that many. (She is ranked 2332nd in pages created.) StAnselm (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNT. sst✈ 09:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So? That doesn't answer my question at all. Again I ask, do you have a reliable source saying she has created a "large" number of articles? The Wikimedia blog post says she created "hundreds" of articles - which is true - but it doesn't say that this is a "large" number. (As a point of fact, it quotes User:Seeeko as saying "hundreds of articles about women scientists", but the actual number seems to be between 100 and 200; lots of the 366 are craters.) StAnselm (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you want to whittle down the amount of articles to between 100 and 200, that's still "hundreds." But that's not the number. It's 366 and does it matter if some are craters? I believe some of the craters were named after the women who discovered them which adds to the Women in Science project. And as a person who writes articles about women, I'd say 366 is a large number of articles. Writing about women in history isn't easy and takes a lot of patience and strong research skills. Women get lost in history. They get referred to by many different names. Just because you don't think 366 is a large number doesn't mean other people would agree. Furthermore, her project itself helps recruit and maintain focus for other editors to create articles. She is the catalyst that helped create them. Heck, I was brought out of lurking on Wikipedia when I found out from the wikiproject that there was a gender gap. I became mobilized and so did other people who care about such things. So basically, I'm saying you're nitpicking and not looking at the bigger picture. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish her own notability, with regards to having an article on this encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wikipedia community per WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Emily does a good job, but as the policies state, merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. WP:BASIC and WP:GNG emphasize that in case of multiple coverage notability is still presumed, not guaranteed. Brandmeistertalk 12:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has recieved significant coverage from reliable sources, and her article should be kept for that reason. Ethanlu121 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Firstly, I think the nomination statement is wrong: the depth, quality, and variety of reliable publications covering the subject is well over the threshold for WP:GNG. But, they are all very recent and all cover the same basic information, so I don't think they yet pass the "enduring notability" test of WP:NOTNEWS and the "more than one thing" test of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: per Opabinia regalis and No such user. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it can also be argued that WP:BLP1E does not apply because the person is not a low-profile individual. sst✈ 05:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting WP:LPI: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Emily Temple-Wood has actively sought out media attention. Another reason why WP:BLP1E does not apply. sst✈ 05:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • What on earth makes you say that she has "actively sought out media attention"? StAnselm (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And looking at the wording of WP:LPI, it says Has given one or more scheduled interviews... as a "media personality"... a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well. I think you're being quite unfair to Temple-Wood, here. StAnselm (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment (Note: I am article creator) I think Temple-Wood is not a low-profile individual as she seems to have been interviewed by multiple media outlets with her consent, [29] [30] and so has done so as a "media personality"--which in this case can also mean ""public face" or "big name"" as WP:LPI notes. Therefore, in my opinion, BLP1E does not seem to apply here. Everymorning (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Classic WP:BLP1E, bordering on self-promotion. Fails GNG, as is readily apparent in the lede. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since she never actually edited the article, it can not be self-promotion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple third-party sources to prove notability exist, as shown above. I'm not buying the BLP1E claims; she's been getting coverage for her work for some time now, and I wouldn't even say all the recent coverage is focused on a singular event per se. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Slippery slope. Doubtless many editors can/will be mentioned in the media, Blofeld, Eric, &c, but it's all just navel gazing and feels like a ghastly in-joke. Stop it at once before the flood gates open and the project swallows itself in some hideous post-modern bout of self-referentiality. Ericoides (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric Corbett has an article already :). No such user (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but to avoid any possible confusion I want to clarify that that article is about a different Eric Corbett, not the Wikipedia editor. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sails past WP:GNG with ease. The delete arguments here seem to have a lot more to do with ideology than Wikipedia policy; if a basketball player had this depth of coverage this nomination would never have happened. The BLP1E arguments are nonsense: she is "notable for one event" in the same way that a professional basketball player is "notable for one event". It does not target people who are primarily notable for one thing, which would strike most of Wikipedia's biographies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she make the NBA we can reconsider but it's demonstrably false that we have articles on sports people. Every Division I football or basketball recruit is covered in multiple sources over a period of time. They are ranked and sorted. Recruiting classes are ranked in national publications. They have press conferences and press releases. They don't merit Wikipedia articles. Every athlete kicked off a Division I NCAA team for misconduct has multiple sources discussing the misconduct with sometimes a follow up or multiple followups with legal proceedings. ETW has received coverage for Wikipedia contribution, but that's notable for Wikipedia not ETW. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just said it: she received coverage for her contribution to Wikipedia. She was in the news for what she actually did here. Unless those articles wrote themselves and the WikiProject assembled itself, I would say ETW should be recognized for the work she did, not Wikipedia as a whole. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a notable paragraph in an article on Wikipedia. It's not a notable BLP. Just like The Ohio State University may have a 5 star recruiting class, that's not notable for OSU. Even though the high school students in the class received multiple, independent, reliably sourced coverage about being a 5 star recruit, doesn't make them notable. Nor do we create articles on them. ETW's work is wikipedia. It belongs as a sentence or paragraph in an article dedicated to WP, not a BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was a star player for Ohio State with RS coverage, we would have an article on them. This is the same thing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's false. Or rather the bar to become a star at OSU is significantly higher with multiple, national articles over a period of time.. Note the coverage of a recruit "Rashard Lawrence" in google. Coverage is large yet accomplishment is only for being noticed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not understanding the metaphor here. My point is that individuals who are part of a greater group can be recognized for their contribution to the group on their own. That's all. The metaphor is that football stars can be noticed and written about and so can editors to Wikipedia if they have enough coverage to pass GNG. The metaphor could just as easily be: if a CERN scientist makes a significant contribution to the project they will have an article if they have enough GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand it and for CERN scientists it's usually a Nobel prize before it peeks our curiousity. Go read their CV's and virtually all have published, peer reviewed papers and awards - but like Wikipedia, it's a rather closed group of peers. Same with any national laboratory. But I think it was Michael Mann who said "No matter how brilliant your discovery, you aren't going to be on the Tonight Show." The But you bring a point: Can you name the top three scientists at CERN? Or Lawrence Livermore National labs? Maybe you can but I can't but I'd expect that they would be in the articles about the labs. We have notability standards for professors and such but nothing for students or Wikipedians. The fact I know more about ETW from Wikipedia than Michael Cates is part of our systemic bias and navel gazing. And you can still google Rashard Lawrence. 5 star recruit, lots of articles. No way he passes notability for an athlete, though. --DHeyward (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping this would set the bar so low as to make Wikipedia's deletion processes meaningless, since virtually all the puff-pieces on lower-league footballers, local businesses and so on which we routinely delete have just as much coverage in reliable sources. In practice, "mention in multiple reliable sources" has never actually been Wikipedia's test of notability, whatever Wikipedia:Notability (which is not and never has been a policy page) says to the contrary; if that were the case, we'd have biographies of every reality TV contestant, every winner of any award, anyone who ever stood for public office… ‑ Iridescent 08:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Iridescent. Yes, that's right, the notability bar IS so low that all those "non-encyclopedic" people do meet the GNG, and DO get articles if someone cares to write them. Does that mean pop-culture gets overrepresented? Absolutely: the sources are plentiful and easily accessible, unlike things found only in dead-tree books, which functionally means almost anything before 1990, but that IS the notability rulebook under which AfDs have been decided, like it or not. Likewise, the WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E arguments are completely off base: What "event" is the subject associated with? A "campaign" to create articles on women scientists is not an event by any reasonable definition of the word: an event cannot readily be logically broken down further into separate events, and each creation of an article is a separate event. Further, she's not low profile, and so thoroughly fails the middle prong of the three-point WP:BLP1E test. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't understand the argument that we need to reduce the amount of articles on Wiki, like Iridescent is worried about. If they pass GNG, why not have an article? If people are in the news, other people will want to know about them, therefore, we should have an article if there are enough RS. I still don't think Wiki is running out of server space or that anyone will be upset if they are able to find information about some obscure footballer or whatever thing "we" think is not really "notable" enough; I think the opposite is true in that people searching will be able to find the information they needed from a good source. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted Delete. To be honest, feel free to dismiss my !vote as I'll state here that I am a wiki-friend of Em's. Frankly I was so glad to see an article about her work on wiki - and I have no doubt that she will achieve proper notability in time. Still - notability about writing wiki articles seems a bit circular and a touch of like looking for lint via Omphaloskepsis. — Ched :  ?  11:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of a marginally notable BLP subject, leave it up to the subject to decide. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it is quite interesting, it is essentially an exercise in navel-gazing. Shritwod (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis. BethNaught (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting GNG, but probably desperately needing a rewrite. As written I believe the article does a disservice to its subject by strongly resembling a "who's who" entry. I could also support draftifying while a rewrite takes place. Although I concur that we need to take great care about accepting articles about our own, Emily Temple-Wood stands out among us in terms of the attention she has received. For those concerned about that matter more generally, I would remind them that AfD isn't the place to set that kind of precedent... it's not an appellate court. An RfC can, and probably should, be held to flesh out how we approach assessing notability for Wikipedia editors as article subjects (and more generally, for assessing notability when the coverage deals with, or is stimulated by Wikipedia activity itself, especially AfDs). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the number of Reliable Sources available is certainly enough to pass the GNG. We agree it's quite a low bar, but Temple-Wood is certainly above it. The article doesn't seem too badly written to me, but even if it were atrociously written, that would still not be a matter for AfD. Keep is the only option allowed by policy here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is not a question of an event, as some have suggested, but of what she stands for. For instance today The Guardian placed a major article on Wikipedia and gender on this woman's work. Also without this page, I would not have been able to research the rest of the story having read about it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact this navel-gazing silliness will be kept is strong evidence of the worthlessness of Wikipedia's BLP policies. Townlake (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, WP:NPA come to mind when reading your comment. What part of this article fails WP:BLP? AusLondonder (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit rich coming from you, AusLondonder, considering your personal attacks on this page and refusal to assume good faith. StAnselm (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aus, this is an obvious BLP1E case. All the sources are hyper-recent, subject remains low-profile except within the Wikipedia community, and the lead makes it clear this is a non notable individual. But yes, I do understand lots of people here consider "Delete" to be a personal attack. I have no response to that. Townlake (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I totally disagree with your characterisation of notability. I simply cannot see how BLP1E applies here. However I didn't suggest supporting deletion in itself was a personal attack. I think it is rather cheap however to say the article about Emily Temple-Wood is "navel-gazing silliness" AusLondonder (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very clearly passes WP:GNG, with multiple WP:RS available, and that's all that we need care about. -- The Anome (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's be clear, there's a great amount of politics here. But, meaning no disrespect to the subject as a person, and with high respect for the topic of social activism in general: "Works "Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month". The Signpost. February 2016." - that's the essence of navel-gazing. This is before even considering the negatives of having a Wikipedia biography on a marginally notable person who is engaged in a topic which makes them a target for personal abuse. When both of those two factors are considered in combination, there's no question in my mind that this biography should be deleted. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been coverage in many non-English media also. Greek Legend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like an advertisement, she may have been mentioned by some specific media but this is not a sufficient reason to have a Wikipedia article dedicated to. Berti118 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. This solution seems like a win across the board. The gender bias article is sorely in need of an update, and Temple-Wood's activities are a natural fit for an updated version. The Emily Temple-Wood article is low-quality and does a disservice to her laudable work with female scientists, as the article's existence makes it appear this site has no bar for inclusion above "mentioned on two websites." Failing a merge, I would vote to delete per BLP1E for reasons I've already stated above. I would also encourage this RFA AFD to be closed by a three-admin crew, similar to what was recently done with Involuntary celibacy (4th nom). Townlake (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah, thanks for the catch. I'm not very smart, don't have to worry about Temple-Wood writing an article about me! Townlake (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This doesn't apply to everyone. If it does not apply to you then don't worry. The reality is, though, sadly, that many in the overwhelmingly male editing community seem to resent and in many ways fear, strong women. Is Joseph Lambert Eustace really a more notable person? What about Richard Verney? Bernard Castagnède? No, according to reality. I think jealousy has been a part of this discussion as well. Editors are being asked to admit another editor has achieved more than them. Another editor has created so many worthwhile pages while others spend their time bitching here about navel-gazing and suggest we are somehow obliged to follow the trashy elements of the media in its sexism. This AfD has exposed some of the worst elements of this project directly to the public. It's not pretty. AusLondonder (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a nap, dude. Townlake (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, thanks for that thoughtful, incisive and constructive contribution, "dude". AusLondonder (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask Emily what she wants or if we have nothing to go on Delete. This is a classic WP:BLP1E case. Em is a low profile individual who has been the subject to a burst of media coverage. We should adopt the position of least harm and only keep the article if we get an affirmation that she would like the article kept. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply not quite solid enough for an acceptable Wikipedia article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with an analysis of the sources in [this version]:
    1. Wikipedia diff - no comment required
    2. Wikimedia Blog - primary source
    3. New York Magazine - coverage of the female scientist project, very short, no analysis
    4. Wikimedia Blog - not independent source
    5. Bustle - coverage of same thing as #3
    6. Washington Post - same as #3 and #5 again
    7. Le Huffington Post - same event again
    8. Daily Herald - trivial/routine coverage of spelling bee
    9. The Sun - trivial/routine coverage of spelling bee
    10. ABC Chicago - trivial/routine coverage of spelling bee
    11. South China Morning Post - single quote, trivial/passing mention
    12. The Scientist - more coverage of same single event as earlier sources
    13. Jezebel - same single event coverage again
    14. Wikimedia Blog - not independent source
    15. New York Times - two quotes, trivial/passing mention
    16. The Atlantic - two quotes, trivial/passing mentions
    17. Huffington Post - same single event coverage again, essentially the same article as the French HuffPo source above
    18. El Diario - coverage of same single event again
    19. 7sur7 - same single event again
    20. Buzzfeed - same single event again, and also rather trivial
    21. Wikimedia DC - not independent
    22. Wikimedia - not independent
So we have a handful of Wikimedia sources, a few pieces of routine coverage from spelling bee events, and a bunch of articles about one thing: writing Wikipedia articles as a response to harassment, and many of those are still trivial in depth. I'm sorry, but per WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E, this just isn't enough. —Torchiest talkedits 06:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (Additional remark: I think merging to gender bias on Wikipedia would also be a reasonable way to decide this. —Torchiest talkedits 23:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Careful with that evidence. The New York Magazine article, far from being "coverage of the female scientist project, very short, no analysis", is four good-sized paragraphs, every one of which actually names Temple-Wood, and it explains (analysis) that " female scientists often receive emails from male colleagues that are leering, lascivious, and unwarranted: all examples of sexual harassment in the workplace. In an effort to make the best of this crappy situation, Temple-Wood decided ...". I understand your desire to debunk and delete, but if you are presenting evidence, you must present it fairly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That so-called "evidence" of non-notability is extremely misleading. Many of the articles are quite different to the way they have been characterised by Torchiest. AusLondonder (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NYMag source doesn't have analysis. It simply restates what other sources have already said, and links to every source it's repeating. The first paragraph is saying what's in the Wikimedia Blog post it links to. The part you quoted is prefaced with "As geobiology professor A. Hope Jahren wrote in the New York Times last week..." and a link to another source. The paragraph after that is one large quote from the Wikimedia Blog. The fourth paragraph is a simply restating of the article title with a few examples pulled from the article list linked to in that paragraph. If you feel I've mischaracterized any other sources, please provide a specific example. —Torchiest talkedits 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's unquestionably analysis, wherever it came from; the magazine is certainly a reliable source; and it is entirely proper for it to link or cite its sources, just as we should. I picked simply the most egregious example of mischaracterisation, and I remain of that opinion. I'd point out, since you ask, that your claim that many of the other refs concern "a single event" has already been dismissed by a number of other editors, and I agree with them: Temple-Wood's considerable history of editing, and being reported, is in no sense one event but a definite process containing many events. Please read their comments above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That peculiar interpretation so far has only been explicitly stated by Jclemens (below), and it has "already been dismissed" by Opabinia regalis as strain[ing] the definition of "event" well past its natural breaking point. I didn't feel the need to pile on at the time, but now that you're jumping that particular wagon... That surely was not the intent of the BLP1E/BIO1E. By that twisted logic, e.g. a mother of quadruple twins would become instantly eligible for our article because 1) she is notable for four events (births) 1) multiple newspapers recorded these "events". No such user (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the New York Magazine article, I don't think Torchiest is mischaracterising it at all. It's exactly the same content that was in the original wikimedia blog post. (Including the dubious statement, "She’s created hundreds of articles about women scientists.") StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting since the discussion continues--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care: I think we're wasting rather a lot of time discussing someone who - for all the right reasons - is carefully adding useful stuff to this encyclopedia. If it was me, I wouldn't want a page in the very encyclopedia on which I'm working, because that looks horribly like an form of vanity publication. At best, ask her whether she wants a page. I strongly suspect she wouldn't and just wants to get on with the rest of her life and be known in the future for the notable things she has yet to achieve. JMWt (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero and JMWt: The article's subject has already commented in this discussion, saying "to be honest, I don't really care, it's up to the community's interpretation of policy." —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia or alternatively Delete. with no disrespect to the article's subject, after reading the linked articles I don't feel that notability has been established. If every detail of this story was the same, but it was about, say, RationalWiki, or IndyMedia, we wouldn't regard the subject as notable. The article seems to make sense only through the lens of this community's introspection.Thparkth (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. The gender bias topic is notable and is the reason for the news coverage. Emily herself at this point is not notable and is not the reason for the coverage. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Jclemens and Chiswick Chap on the analysis of notability. If this were not about Wikipedia, I expect there would be much less controversy about her notability. I recognize there has been a long tradition of reticence about acknowledging the notability of Wikipedia-related topics, and while I acknowledge the good faith reasons for that reticence, ultimately I think it is misplaced: for good and ill, Wikipedia matters enough now that we shouldn't be going out of our way to remove content relevant to how it is read and understood. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments by Opabinia regalis. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several sound arguments for keeping this article that have been identified by other editors in this discussion, and I hope that whomever closes this discussion will seriously consider the issues related to systematic biases in the coverage of women in popular media, academia, and the Wikipedia community. However, I would like to present a different argument, which I don't think has been expressed yet in this discussion. Specifically, I would like to discuss the "legislative history" of our notability guideline. When the rules for notability were first drafted, there was considerable debate about how the guideline should be defined, and whether the guideline should exist at all. However, many prominent editors argued that significant coverage in reliable sources was necessary to substantiate the verifiability of claims in an article. For example, Jimbo Wales wrote in 2004: "It isn't the lack of fame that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability. It's just someone's random musings about a private matter, and there's no way for external confirmation or disconfirmation. Therefore, it isn't encyclopedic." (citing Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 4, emphasis in original). Therefore, when discussing whether a subject passes WP:GNG, it is important for us to consider whether there is sufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to verify the accuracy of the information in the Wikipedia article. In this case, there are ample sources to substantiate the accuracy of the information presented in this article. Indeed, Emily Temple-Wood is the subject of a significant number of articles from major news sources. For those reasons, I think we should not delete this article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Opabina regalis and others. Have we set the bar so low for inclusion? And I'm not saying that Emily is not a nice or good person, but so far the notability is not there. And based on the sources and what is there for inclusion, if she rides in a taxi and gives a bad tip, that would be notable for a controversy section. I don't know if we need to set a different bar for Wikipedians, because that is not necessarily fair to a Wikipedian, but as of now, I don't think this article is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E is quite easy to spot. Endorse navel-gazing comments above as well as those by Opabinia regalis Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E and Opabinia regalis. And this sort of navel-gazing does no-one here any favours - it's a Warhol moment. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Events such as shootings or bombings are easy to identify. If per Opabinia regalis' interpretation is correct and BLP1E applies, what is the event? What we are dealing with here is not an event but a process, which is a type of social movement that persists in time. Once the ontology of notability is worked out, it is clear the BLP1E does not apply but WP:GNG does. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted Delete Clearly she is notable within Wikipedia, but nothing outside of Wikipedia is really given for an independent claim of notability. WP:GNG does not appear to consider "internal notability" as making anyone "notable' for our outside users. Perhaps "projectspace" could be a home for "biographies of Wikipedians" but mainspace is likely not utile to most outside users. And she might still become notable otherwise - so this is in no way a bar to an article at that time. Collect (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. While I have concerns that we not treat her article differently due to the 'incestuous' context, there is enough there about her and the related subjects implicit in her effort, so that WP:Notability is established. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do think that the BLP1E issue applies here, and I also feel that Wikipedia comes off looking self-promotional and self-congratulatory if we keep the page. (No objection to keeping the editor, of course!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking back again, I agree with the suggestions to merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. But I really do think BLP1E applies here in ways that are nothing like Jimbo Wales. She got multiple news coverages for her single decision to create a page about female scientists for every harassing email. That's basically one event. If she were to become noted outside Wiki-world for criticizing gender issues here over time – repeated noted occurrences of criticizing gender problems – then she would pass GNG. But she really has been noted only for one criticism at one time. There are sometimes news reports of events like edit-a-thons, and those often quote specific editors by name. But we wouldn't say that an editor was notable because more than one news source wrote about a single edit-a-thon. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. Per Townlake. On the subject of notability, I'm troubled by the relatively short duration of coverage, as discussed by Sigma and David Eppstein. I do not think that there's a sufficiently long baseline of coverage to establish notability. If the article isn't merged, then I'd prefer that it be deleted, subject to the understanding that it may be recreated once Ms. Temple-Wood's notability becomes more clearly established. Astro4686 (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Gender bias on Wikipedia. Per Townlake. After thinking long and hard, I've come to the conclusion that for now, pending further developments, this is the solution that serves everyone – the project (including its gender issue), the public and Keilana herself – best. (And incidentally, had we done this for Sarah Stierch a few years ago, everybody's life would have been a lot easier.) --Andreas JN466 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (edit conflict) WP:BLP1E is irrelevant here, just as it would be irrelevant to the notability of a writer whose notability depends on having written a single important book, or an athlete whose notability depends on having broken a single world record. It’s quite clear that numerous newspapers independently interviewed and wrote about the subject, who is notable for a single project. I understand that the proposer had gained the impression that all the articles were essentially reprints, but they are not, and the nomination ought to have been withdrawn once that became clear. With regard to not having articles about Wikipedians, that horse left the stable long ago; Jimmy Wales is notable only for Wikipedia, and nobody’s AfDing Jimbo. More to the point, we try our best to exclude articles about Wikipedia’s critics. That’s the real agenda here, but when Wikipedia's flaws attract widespread attention, this sort of ruckus makes the project appear petty and childish. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: we try our best to exclude articles about Wikipedia’s critics. That’s the real agenda here ..., sorry but that is your usual bombast. Who is "we" and what examples of "we" doing so can you present? Eg: Wikipediocracy. As for Jimbo, sure, he has ridden on the coat-tails of a voluntary workforce for years but he is noted for other things, even if they're mostly connected (eg: various significant monetary awards that have been widely reported). You;re just doing the usual casting of aspersions, although at least on this occasion you've reined-in the acerbic aspect, which I suppose is good. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no more notable than hundreds of other editors, nothing to do with gender or politics. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles on editors unless they are notable in some other sphere. J3Mrs (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of substantive coverage in multiple, independent, published sources of presumed reliability. We're not here to debate whether there should be an article on this subject, as many of the Delete commenters are arguing, only whether this subject meets GNG. This biography does. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, WP:N does go on to say that passing WP:GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-discussion[edit]

  • I'm not sure if this is a good place for a wider debate about articles on Wikipedians notable for being Wikipedians, but I suppose it's good as any. First, I'd like to thank Opabinia regalis for so succinctly and gracefully (as usual) expressing my thoughts: creating articles for individual Wikipedians whose Wikipedia activities occasionally attract news attention but who are not otherwise notable is a bad precedent, even if in this case the subject doesn't object. To check out the current practice I perused Category:Wikipedia people, and the only examples parallel to Emily's one (Wikipedians notable only for being Wikipedians) are Justin Knapp and Simon Pulsifer, both heavily afd-ed (and once deleted in case of Knapp) – check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (5th nomination) and all discussions linked therein.
    Pulsifer is "blessed" with a short Time article [31], which was used as the crucial argument for keeping the article; only, in that same piece titled "Power To The People", describing the phenomenon of "online activism", were also featured Korean citizen journalist Kim Hye Won, software developer Blake Ross, Facebooker Megan Gill, blogger Lee Kelley (blogger), whistleblogger Lane Hudson, Pakistani photographer Ali Khurshid, Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth, critic Harriet Klausner and few others, of very similar background. Of those, only Blake Ross and Harriet Klausner have a Wikipedia article, both with long-term activity and sustained media coverage.
    In the spirit of Opabinia's words, I think we ought to rethink our interpretation of WP:GNG in cases where individuals were used as case studies for a wider phenomenon. Are those Time and BBC articles really about Pulsifer and Temple-Wood, respectively, or about phenomenons of "wikipediholism" and "gender gap on Wikipedia"? I'm afraid that we're setting a very low bar for BLPs, pronouncing notability whenever there is a short burst of coverage in RS. My interpretation is that WP:BLP1E and WP:1E are raise that bar much higher than it seems to be a majority interpretation (although, I must notice that several keep !voters do not even attempt to address the BLP1E concerns). No such user (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, I completely agree; "individuals as case studies" is a good way of summarizing this pattern. OMG, someone called me "succinct"! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely and to the extent it may be a harmful precedent. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused how using GNG in this case or in the case of any person who becomes notable for what they do on Wikipedia could be a harmful precedent. Do we not have enough server space for wiki articles that we have to be worried about writing too much? Or are you worried about the "quality" of Wikipedia? If someone is in the news for any reason at all, people want to know more about them. I would hope they can find that information here on Wikipedia. A quality work IMO covers people who are in the news, even if they are do-nothings like the Kardashians. We may not like the coverage, but if it's there, we should continue to provide the service of creating bios to cover those people. (My two cents) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that the "pull" that attracted attention was "one article on notable women for every harassing occurrence" perceived by the subject. That's great for building Wikipedia. It's not, however, a good precedent for setting notability of accomplished women based on ETW experience. "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" but wikipedia would be better off if all the keep votes generated an article on a notable woman scientist that is not present, just ETw is doing. When we start creating articles that look as if we are expanding coverage of women, this is a poor choice. It's navel gazing. There is no way to separate the coverage of the subject from the effort she is driving but effort is Wikipedia, not ETW. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just disagree with you. There's nothing wrong with meta. There are such things as catalogs of catalogs, for example. Having information about a person who is perceived to have significantly contributed to the thing itself is quite natural. These things exist in real life (author bios in encyclopedias). I also don't think that there is any damage to the precedent of notability for other women (or men) based on keeping this article, which I think passes GNG. And we could say that our time may be better served by writing new articles, but it's also valuable for editors to discuss their positions on various topics so that we may hopefully reach consensus, and if not, at least understand the dissenting views. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are these things, yet if we filled out the coverage of women to be equal in number to men by creating a number of articles with the depth and longevity of this article, it would feel hollow and disingenuous. Today, for example, I read an articl in the paper of a 20 year ER nurse that quit nursing and became a veterinarian. Her story in just that tidbit was because she was a good Samaritan trying to help the victim of a hit-and-run accident (he didn't survive, which is how this side story attracted press). Who is more notable: the intern at the paper that writes lots of Human Interest articles or the ER nurse turned veterinarian? WP answer: neither are notable. --DHeyward (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on the substance, I think that you are framing your position too much in the "gender gap" terms, which might unnecessarily polarize or stray the debate. I don't have an impression that the article about Emily was created just because she's a woman, or that her gender has too much to do with her purported notability (it's just the circumstances that he writes about, and in spite of, the gender bias). My impression is that the article about e.g. Simon Pulsifer was created with similar premises about Wikipedian notability an similar (mis)interpretation of WP:GNG. No such user (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, No such user for your comment. I'm not arguing to keep this article "just because she's a woman" or to argue that it's even possible to have a 50/50 ratio men to women on Wiki. History is what is has been and there has just not been enough coverage or opportunities for women to make it 50/50 at this point. However, what I am saying is that if there is enough media coverage to write an article about someone (woman, man or other), why not have it on Wiki? How does it possibly hurt the project as a whole? Information is provided to people looking for it. The information on Wiki is neutral (hopefully) and points users to relevant sources. That is a good service to the online community and useful to the public as a whole who as a group rely on Wiki for information. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this section is here, another meta-question. WP:BLP1E doesn't say what the delete !voters above thinks it says. Every single one of them has offered a non-policy-or-guideline-based opinion that doesn't coincide with what our relevant yet cited inappropriately guideline has said for, oh, around a decade or so. There are several possible modifications to BLP1E:
Do we want it to say "If it weren't for this one event [sic], this person wouldn't be notable"? That's not what it says, and the implication now is that any non-event coverage in any RS renders BLP1E inapplicable, which I discern is unsatisfactory to those urging its applicability.
Do we want to redefine "event"? I wrote WP:WI1E almost entirely to try and solve the nonsensical and expanding definition of an event two U.S. Presidential Election seasons ago, and yet we still have people arguing that a series of related events comprise an event.
Do we want to eliminate the WP:LPI prong for BLP1E? Right now, it's written so that BLP1E never applies to a non-low-profile individual, and the subject here is not low profile as we currently define it--Again, full disclosure, I wrote that years ago to try and document consensus as it existed at the time. Has that consensus changed?
The closing admin has the unenviable task of trying to sort this out in this one specific case, but the community should really decide whether to endorse, modify, or scrap the work that has already been done to try and settle such questions. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, your comment above - each creation of an article is a separate event - strains the definition of "event" well past its natural breaking point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning what? That an article creation is multiple events? That doesn't seem a useful way to describe it, and that wouldn't support what you argue above. I presume you're meaning it the other way around--which doesn't fit the definition of 'event' nearly as well. Is that seriously what you mean? I think that's what you're saying... but the definition doesn't parse like that. If she wrote a series of connected articles in a specific defined time frame, that could be construed as an event... but absent an identifiable umbrella ("summer of creating articles on female scientists") I still don't see how you can call a series of similar events (articles created) "one event". Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If each individual article were separately attracting media attention, then we'd have a reason to consider this reading. But they're not. 12/22 of the sources in this article deal with the same thing, the recent "for every harassing email" meme. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming for the sake of argument we lump all the continuing, ongoing coverage of the subject's Wikipedia work into one event, you still have two problems: first, she's not a low profile individual (and I'm lumping all the DC chapter stuff in here, since it's not really easy to say it's independent RS), and second, she has other RS coverage, admittedly for a spelling bee. Either of those invalidate the BLP1E arguments as the policies are currently written. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How ironic it would be to delete an article about a woman whose main contributions are drawing attention to the neglect of women on WP. As the article about her in The Guardian points out, articles about women are more likely to be deleted, because they are harder to source, because of a bias in coverage. Surely anyone reading about gender bias on WP, alleged or otherwise, would want to read about Emily, here? When I started History of Feminism I was immediately attacked by some editors who took issue with the statement by women historians that the history of women is about the history of the erasure of women from history, despite the statement being well sourced. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This unquestionably is another example of how WP can be a microcosm of real life; the very invisibillity and dismissiveness women are given is being played out here, above and beyond Emily's relative notability. No question that some policy-level discussions are needed both about GNG and the notability standards for prominent wikipedians. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent[edit]

Please recall Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Stierch and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Stierch_(2nd_nomination). The main difference between the two AfDs was that by the time of the second AfD, the article had come to include some very unflattering material. Intellectual honesty requires making a decision that a person is either notable, so that Wikipedia has a duty to the public to report about them in an unbiased manner, or not, without regard for whether the article is flattering or not. So the standard Keep voters should apply is, would they still vote "keep" if the article should one day become a significant employment problem for Emily? If not, then they should not vote "keep" now; if yes, they should stick to their vote. (It's worth noting here that the subject's preference is allowed to have an impact on AfD decisions for biographies of marginally notable people, but I'd suggest (1) that where Wikipedians are concerned, that allowance should be used very sparingly, and (2) the above test is still worth doing in your mind.) --Andreas JN466 22:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We owe it to all our subjects, but especially the living ones, to keep things balanced. BLP allows just about every process and rule to be suspended when necessary to do the right thing, so we should be up to the challenge. Personally, I detest the idea that we consider the subject's wishes in whether to keep a BLP or not: Notability is or isn't met, and if it is met, we should be able to write a balanced, appropriate article. Allowing subject preference to influence article existence is exactly what we oppose with paid advocacy--why should we make a diametrically opposed ruling for living persons articles? Jclemens (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is the aspect of WP:UNDUE weight -- negativity seems to be deemed more notable coverage for women, while BIO1E for people like Lawnchair Larry seems to be ignored. Seems like women are treated with more harshness and that third party coverage that presents a negative view of them somehow goes viral faster than any positive coverage; I think of individuals such as Anita Sarkeesian, who were notable before Gamergate, but exploded in notability following negative attacks. Likewise, even Hilary Clinton is an example, compare the behind the scenes chatter at her articles, look at tone, dismissive attitudes, etc. Sexism is alive and well on Wikipedia; that said, it is heartening that we are at least discussing it. Montanabw(talk) 18:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sexism on Wikipedia should not be tolerated. However, to the extent that there is sexism in mainstream media, DUE demands we follow it, in that our coverage needs to follow what the RS'es say, even if they're being buttheads. That's probably not what any of us want, but there is no real way to be partial and impartial at the same time, is there? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Teaching the controversy is appropriate, due and undue weight was extensively discussed in the Gamergate case(s) and applies here. Montanabw(talk) 15:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

I just relisted the article since the discussion continues, but it would be great if we already start thinking about closing. Ideally we would have three admins closing the discussion, but if this is not possible may be one perspective closer volunteers. I can not be one since I made a couple of remarks here (though I did not vote nor indicated what I think) and I will be mostly off-line in the end of the week.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be leaning towards Keep. I recognise it isn't a vote. However, from my count we are running at around 40 deletes and around 55 keeps. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a vote, and a closing statement keep without analysis of the discussion would not be appropriate. Otherwise, everybody could just count votes.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, analysis is required. Let's be real though. No self-respecting admin is going to rule against a 55-40 majority. AusLondonder (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed unlikely it gets closed as delete, but no consensus is pretty much possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the majority is in part due to blatant canvassing on the part of keep !voters. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that canvassing? Why is it not notifying interested editors? AusLondonder (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's addressing a partisan audience per WP:CAN. Why was a notification of this AfD posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red? It couldn't simply be that the article is a biographical article about a woman; otherwise that talk page would have dozens of notifications every week. In any case, the poster would have a fair idea that people looking at that page would generally be in favour of this article being kept. (As opposed to, say, posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability, where such a partisan audience cannot be assumed.) StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nonsense, it is alerting an interested wikiproject. WP:Notability also has a "partisan" (i.e. pro-deletion) audience. Nothing stopped other people from posting elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with @Montanabw:. The guideline you cite, StAnselm, is WP:CAN. It explicitly states that "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion. Are you going to apologise and strike your accusations of bad-faith canvassing or not? These accusations seem like nothing less than sour grapes. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAN discusses appropriate notifications, and then it outlines when a notification is inappropriate - one of the criteria is when it is directed at a partisan audience. To pretend that the audience at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red is not partisan (on this topic) is ridiculous. It doesn't mean the notification was done in bad faith, but it does mean that the closer ought to take into account the possibility of skewed results. And of course your counter-accusation of sour grapes does nothing to help this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If these two were correct, directing a wikiproject: "Fewer women's biographies!" to this discussion should also not qualify as canvassing. Good for a laugh, nonsense for an argument. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, {[u|James J. Lambden}}. Montanabw(talk) 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I absolutely hate the concept of relisting. It has become habit for admins to just choose to relist in the case of hard decisions, deferring the decision, rather than just making one. Relisting should be used for the cases where there **has not been substantial discussion** and in this case that claim is absurd. Even the policy states you should tend to prefer a no consensus closure if you can't decide in case where there has been substantial discussion. Honestly, requiring this AFD to be open for another week is a case of bureaucracy, and isn't going to change anything except cause people to read more. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. I am sure if I had not relisted and took a decision I already had a bunch of assholes at my talk page explaining me what a piece of shit I am because if was not enough time, the direction of the discussion was changing, and I would better go and jump myself out of the window. I would rather not have that and live longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And actually there is nowhere in the policies that a relisted discussion can be closed only after a week. Any administrator can close it any moment (non-admin closure will be reverted in this case I guess). Nobody has to ask me, just to close the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Time to move on. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging could be a good compromise at this point, especially since several users voted so. If we get more reliable sources in the future covering Emily and showing it's not a recentist trend and media buzz, then a standalone article would be warranted. Brandmeistertalk 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that relisting was a mistake. Relisting is for cases where insufficient discussion happened, not when no clear outcome can be seen. For such cases, there is no consesnsus verdict which I'm now using for my closure of this discussion. Max Semenik (talk) 06:00, 24 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) 22:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations stop all-news[edit]

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

The page is just a table of random information with no sources what-so-ever. Doesn't meet GNG or V. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 07:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not encyclopedic material. Encyclopedic material would cover, for each station, the date they went to all-news as well as the date they changed to something else, the reasons for both changes, details on who made the decision, possible influences on the decision, effects of the decision on other stations in the market, etc. There is already a place for such material in Wikipedia - in the individual radio stations' articles. If necessary we could create a category for "Radio stations formerly all-news" and add the stations to it. But as a standalone article, it's just a miscellaneous collection of past events. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not even sure of the point of this list. All-news stations that switched format to music stations at some point? I can't believe this is terribly uncommon or unique in the radio industry. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Radio stations that have switched formats isn't worthy of its own page because that would be nearly EVERY radio station. The creator of this page in the past has also tried including on the all-news radio station page, an incomplete list of talk stations that carry newscasts-in other words, a news/talk station, which wouldn't belong on the all-news stations page to begin with. This page is superfluous.Stereorock (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing imaginable to actually keep at its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 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) 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronni Hawk[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources other than imdb and subject's personal social media. — Confession0791 talk 07:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. There was nothing that I could find. GABHello! 20:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 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 Maruti Suzuki. with no prejudice to a merge being carried out. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NEXA[edit]

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

Fails Corp, highly promo still. John from Idegon (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 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 delete. Notability for the subject has not been demonstrated, and consensus in this rather short discussion is for deletion. North America1000 06:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Michael Lam[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion via A7, but there's just enough of an assertion of notability to where it wouldn't have been a clean speedy. It's possible that he may be notable, but I can't find anything when searching or to really show that the awards he's won are really notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This might be due to him performing predominantly in China and Japan, so I've asked both WikiProjects for help in finding sources, if any exist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Things that also give off the potential for notability include things like this book, especially as the e-commerce site mentions that he's frequently performed on television. Whether or not these performances would establish notability has yet to be determined, but it's enough for it to pass speedy criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any sources in Japanese, although there may well be sources out there, as from his Youtube videos it appears that he has been on Japanese TV. It may also be easier to find sources in Chinese than in Japanese. If any such sources are found, I can see myself switching from delete to keep, but at the moment we should assume he doesn't pass WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Chinese wiki page for this guy was G11'd earlier today--Prisencolin (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC).--Prisencolin (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: *Hi all, here are pics form facebook of TBS Asian Ace, to prove that Michael Lam really took part in the TBS television competition program, Asian Ace. https://www.facebook.com/tbsaace/photos/a.269581376412478.57890.245968228773793/293358387368110/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/tbsaace/photos/pb.245968228773793.-2207520000.1458619146./292364820800800/?type=3&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamjunejune (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply none of this actually suggests a better Wikipedia article, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 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) 06:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moon OS[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Prod was declined and on the article's talk page a few sources were given as rationale, but they largely consisted of wordpress blogs and the like. The only two sources that even begin to show notability are this and this, both for the same release, with nothing else to show.

Per WP:NSOFT the mere existence of reviews does not show notability, and only two such sources does not even meet WP:GNG and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked a bunch of sites, but I didn't see anything for either "MoonOS" or "Moon OS". Best I could find was this review at OMG Ubuntu, which strikes me as probably unreliable, as the "about us" page lists no staff or editorial team. Moon OS shows up in blogs occasionally, and there are some reader comments at the bigger tech sites, but that seems to be about it. If someone else can find reviews that I missed, I'm willing to reconsider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another minor/obscure Linux distribution. It is so easy to start a Linux distribution just by forking an existing one, as has apparently been done here. References to reliable sources are required to demonstrate notability, but none have been provided. I tried looking for some and couldn't find anything significant. SJK (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established by sources cited by nom. Per WP:NSOFT, "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software". ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You left out the most important part of that quote: "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." None of the sources even begin to make the claim that the software is significant in any way. It's not notable, and it's not significant, so the part of WP:NSOFT you quoted does not support keeping the article. The citation at the end of that quoted passage also says that "Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations..." which hasn't been done. The sources provided show that the software exists, not that it is significant in any way. Routine coverage of patch notes by sites that make a point to cover all such things are not indicative of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know what notable means. In a WP policy sense, what does significance mean? ~Kvng (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter? WP:NSOFT is an essay. I could write an essay that says open source software requires high quality sources and cite it here. There's no consensus to allow open source software to get away with unreliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked because it seemed to matter to you in your previous response. I appreciate your point on policy vs. essay though. ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best because my searches found nothing noticeably better and the current article is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 27 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 that the subject fails PORNSTAR/GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Fitch[edit]

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

Not my field of interest but this seems questionable for WP:PORNSTAR with none of this seeming convincing enough for the applicable notability, with only one apparent award, and it only being a nomination. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as agree that WP:PORNSTAR is not passed, as no awards, no groundbreaking movies or genres,,no significant mainstream coverage either so WP:BASIC is not reached . The music career is not notable yet. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Believe he at least passes WP:GNG and even WP:ENT, since he's one of the subjects profiled in a book called "Gay Porn Heroes" by J.C. Adams, about the most influential performers in the field. A quick Google search came up with this article in a notable publication (The Advocate), and mentions his inclusion in the book. Subject has also apparently won or been nominated for some awards,(and here); just don't know how significant they are. But "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" is all ENT requires, while GNG only needs "significant coverage in reliable sources;" and again, per Google, he clearly has both. Especially when you consider his first AfD was 10 years ago and he's apparently still around and relevant (here) and (here). That's a pretty notable shelf-life for any porn performer. X4n6 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC
  • Comment its the briefest of passing mentions in The Advocate and the Orlando Sentinel is another passing mention, the reference to his fanbase in the Gay U.K ref is based on 215,000 likes on his facebook which is not a remarkable number at all and is not reliable because likes can be bought in bulk. The book "Gay Porn Heroes" is about 100 gay porn actors so it is not very exclusive and at 252 pages in total for 100 actors its not very detailed. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It's really not surprising since you tried to refute every single point I made - that there wasn't a single argument you made that I agree with. The mention in the Advocate highlighted his presence in a book entitled "Gay Porn Heroes." By the title alone, there is already the inference that the list is inherently notable in that genre. But for the Advocate, which I believe, is pretty much the gay publication of record, to mention him among all the others in the book - only further illustrates his notability. Otherwise, why mention him at all? Also, the author of the book is himself notable in that field, based on his prolific contributions. He could very likely be considered an authoritative source on the subject of notability. But your notion that 100 gay actors is not exclusive, is nonsense when you consider the thousands, if not 10s of thousands (or more) of gay porn performers the writer had to choose from. Again, just more evidence of GNG. And 215,000 Facebook likes is textbook ENT. Whether the numbers are exact or not is irrelevant. Because the threshold is simply a "cult following." So in a niche market like porn, gay porn specifically, a six figure following is easily a "cult following." Hell, a 10th of that would qualify. And The Advocate and the Orlando Sentinel are both reliable sources. Nor did you even attempt to refute my response that his last AfD was a decade ago - and yet his fans are still talking about him for whatever reasons. Again: cult following. Bottom line: we're only here to judge notability, nothing more. Every argument you made only confirms that he passes notability according to every threshold I've referenced. I'm really not invested enough to do more research - but I suspect that if I did, I would end up changing my !vote from Keep to Strong Keep, or even Speedy Keep. Because your arguments alone, while clearly not your intention, have only made a stronger case for keeping it. X4n6 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Michaels[edit]

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

Non-notable local artist, paints for hire, nor any evidence of special significance. Refs include person's business website and a single article not showing any notability other than being hired to paint a wall. Search results show nothing but social media or business/listings links. Does not seem to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I added a reference which mentions a public "piece of patriotic artwork" by the subject in Arlington Heights, but that is local coverage a long way short of the WP:ARTIST criteria; nor do I see anything to meet wider WP:GNG criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even Michelangelo was a painter for hire, but in her case it does not come with anything that shows passing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. You can paint for hire and still exhibit and be in museum collection. But it's not here. So, it's a Delete for me. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionably better for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 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) 02:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Kazakina[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs show that she writes articles for well known periodicals - well, that is her job is it not? Nothing else shows notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete She has lots of work for very notable publications, but that's not quite enough to grant her notability, just her work. WP:INHERIT issues also arise from that/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 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) 02:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dj xquizit[edit]

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

Could find two RS sources but certainly fails WP:GNG and created by the subject himself. Greek Legend (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would not classify any of the articles sources as reliable/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing to outstandingly keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this article has no relevance and contribution to society --Fujiiy (talk) 09:04, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ravenswing 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Roslovic[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I did not notice he was a first round pick and passes NHOCKEY. My mistake. Joeykai (talk) 01:54, 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 delete. Arguments for keep are weak being not rooted in Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines, consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Rakesh Sinha[edit]

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

Highly promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC as the article fails to make clear what makes him notable. Triggered two sockpuppet investigation requests (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahant2013). The Banner talk 00:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: in preparation for this AfD I've attempted to reformat and partially clean up this article, so that its poor quality won't turn the discussion (including my own) away from more relevant BLP/NOR/GNG issues.
    All this being said, from having gone through the article, it appears that this guys only claim to fame is being on TV sometimes. He holds no distinguishing positions or status at his university, and pretty much fails the rest of WP:ACADEMIC. And aside from his professorship he really has nothing else BLP/GNG-wise to credit this article with, aside from being an occasional political personality. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not agree with this, as a Director of India Policy Foundation, New Delhi based think tank on policy issues, he has authored hundreds of research papers, interventions and monologues. His single largest contribution to RSS led Hindutva movement is that Prof Sinha has provided intellectual backbone to RSS ideology, which was earlier limited to emotional issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC) — Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Perhaps it is a good idea when you and friends start reading Wikipedia Reliable sources that prescribes that sources must be independent (not in anyway related to the subject), reliable (no social media or blogs) and publicly published. The Banner talk 11:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Primary sources (such as articles written by the subject) don't show notability of the subject. Any academic writes a lot of different texts, that is also not a claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per The Banner and Bonadea. Yes, he's been quoted in the media and written some things in various venues, but just listing publications off is not an indication of his notability. I wish the sockpuppetry alone was a valid rationale for deletion. GABHello! 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While some of us might not agree with his political views or RSS ideologies, Wikipedia is a place where we come to seek information about public personalities and Prof. Sinha with his constant presence on TV debates and news media, definitely is one. He has been representing RSS on various platforms for quite some time and his views were also highlighted in the Pradhanmantri TV series. Disclosure: COI (I am related to him)--Richas 23 (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Richas 23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • STRONG Keep - Academic Freedom §- Recommendation of deletion of page of a professor who has influenced the methods of established thinking does not need more work to establish his scholarly credentials after already publishing few hundred articles. If talking about own research work is PROMOTION, then more than 80 percent of individual wiki profiles are promotion.

This article is based on references suchas Papers published in newspapers, magazines and published as books and monographs, link provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete at best for now as the current article clearly needs extra better work and I have no considerable confidence this will be amply improved thus delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is a hot mess (of sockpuppetry or political partisanship, I know not) and Tpdwkouaa's valiant attempt at cleanup has all been lost by now. So we could go with WP:TNT as a deletion rationale. But also, there is no reliable source here about the subject. All sources are the subject's own writings, blogs and other such unreliable sources, or reliably published articles about other subjects that don't provide any in-depth coverage of the subject. As such, we have no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - §- There is sufficient link to other wiki pages and citations. It does not seem to be any orphan article. It seems recommendations come from those articles which are promoting there business online and violating wiki promotion policy. This article follows wiki policy at its interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) — Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I have struck out your "keep": you are only allowed one keep or delete opinion per AfD. Also, please sign your messages. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That an article is an "orphan" does not mean that it has too few links to other Wikipedia articles. It means that other articles do not link to this one. But please note that that is not part of the reason why the article is listed for deletion. If the article should be kept, the cleanup issues (such as the many superfluous links to other Wikipedia articles, and the lack of links from other articles) can be addressed. Secondly, please do not make any assumptions about the motives of other editors here. The only relevant question in this discussion is whether the person meets the applicable notability criteria, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Unfortunately that still does not seem to be the case. There are many, many (too many!) external links in the article - if it is kept, a large number of those links will have to be removed - but very few of them are secondary sources, which is what is needed to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As author named Prof Rakesh Sinha is notable figure in India and the majority of the sources have quoted references from independent sources, we cannot term this wiki article as self promoting. The person named Rakesh Sinha is widely acknowledged figure in Indian intellectuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and the rampamt socking/meatsocking in support only makes me more convinced the article should be deleted. Jeppiz (talk) 13:14, 30 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 as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow (Eiko Shimamiya song)[edit]

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

No non-primary references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, though it doesn't look like there's much content worth merging. Fails WP:NSONG; no chart positions, not used in anything notable, really nothing to say about it. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:48, 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 Redirect as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Find the Words[edit]

Can't Find the Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:45, 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 redirect to Machine 15. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken World (song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album Machine 15 from which this single is taken, merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per James500. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 14:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Might as well create a redirect for each track on the album. Pointless and unnecessary creation. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 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 as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Body Offering[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band or delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. The Google results look like nothing but torrent sites. The prod should not have been removed. This is a waste of the community's time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 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 Redirect as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Yeah[edit]

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

Mo references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album. There was some controversy when a TV ad apparently ripped off the song: [32]. But that's about all I can find. That can be added to the band's or album's article. I don't see any evidence that this got any further press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:58, 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 delete.  Sandstein  21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hölle[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, no content, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band K.I.Z., merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to band or delete. Results look mostly like social media, official websites, and the occasional trivial mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing worth saving here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best perhaps, could be redirected but is perhaps best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 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 as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What It Is (Strike a Pose)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to album. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are mostly just lyrics databases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect considering this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Seré[edit]

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

Mo references, no claim of notability, no content, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to band or delete. I don't see coverage in reliable sources. The article is no help, either, as it's only a single line. There isn't much to go on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're Not Alone (BWO song)[edit]

You're Not Alone (BWO song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

o references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to album. It got a trivial mentions in [33] from Dagens Nyheter and [34] from Expressen, but that's about all I see. I don't understand why the community has to deal with all these AfDs on non-notable songs when they were already prodded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Jacoby[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: There are plenty of other sources that confirm she is Miss Nicaragua 2016, so I really don't think sources are the problem. The question is whether this is sufficient to meet the WP:ANYBIO criterion "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". I weakly suppose that it is. ubiquity (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Miss Nicaragua alone isn't enough to warrant coverage, per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. If all the info you can provide in an article is that she won something, you don't have an article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous in-depth sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as the consensus is going to Keep it seems and this is not seriously needed for deletion especially if there are any future improvements (even if she currently questionable for better independent notability). SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chriss Anglin[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 66 screen credits, including some leading roles, passes notability guidelinesAtlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually as IMDb shows his works not at all solidly satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that simply having a certain number of works and such are simply not enough for actually better satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. With actuality, this article would need improvements and with no one taking the efforts and time, this is best deleted until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the number of credits does matter as per criteria3 of WP:ENT Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.A large number of credits could be considered prolific, looking for RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, couldn't find much at all except [35] although don't have any advanced search engines, just the google.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't agree with Atlantic306's assessment of the third criteria for WP:ENT. Using that definition, there are literally thousands of extras who would qualify for a Wikipedia page. I personally know probably over 100 people who have each been in over 100 films. None of them notable. The two best roles this person has is the Dead Men Walking credit, while the second is as Humpty Dumpty in a soft porn film (not a notable film). Other than that, his roles are simply not significant, or the films/videos/shorts are not notable. Therefore he does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:ENT, nor is there enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. I will say his imdb bio is a perfect example of why that is not a reliable source. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 31 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 Move to draft. Neither of the people arguing to keep have given any policy-based reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tzolag Hovsepian[edit]

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

Article asserts notability ("famous") but I was only able to find this and this, which is insufficient. I can't see this passing WP:ARTIST. GABHello! 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find nothing on this man that gives him notability per WP:PERSON. His album of photos has been uploaded at Commons, and there is a Category:Tzolag_Hovsepian video of him explaining in his own language why he is giving these photos to another person to share. However, the above search links and any other search tools I have, come up with no results. There is a listing of his album on WorldCat, but there is no information anywhere to indicate this is anything but a photo album. The uploads on Commons are of good quality, but those uploads don't make him notable enough for a stand-alone article. Too bad, really. — Maile (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this reference in Armenian wikipedia [36]. After google translating it, the result that he is definitely not famous for being a photographer. Looks like he was quite active in Armenian diaspora, but surely fails WP:CREATIVE. Unless someone brings more Armenian references and redo an article to describe him as Armenian Diaspora activist, it's a Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the moment. For the time being, I've struck my "delete", and posted at Talk:WikiProject Armenia, hoping someone reads this over there and can save this article. I think there is more to this photographer, and might be notable if we can get someone conversant in the language to help. — Maile (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I feel kind of bad about nominating without a familiarity with the language. GABHello! 22:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article must be keptModern Sciences (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With google translating capabilities it's not that hard to find if there is enough information, but in his case I agree that he was mostly active in pre Internet times, so it's not that easy to find information. But as I said above he looks like more belonging to Armenian Diaspora Activism world, than photography, so I emphasize my point that this has to be the article. He may be passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO, but it's a clear fail case for WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion indicates a desire for more time to consider this. MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and compromise with Moving To Draft as this is clearly needing further improvements and if there are no improvements soon, this is best removed from mainspace until better work is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - The current article doesn't pass notability criteria, and my searches didn't turn up enough to show that he does either. That said, and with the above comments, someone with better access to foreign search engines might be able to show they do pass. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 31 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.  Sandstein  21:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wissenschaft im dialog[edit]

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

This article can be related to twice deleted Wissenschaft im Dialog. Captain Spark (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Added a link to the article on the German Wikipedia and one reference/weblink. It is still a stub and poorly written but yes, this organisation does exist. -- Ben Ben (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And they should be from independent sources. Yes the company does exist but it should be given coverage by some third party sources. I found only one on the net. The current references are from it's own website. 1, 2. Captain Spark (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from Keep to Comment. Wanted to help the author, showing him what is needed (sources). Was a bit over-motivated, even on the partners websites are only a few short mentions of Wissenschaft im Dialog, nothing specific. Btw: please don't write to me in bold letters, thanks. -- Ben Ben (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed because my searches found nothing outstandingly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - existence is not notability. I can find a few mentions, but no in-depth coverage on any of the search engines. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 12:22, 31 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 Nova Scotia Liberal Party leadership election, 2007. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzie MacKinnon[edit]

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

Although this was kept in a deletion discussion in 2008, Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards have been tightened up considerably in the eight years since then. At the time, WP:NPOL allowed non-winning candidates for the leadership of a political party to be considered notable on that basis -- but evolving consensus has since deprecated that as not an adequate claim of notability anymore: if the person doesn't get over an inclusion criterion for some other reason (e.g. having already held another notable office, or having preexisting notability in some other field of endeavour), then their non-winning leadership bid no longer constitutes sufficient notability in and of itself. But nothing else here gets him over NPOL, and the volume of sourcing isn't good enough to claim WP:GNG. Delete, or redirect to Nova Scotia Liberal Party leadership election, 2007. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect at best as there may not be any serious needs for deleting and this could later be improved if and ever need be. Certainly questionably notable though, SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 27 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. Nom hasn't done any searches beforehand thus not following WP:BEFORE - All have been nominated within seconds of each other so closing as SK (This should've been closed weeks ago so not sure why it never was....) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inigo Bing[edit]

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

I 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. Also was a councillor on Lambeth London Borough Council but never succeeded in attempts to gain election to Parliament which would have constituted notability in its own right. Uhooep (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe all Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals, however Bing has an entry in Who's Who which suggests he is particulrly notable. Wikipedia does not put a numerical restriction on how many notable circuit judges it allows. Graemp (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as several of these have been deleted as it is and this one is simply questionably better for notability and improvements. Move to Draft at best if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 27 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. Nom hasn't done any searches beforehand thus not following WP:BEFORE - All have been nominated within seconds of each other so closing as SK (This should've been closed weeks ago so not sure why it never was....) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Charles Price[edit]

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

I 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. Uhooep (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe all Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals, however Charles has an entry in Who's Who which suggests he is particulrly notable. Wikipedia does not put a numerical restriction on how many notable circuit judges it allows. Graemp (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as despite the comment above, several of these have been deleted as it is and recovering all of these simply for better analysis would be unnecessary especially considering AfD itself. Delete and Move to Draft at best if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 27 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. Nom hasn't done any searches beforehand thus not following WP:BEFORE - All have been nominated within seconds of each other so closing as SK (This should've been closed weeks ago so not sure why it never was....) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Reddihough[edit]

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

I 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. Uhooep (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe all Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals, however Reddihough has an entry in Who's Who which suggests he is particulrly notable. Wikipedia does not put a numerical restriction on how many notable circuit judges it allows. Graemp (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as several of these have been deleted as it is and this one is simply questionably better for better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 27 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. (As noted below this should've been closed ages ago but was somehow overlooked so closing now), Like the rest i have no objections to speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 16:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Taylor (circuit judge)[edit]

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

I 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. Uhooep (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe all Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals, however Taylor has an entry in Who's Who which suggests he is particulrly notable. Wikipedia does not put a numerical restriction on how many notable circuit judges it allows. Graemp (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Davey2010 closed as keep a whole batch of AfD discussions nominated by this nominator due to "The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other." This one may have been overlooked. Graemp (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Graemp - I must've somehow assumed I closed this when I did't so thanks for noticing the error. –Davey2010Talk 15:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  18:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dudley[edit]

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

I 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. The only argument for keeping in my view is not positions held or rank as a judge, but that he was quoted by MailOnline, but many people feature in The Mail and we don't keep articles on all of them. Uhooep (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe all Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals, however Dudley has an entry in Who's Who which suggests he is particulrly notable. Wikipedia does not put a numerical restriction on how many notable circuit judges it allows. Graemp (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as I would've honestly voted delete but it seems Keep may be best, even if I'm not satisfied with the current amount of sources, this may not be an outstanding priority for deletion yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rayat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced for 6+ years. PROD removed on the grounds that Google Books coverage indicates notability, but the Google Books results are not about the "Ramgarhia and Dhiman Brahman" surname. utcursch | talk 17:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no reliable sources for the finding this article does more harm than good. —SpacemanSpiff 04:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Statements claiming celestial descent like "Riyats are descendants of Lord Vishwakarma" don't belong in an encyclopedia. And it looks like there's nothing factual to base the article on at this time. (edited to add following) I found two sources which really are such snippets there still isn't enough for an article:
  • People of India (Oxford Press, 1998) "rayat, meaning feudal chiefs who cultivated rent-free or nearly rent-free land as a privilege in lieu of rendering military services to the Rajput kings..."
  • Agriculture and social structure in Tamil Nadu (Carolina Academic Press, 1978) "Ryot (rayat, Urdu raiyat) - cultivator who owns the land."

Additionally these are fairly orthogonal to the etymology given in the article now about a divine architect and all that. - Brianhe (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those two book results seem to be about the Ryot / Ryotwari, alternatively transliterated as rayat / rayatwari. Completely different topic. utcursch | talk 14:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as there's simply nothing convincing to actually keep, considering both notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 27 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced for 5 years. There is a one-line mention in the antiquated A Glossary of the Tribes & Castes of the Punjab: "SEMI, a Jat clan (agricultural) found in Multan." Ignoring Wikipedia mirrors, I am not able to find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. utcursch | talk 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC) utcursch | talk 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this would imaginably be notable and acceptable but with no signs of better, this is simply best deleted for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 27 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) 21:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Response Marketing (Jersey) limited[edit]

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

I was unable to find any more besides what's already cited. The NYT source only has three sentences on it: it quotes the company's website, names the company, and gives its location and how it sells Xenical. The other source quotes the director and says what his company sells. So it does not really satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. GABHello! 22:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's simply nothing better at all, including for minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 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 as this seems enough to continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonantius Ferreolus (senator)[edit]

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

This is an involved problem.

First, there was no person of this name. There was a Tonantius Ferreolus, Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls c. 451, but this article makes it very clear that this is not the Prefect but his son. However, checking the standard references -- Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Martin Heinzelmann, "Gallische Prosopographie 260-527", Francia 10 (1982), et alia -- Tonantius Ferreolus the Prefect did not have a son by this name. However, he did have a son Tonantius. Even the sources cited in this article that I have been able to consult do not call this son Tonantius, not Tonantius Ferreolus.

So the solution then should be to simply move the article from the wrong name to the right one? Not exactly.

Reviewing the facts of Tonantius the Younger's life, he lacks any grounds for notability. Unless being the friend of Sidonius Apollinaris, the son of one notable person & the possible father of another (Firminius, bishop of Uze) are grounds for notability. (I know. I looked hard.) He was just Some Rich Dude who lived in the 5th century when the Roman Empire in the West collapsed, about whom we know little more than his name. And maybe of interest to various people looking to trace a connection between the Senatorial families of the Later Roman Empire & the well-born of later centuries -- but in that case, Tonantius should be mentioned in the relevant article, not given his own article. -- llywrch (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A 5th century Roman aristocrat whose life attests to the adaptation of Gallo-Romans to their new circumstances, with a sourced article. That is in itself notable. Dimadick (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To repeat myself, (1) the name is wrong; (2) his most notable achievement was to receive a pair of letters from Sidonius (one of which compliments him on his villa); & (3) his possible role as a genealogical link. (Which IMHO is suspect, but probably worth a mention in a related article.) There is no surviving material that helps to attest "to the adaptation of Gallo-Romans to their new circumstances" -- far better examples would be his father, Tonantius Ferreolus (prefect) or Sidonius Apollinaris, or any of a dozen individuals we can actually say something about. But if one were to prune the genealogical content currently filling much of this article, & the obvious speculation making up the remainder, practically nothing would be left. If I could salvage this article, I would, but there's nothing here to salvage. -- llywrch (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If the name is wrong, WP:MOVE the article. Meets the criteria of WP:NPOL namely "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" AusLondonder (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this personage is not known to have held any political office. The "senator" in the article title refers to his social rank, not to membership in a legislature. -- llywrch (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article suggests he was a member of the Roman Senate. Is this incorrect? The article for this body is in the category Category:Historical legislatures. AusLondonder (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it stands, if the younger Tonantius was appointed Defensor Pedensis by Theodoric in 511, then he meets the WP:NPOL criteria. If he is, then the name should not be changed, as Martindale records the Defensor as "Ferriolus". The article does need a good clean-up; I don't like the biographical articles that are heavily dependent on Christian Settipani's genealogical musings and assumptions, and the blocked user who introduced much of those changes User:G.-M. Cupertino / User:GradyEdwardLoy (and God knows how many other accounts) was too keen to state as fact what are really a bunch of assumptions. Maybe the solution is to go back to a version of the article before much of the extraneous details were added, and judiciously add any additional information from the latest version that are verifiable, or at least clarify statements by declaring that "it has been hypothesised that...". At the same time it would be good to delete unsubstantiated rubbish like "Tonantius Ferreolus' Austrasia bound son Ferreolus would have possessed sufficient standing in the eyes of the Franks to marry a Frankish princess of a minor house". Oatley2112 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- possibly renamed to (say) Tonantius. If we have unsubstantiated material in it, the nom should purge that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 26 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 Draftify. Basically, this is a consensus to delete, but going to go with SwisterTwister's suggestion to move it to draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ackerman Berry[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. A google search revealed no sources where the author was the primary subject. 4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there was hardly anything found at all to satisfy GNG. GABHello! 20:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep He'd pass NAUTHOR for Gentleman of the Road alone, as this was very well received on publication in the '70s. I remember doing it at school, one of the English teachers championing it as a return to Romanticism against the Modernists (we had Ted Hughes give a reading at our school). He's also quite well known in Bristol (no idea why) which led to Redcliffe publishing several other works.
Sourcing is being a problem, as usual for anyone of the recent pre-'net generation and this really isn't my field in order to look further. I wouldn't delete it though, without a literature scholar, familiar with the field, telling me that the author of so many well-received books really does count for nothing.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I can't imagine that an author who died as late as 1996 wouldn't at least have an obituary online somewhere if he were indeed notable. As it is, I can't find anything (which to my mind is telling). The sources you added, while useful, are primary sources and to my mind don't sufficiently support the WP:GNG requirements for notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is puzzling me too. I'd expected something in the Grauniad at least. I'm not especially literary but the name, and one book, jogged my own memory, so I'd expected to see more. The trouble is that the places to look, like the TLS or the LRB, aren't somewhere I have access to. I would need to check in those before saying "not notable", anything less would be remiss. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and then Move to Draft as this is still questionably better, nothing convincing to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 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) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Ross (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Minor leaguer without particular distinction, and his German experience is still a few seasons' short of qualifying under NHOCKEY. The Toronto Star article about his drug suspension is a qualifying source, but that seems to be the only bit of his career that's provoked press coverage, and thus fails the GNG and WP:ONEEEVENT. Ravenswing 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 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 delete. CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Nomiya[edit]

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

Hoax or autobiography or patent nonsense Bamyers99 (talk) 00:23, 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 Redirect as this seems to be enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiesvaran[edit]

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

This is still a non-notable shelved film. It was nominated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiesvaran and the result was a redirect to the producer in September 2011. For some reason, a vandal blanked it in April 2013, reverted and then this was just restored in May 2014 without further explanation. The sources remain again only passing mentions and there's no evidence that this is some historically famous shelved film or the like. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't see evidence that this is some historically famous shelved film at which point the failure itself would be the basis for its notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically famous shelved" is not the requirement. Having coverage (made or not) is. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:06, 23 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 06:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TristanV[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No indications of any significant coverage. Qualifies for BLPPROD because none of the listed sources are WP:RS, but because the BLPPROD keeps getting removed, I thought taking it to AFD would be more convincing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes, it fails general notability, but I think "didn't try" would be a better choice of words: literally no assertion of notability is given in the article at all. It just lists his chart positions (which are none), and a few facts about him. The only attempt at asserting notability is from one of the rare contributions from the articles' creator not on the article itself, ironically trying to sneak his name into a list of notable artists on this page. And I don't like to make assumptions, but visting the guys website, it seems like he's kindof repping himself. One of the external links is labeled 'Booking', so I can't help but get a certain feeling about whoever made this article. That'd be pure conjecture on my part, of course/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair, the author did "try" by adding TristanV's "Just Slagers" chart positions, whatever the heck that is! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as simply none of this imagines better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 27 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) SSTflyer 01:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Hared[edit]

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

non notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I voted keep, since he passes WP:GNG, and I do not see what changed since the last time except for more coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY, with no indication of what has changed since the last time. Non-English sources do not equate a lack of reliable sources. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:25, 25 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) 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Davis[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lo and behold, all he gets are some brief mentions in news articles with no substantive coverage. Delete as it fails GNG. GABHello! 22:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 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) 12:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday's Child (TV program)[edit]

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

Does not fulfill the WP:GNG Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Common branding for adoption segment on local news (it can also be known as Tuesday's Child), but claiming it's exclusive to NBC and only sponsored by Freddie Mac is incorrect; many other stations no matter the network run adoption/Big Brothers/Sisters segment, and often it's just a simple community service from the station, not a sponsor opportunity (it was in the past by the Freddie Mac Foundation but it looks like they abandoned the sponsorship). No real target to put this towards unless someone wants to put effort into a section within Adoption in the United States. Nate • (chatter) 03:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and unclear as to whether or not the information in the article is correct. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vortexis[edit]

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

A model of wind turbine. Reads like an advertisement for the technology, and cites no reliable independent sources; none are immediately apparent in a search.  Sandstein  13:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources for this technology in Google Scholar, Books, or News. All the putative hits I found for 'vortexis' were mis-spellings of 'vortex is'. The patents cited in the article are not considered reliable sources. The article itself seems promotional for the technology. Without any reliable sources, the technology fails notability and verifiability thresholds and cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSOLUTELY DON'T DELETE

Since when is an interesting and promising new technology that has high enough novelty value to warrant an actual patent considered to be even potentially unworthy of the encyclopedia ?????
The patent [1] itself contains enough fact for anyone with knowledge in physics and engineering to verify it's value!
Furthermore, look at the date of the patent, and consider the time it takes for new engineering ideas to mature into "products" that the ignorant hordes, or even technology journalists, will recognize as interesting enough that it will emerge into e.g Google.
If this article is deleted, I will consider it as an attempt by the encyclopedia to cover up a promising technology.
External references:
(1) An article in Gabon Turbine Electricity, published Jan 19, 2016. 

   http://www.turbinelectricity.ga/2016/01/what-is-vortexis-wind-turbines.html

(2) Short video of one of the prototypes, published Oct 26, 2015. 

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtQCtWmPGOM

Love Nystrom (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is measured by coverage in independent reliable sources, see WP:N. This does not include sources like patents, blogs and Youtube videos.  Sandstein  09:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that vertical axis wind turbines are an interesting topic, but I can't find anything about Vortexis in particular. Much of the article text is copy-pasted directly from the patent. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability. Searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Most mentions were not to this subject, but different uses of the term. Onel5969 TT me 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe in coming years this will become more notable and will warrant an article here. Patentability is a completely different issue than notability by Wikipedia's standards. Histrionics regarding "cover[ing] up a promising technology" are not helpful; declining to continue publishing an encyclopedia entry regarding a non-notable whatever is what editors do. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:50, 31 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) 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Concert of Remembrance[edit]

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

Seriously? A single performance by a suburban symphony? Fails EVENT. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Merge(d) Speedy redirect to Elgin Symphony Orchestra). I initially tagged this for A7, but redirection is a better step. Most probably qualifies for A7 especially as an unremarkable event (events require a high level of notability), but non-notable event. Esquivalience t 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That only makes sense if there has been no other "Concert of Remembrance" given under that title by other organizations, which seems highly dubious to me. Sparafucil (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There were many 9/11 tributes, concerts or events. While maybe meaningful to the local populace, there just isn't any GNG notability to this event.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:46, 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 redirect to Elgin Symphony Orchestra. A selective merger can be done by accessing the history of the newly created redirect. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Planets Gala Concert with Leonard Nimoy[edit]

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

Single performance of a minor work at a third line venue. A famous person narrated it. Fails EVENT. John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. I tend to agree with the nominator--there's not really any coverage of the event. I have no issue with including the information in other relevant articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:46, 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.
  1. ^ U.S. Pat. 9022721B
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_21&oldid=1142621755"