Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 March	23 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep per speedy keep#1, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UN Youth Ghana[edit]

WP:Speedy keep "Withdrawn by nominator"Dr. Daniel Obuobi 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep No rationale given by nominator. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 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 06:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabere[edit]

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

This is a translation of a page that was deleted as advertising on ptwiki. In addition to being advertising and not notable, this represents someone’s original research. giso6150 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search for coverage provided nothing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no better convincing signs of better notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of a Small Town[edit]

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

Despite the fact that I just added sourcing to this article, I strongly feel it should be deleted as TV pilots are not inherently "notable" enough to merit articles in all but extraordinary cases (e.g. Aquaman (TV pilot)). In any case, all of the sourcing for this one are just passing mentions – i.e. it doesn't pass WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable pilot that has no cult notability. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The show has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Television Pilots so that's clear evidence that the topic has encyclopedic notability. Moreover, it appears in the filmography of people like Kaley Cuoco and Angie Harmon. It would be disruptive to turn those entries into red links for no good reason. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, it doesn't – things like that and Brooks & Marsh do not establish "notability": see this (addendum: see also WP:NFSOURCES). WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" – a listing in a single directory of all TV pilots certainly does not meet this. Further, WP:NMEDIA requires "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." – all of the sourcing used for this one are the latter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't agree with the nominator. An entry in an encyclopedia is prima facie evidence of notability per the WP:GNG. The nominator has created pages whose notability seems no stronger – pages such as I Killed My BFF or List of San Diego Trolley stations – and so his position is inconsistent. It seems easy to find more sources such as the Union-Tribune and so we are able to verify the essential facts of the topic. It's never going to be very big but it doesn't have to be. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, right Andrew? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, as WP:OSE states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides". Notice that the page is one of many Unaired television pilots which all have separate pages, just like this. My position also rests on WP:GNG and the policy WP:PRESERVE and so we see that there is no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. The provided web references are, as already said, passing mentions. As for the mentioned Encyclopedia of Television Pilots, said to provide "clear evidence that the topic has encyclopedic notability", the entries in that book appear to be two or three sentences summing up the premise of a show, sometimes with a cast list. That's not nearly enough to qualify as significant coverage, and the book containing the world "encyclopedia" in the title does not change that. That the work appears in a list in other articles, and deleting it would lead to a list entry with no wikilink, is not a good reason to keep something around if it's judged not to be notable, and the idea that doing so could be "disruptive" is, frankly, risible. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this could be useful for historical uses but considering it will never air, it's unlikely for any better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tundak (Yadav) dynasty[edit]

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

No reliable sources confirm this dynasty existed. Google Books and Google Scholar produce a grand total of zero relevant hits. For an empire supposed to stretch from Delhi to Sri Lanka, I find this lack of any references whatsoever that are more reliable than a book about Yadavas published by Yadava Publications and authored by J.N.S.Yadav unlikely. At best the article does not provide enough context (such as dates) to identify the subject, at worst it's made up. Huon (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The third source, "History of Yadavs", is mythological nonsense published by a caste organization. The second source, "Rise of hindustan", appears to be a mirror of an old version of the Wikipedia Yaduvanshi Ahirs article which has since been extensively rewritten. Both are clearly unreliable, which leaves the book about Yadavs, by a Mr Yadav, published by Yadava Publications. And while we can't see its contents, publications about castes written by caste members and published by caste organizations (like the publisher of source 3, which we can read) are notoriously bad sources - the caste organizations' purpose is usually to promote their caste and make them seem as important as they can in order to keep their profile high in the context of India's repressive caste discrimination culture, and not to provide accurate information. The book must, therefore, also been seen as unreliable without independent corroboration, and I can find none whatsoever. I get no Google hits on "Tundak dynasty" other than a couple of DuckDuck Go results which turn out to be Wikipedia pages, and nothing relevant for "Tundak" alone. There are hits on "Yadav dynasty" and "Yadava dynasty" but they appear to be about the Seuna (Yadava) dynasty. Google Books gives no hits on "Tundak dynasty" and nothing that appears to be relevant for "Tundak". It does give some for "Yadav dynasty" and "Yadava dynasty", but again they appear to be the other one. My suspicion is that this might be an attempt to write about a real dynasty which we already have under a different name (and on first glance, done properly with lots of sources), or an article about a fictitious dynasty. Either way, it has to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cited sources don't seem to be reliable. If this political entity had actually existed reputable sources would evince that. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A BlogSpot is certainly not RS. The third source is based on what is clearly mythical sources, but that does not make it inappropriate that we should have an article. The dynasties template is clearly inappropriate, since the dynasty is not listed in it. We are then left with a harmless stub. I have been unable to see the Michigan source as google books blocks it for me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Michigan" from the google books record is a reference to the library which had the copy scanned by google. This is the same Yadavas book, written by JNS Yadava and published by Yadava publications near Delhi, that was referred to in the previous comments. Suspicious as it may look, it does appear in the catalogues of respectable libraries. Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable, the information and sources are convincing enough to keep thus this is best restarted when a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 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. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW: not all keep arguments are equally strong, and some are not policy-based at all, but there is such an overwhelming majority voting to keep that it is hard to imagine the consensus swaying the other way. If another admin decides that this is too early, they are free to revert. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Cruz[edit]

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

Article subject is not notable on her own. Fails WP:GNG and falls under WP:INHERIT -- notability is not inherited, even during a presidential campaign. Coverage on her is only in relation to her husband's campaign, not about her on her own merit.

The article is a fair size, but is largely a puff piece padded with WP:UNDUE weighted content about article subject's husband, Senator Ted Cruz. Once deleted, any relevant content about the article subject could be moved into that article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The actual wording of WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This wording was worked out earlier this year in response to a spate of AFDs on candidate spouses. And see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haley (South Carolina).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! She is a beautiful woman and mother. Ted Cruz is so far behind that he can use all the help from women that can relate to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.121.113 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo should be deleted. It's really bad. And the article needs to be fixed. I tried, but I was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable for her political career. If the page is to keep, someone needs to take an ax to the Role in 2016 presidential campaign section. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, Heidi Cruz doesn't have a political career. Her husband does. That in mind, your reason for keeping the article makes no sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She worked as a top deputy to US Trade Rep. Robert Zellik and was director of the National Security Council. Seems somewhat notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSA is not partisan and working for US Trade is also not partisan. Looks like she had some heavy-duty employment, but it wasn't political. Neither were her positions enough to make her notable per WP:GNG. Many people work for the NSA and US Trade (or have other big-time jobs), that doesn't make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Sorry, but I just don't see the notability other than being Ted Cruz' wife, and as it has been pointed out already, WP:INHERIT states notability isn't inherited. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I call "wrong" to the comments above. She DID have "heavy-duty employment" because she was a senior advisor to the Bush for President campaign and after Bush won the Presidency Bush appointed her to political appointee positions at the State Department, at National Security Agency, and in the White House itself. She worked directly for President Bush. She was and is a national politician. She worked directly for Condi Rice because she was appointed to a PARTISAN Political appointed position. Winkelvi's comment that working at the State and U.S. Trade and NSA and The White House is not political and is not partisan is flat out wrong. She only got those positions because she worked on the campaign and every single agency in the Federal government has a certain number of political positions that are filled with the President's policy advisors--these positions are specifically designed for political types that implement and follow through with policy changes. That was what all of her positions were. Also, how can Winkelvi ignore the fact that she worked directly in the White House? How is that non-partisan? It isn't. -- ML (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "political" career wouldn't be the correct description. Her stint at NSC and US Trade appeared significant enough but after doing some digging, not many sources cover it in depth, only in passing mention. Meatsgains (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject is the wife of a United States senator and is an integral part of his campaign team. Skatz613 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

Your first edit in Wikipedia is to this AFD? That's certainly not suspicious.

Aside from that: Being the wife of a senator doesn't mean she meets WP:GNG to have a Wikipedia article about her. Notability is not inherited. As far as being "an integral part of his campaign team": this reason seems manufactured/like original research. Regardless, it's still not enough to have a Wikipedia article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you attacking me? You are the one who flagged this for deletion. Who asked you to do that? Are you paid to do this stuff or are you a volunteer? I am certain you will not tell me.

Actually Cruz herself was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleeza Rice. ^[2]</nowiki> Heidi Cruz also served as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative to USTR head Robert Zoellick. At USTR Heidi worked on U.S.-China trade policy. How can you say that she does not have a political career? Moreover in a period of about 3 weeks she has had about 150,000 views, which means (1) she is a person who is of interest to the public, and (2)that she does have a political career as a wife actively involved in her husband's presidential campaign.^[3] In addition, she was an active member of an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations, an NGO "think-tank, "where she was on a task force that included Canadian, American, and Mexican academics and business people, but which dealt with policy relating to all three countries.^[4] Skatz613 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy does it. Nobody is attacking you. No need to make bold assertions here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being attacked. But you do look like a meatpuppet or sockpuppet at this point. Coming here as your first edit? That's certainly not a coincidence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi attacked me even though the sources I provided are true and accurate, so that was directed at him, sorry Meatsgains.

Winkelvi, what do you mean with your charge of "original research"? Did you check my citations? I have been an editor for many years, not on Wiki, but for other journals. I am documenting all of this because quite frankly the public deserves to have a total picture of a person's affiliations, not just what Chad Sweet wants people to know. Censorship and democracy are mutually exclusive. Skatz613 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you notice WP:INHERIT is an essay not a policy. In WP:INHERIT it states "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Well she does have significant coverage from reliable sources, a lot of them are because of Ted Cruz's presidential run but if you notice a lot of those articles are about her, who she is and what she said or did not just trivial mentions. I do think there is a lot of puff that needs to removed because of WP:UNDUE. In addition to her previous work as a top deputy U.S. Trade Rep and director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council makes her also notable. If perhaps Ted Cruz was not running for President, those two roles she had would not warrant an article of her own but because of the combined extensive coverage about her and previous positions I believe she meets WP:GNG.Jay Jay^{What did I do?} 02:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is what makes one notable by Wikipedia standards. The coverage on her is solely about her husband and her being his wife. Being his wife does not make her notable. If her husband were not running for president, there would be no coverage on her. So, then, when her husband doesn't get the nomination or gets the nomination and loses, what do we do with her article? By your notability standards (that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, by the way), she is no longer notable and her article would need to be deleted. Why keep an article that would be deleted when her "notability" disappears? All of this is precisely why WP:INHERIT was written. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. WP:INHERIT may I remind you is a ESSAY, Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Notability isn't temporary. Precisely my point. Your reasoning above, however, pretty much says that because of her husband's campaign for president, she's notable. By your reasoning, once he loses, she will no longer be notable. QED. And, for the record, WP:INHERIT isn't an essay. It's part of the bigger picture presented at WP:NRV and WP:N as a whole. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my point, I'm saying notability for her has already been established because she meets WP:GNG, doesn't matter if WP:INHERIT applies, because of the significant coverage of her by reliable sources she meets WP:GNG. Now if the coverage were to go away because of Ted Cruz losing the nomination/general election it wouldn't matter because her notability has been established and Notability is not temporary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to say she is notable all you like. It still doesn't make it true for Wikipedia's purposes as described in WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having you read WP:GNG? WP:INHERIT aside ignore that, how does she not meet the requirements. She has significant coverage, from reliable sources that are independent from the subject and are have in depth coverage of her. By that standards from what I'm seeing from the citations in the article and online she does meet WP:GNG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi:, you wrote: "The coverage on her is solely about her husband and her being his wife." There is no tactful way to say this -- this assertion is clearly false. Please review WP:BEFORE. If you do, and realize you made a mistake, the best thing you could do would be to withdraw your nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what those puppets are. All I know is that Wiki is supposed to be an accurate and complete rendering of a person. I have been a Wiki user for over a decade. However, I tried to edit the article itself to add information about the Council on Foreign Relations stint because I noticed it wasn't in there. But when I came back to it, it wouldn't let me because it said the entire entry was flagged for deletion. Definition of political: of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. ^[5] I think the USTR (trade) and NSC (security) fall under the category of the government, would you not say? Skatz613 (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's extensive coverage about her, sufficient to pass GNG and any relevant guidance from WP:INHERIT, warranting a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a meat or sockpuppet.Skatz613 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then... you say you have edited previously. Under what account did you previously edit? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor. That is what I do for print publications, not Wiki, but I understand the value of citations, which is why I provided them. I am a Wiki user. Sorry if that was not clear, but again why are you attacking me? I am not arguing that I am a better Wiki editor compared to you. I am merely stating my background. Skatz613 (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"I am a Wiki user", "I am not a meat or sockpuppet". And you just ended up here out of the blue as your first and only contributions? Color me extremely skeptical. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the citations there are articles about her. One even interviews someone that said Heidi Cruz should/could run for office. Skatz613 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't believe this nomination complied with WP:BEFORE. Yes, notability is not inherited. A relative of a very notable person has to measure up to WP:GNG, or one of the specialty notability guidelines, all by themselves. Some of the existing references are about Heidi, and only peripherally mention her husband. So, she measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi you are perfectly fine attacking me although I explained myself above. Why can't I suddenly decide to edit for Wiki? Doesn't everyone start that way? Isn't that what Wiki is about? I never noticed anything incomplete before this on Wiki, so I never felt I had anything to do. But you failed to answer: why did you flag this for deletion? Why is it that you can question my motives but I cannot question yours? Don't you have to have a reason to even notice the article you flag for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatz613 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article meets criteria for...well, everything. I'd honestly just be repeating the other arguments above. Informant16 23 March 2016

Keep While being the wife of a notable person doesn't necessarily make a person notable, this subject's affiliation with Goldman Sachs makes her notable since it has been the beneficiary of a Federal bailout. This bridge between a sitting senator who may be the next President, and this tremendously influential investment firm make her a person of special note. That, and the significant amount of media coverage she has received.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- She is a politician who is notable. She worked on the Bush For President campaign in 2000. She was appointed to THREE political appointments during after Bush was elected President. ALL of her government experience was POLITICAL PARTISAN appointments where she assisted in forming POLICY. She worked for Condi Rice at State, she worked in The White House, and she worked at the NSA. She was a economic policy advisor to George W. Bush during Bush's run for the Presidency. She is a politician. She is highly covered in the press--ALL aspects of her life and that coverage includes discussions of her political career before her Goldman Sachs career.--ML (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability. The lead section should establish notability, but what we find there is that she (1) "is an American investment manager at Goldman Sachs" -- Which isn't encyclopedically notable, (2) is a "former economic policy advisor to the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign" -- Again, that isn't encyclopedially notable, and (3) that she was "an appointed government official in the Bush Adminstration" -- Once more, that isn't encyclopedically notable. Also, (4) "She is the wife of Republican Texas senator and 2016 U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz" -- But that, again, isn't encyclopedically notable either. In short, notablility hasn't been established. I also noticed the WP article on Ted Cruz has been around for 11 years; the one on Heidi Cruz, less than 11 months. Did she suddenly become notable after her husband announce his run from the US Presidency last year? I also noticed an abnormally high number of sources for an article this size...but, per WP rules, the article could have numerous sources, but that doesn't establish notability (which could be established with as little as 3 sources, perhaps less). Finally, I ask, "Frankly, setting aside every other argument, whether herein or not, would the majority of the world have ever heard of Heidi Cruz if it hadn't been because she happens to be Ted Cruz's wife?" I think that if Ted Cruz one day becomes President, then, as First Lady, Heidi Cruz will engage in activities that will, by default, establish her notability...at that point the Heidi Cruz article could then be re-instated, but publishing it now is contrary to Wikipedia notability rules. Mercy11 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone who understands notability from both Wikipedia's standpoint and an encyclopedic standpoint. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious! What you are saying, Winkelvi, is that: "Finally, someone who agrees with me and since the other 10 don't agree with me they can't possibly know what they are talking about!!!" Give it a break, she passes WP:GNG.--ML (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She easily meets WP:GNG. There is a lot of coverage of her in multiple, independent reliable sources. While a bunch of it is about her connections to her husband and his political career, there's a whole bunch more that is not. She's held multiple positions in government, independent of her husband, and that work has been sufficiently covered in secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's rules defining notability. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:INHERIT is not applicable in this case because it specifically says, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." She clearly meets GNG as someone who has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's obviously notable for all the reasons that have been repeatedly listed above. DJLayton4 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone educate me for a minute here? How does an article get selected to be deleted? The reason I am asking is because I was trying to add to this article but I couldn't finish my edit. When I returned to finish it after an hour or two, there was the delete flag on it so that is why I started posting here, even though you all are experienced at the Wiki notations and guidelines and this AFD stuff is new to me. I just want to know how this article got picked to be deleted, was it random or did Winkelvi himself select it? Thank you! Skatz613 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find all the whys and wherefores here: WP:AFD. David in DC (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She easily meets WP:GNG, especially as her life and background come under scrutiny and she has been personally attacked by a leading presidential candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.117.210 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As per WP:SNOWBALL. Note that the spouses of ALL major Presidentail candidates have pages. (Even spouses of former candidates: Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio) And the reason is that they draw sufficient in-depth press coverage to pass WP:GNG. This applies even to non-entities like Todd Palin, and once that level of notability s achieved, WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, E.M.Gregory. Todd Palin was the spouse of a failed VP candidate, but yet he still has an article AND he is still talked about in the news 8 years later (e.g., his recent dog sled crash injuries).--ML (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE In this case, however, an AFD template article is doubly inappropriate. First, because it makes Wikipedia look stupid and petty (80,000 people viewed this page yesterday. Second, (no matter how pure the motives of Nom may have been) because it gives the impression that Wikipedia allows itself to be used for partisan advantage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to have accomplished anything to become notable. Kitty Dukakis still has an article about her on Wikipedia. She was a politician's wife. But people want to know about who might be a heartbeat away from the POTUS. This is a Keep Bruriyah (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I wrote of Jeanette Rubio elsewhere, I don't believe Heidi Cruz has any accomplishments that might merit an encyclopedia article, but she clearly satisfies our notability guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she Provides her husband with Insurance and it was nationally televised which is how I become familiar with her many years ago she provides insurance for her Husband through her job with GoldmanSachs rather than him being under Obammmacare a big showboat event for him years ago which was a Farce since they (senators ) get what they want it's all a Joke her affiliation with the busch Family & Goldman Sachs alone maker it clear she is notable.:(I moved this misplaced iVote from top of the page to here. It was written by as the first edit of : Ktdbubba99. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Please keep. I just swerved into this conversation as, after hearing the mutual and unfortunate nastiness regarding the Cruz and Trump wives, I wanted to get some reliable information about Heidi Cruz. So, I came to the article, and seeing the deletion possibility, I came here. I urge the continuation of the article. But then, I also want the Cesar Gracie article continued by reinstating it, and it is gone. So, perhaps I'm wrong. To me, they are both notable enough according to what I read.Horst59 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Utterly common and noteworthy to have an article about the spouse of a leading presidential candidate. Would be absurd to delete it. Moncrief (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to delete would question the viability of wikipedia It seems the idea to delete is absurd. This is then new era of American politics and even thought it is tasteless; it is reality.--Wikipietime (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An example headline from the Washington Post; Cruz to Trump: ‘Donald, you’re a sniveling coward. Leave Heidi the hell alone.’^[6]--Wikipietime (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the requirements of relevant notability guidelines due to substantial and non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:29, 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 redirect to Dungeons & Dragons (TV series). (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelek (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:V. No independent RS sources are cited and the content is likely 100% WP:OR. Subject fails WP:GNG. I have been unable to find anything that meets the criteria for inclusion, specifically "in depth coverage from multiple WP:RS sources." There are quite a few hits in a Google search but almost entirely from non-RS sources, blogs and gaming websites, and the coverage is incidental and or trivial. The article has been tagged since 2014 w/o any evident improvement. I removed a proposed merger tag that has also been on the article since 2014 and that apparently went nowhere. In any event there is nothing that can be merged in the absence of reliable sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) and Kelek isn't even listed as a character. He's mentioned being a product of the toy line as none of the main characters appeared in the toy line. Kelek apparently was the villain of a single episode: List of Dungeons & Dragons episodes as mentioned in his own article. He doesn't seem to have had any appearances elsewhere unlike say the similar Warduke who has at least that under his belt. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons (TV series), possibly merge in the basic detail that he was a villain on the show. This is definitely too minor to merit a separate article, but it's getting 5-10 hits per day, indicating it's a possible search term. What I find strange is that the article creator slapped in-universe and refimprove tags on the article in its very first edit, so even they knew it wasn't WP:GNG worthy. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Torchiest, and my thanks to the nominator for notifying the appropriate Wikiproject. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to a Redirect. However, in its current state there is really nothing that can be merged given the complete absence of independent reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and only then recreate as a redirect if needed. There's a pernicious problem with these very poorly sourced D&D articles getting reverted (consensus or not) when they are turned into a redirect. Researching it, this character appeared in a lot of merchandise: An episode of the D&D cartoon, an action figure, one of many NPCs in a couple of modules (Quest for the Heartstone and The Shady Dragon Inn, which was probably recycled as filler), the villain in a couple of kid's story books, on sticker sheets, a vinyl figurine, maybe in some coloring books, and so on. All of this was in-universe integrated marketing by TSR, and while they may have tried to make it a phenomenon, it wasn't. I found no reliable independent coverage of this ~~cynical marketing gimmick aimed at children~~ important part of gaming history, and I doubt such sources exist. Until they are actually found, and not before, the article should be deleted. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but please show me where we delete articles just because we think someone might do something bad with a redirect in the future. Fact is, if that's a problem, then protecting a redirect after multiple AfD's end in redirect is the appropriate action, not turning a non-notable article into a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show you? It seems like you're making assumptions about my motives. This isn't supposed to be a new-default action for all D&D redirects, and not all of the many, many non-notable D&D-related redirect candidates should be treated this way, but I see nothing here worth keeping at all. This problem is described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Redirects being converted into stand alone articles? and elsewhere. There many more examples where that came from, as well. As a practical matter, deleting and then recreating is a straightforward, non-bureaucratic measure against an old problem. This way if there are sources, the article can still be recreated without having to worry about going through AFC or similar. Deleting it first would just make it slightly harder to go the lazy route of restoring an unsourced, in-universe article, which has happened far too often with D&D articles. Expecting multiple AFDs before protecting the exact same unsourced article seem like a song-and-dance. Deleting it first establishes a consensus while still leaving a clear path to creating a sourced article. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An assertion of a problem doesn't make it a... problem. Yes, I do expect multiple AfDs, or BOLD re-directing if nothing's changed, rather than functionally destroying contributions to Wikipedia such that non-administrators can no longer access them. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't make it a problem that needs to be dealt with by draconian means. In almost no case involving notability does an article need to be deleted and then redirected: that should be for attack, COPYVIO, promotional or other harmful or unquestionably worthless content. For the rest of things, we should go out of our way to allow the no-longer-mainspace'd content to remain accessible to those who desire to improve it. That means a redirect without deletion, and a protected redirect in case of trouble with reverting the redirect without appropriately improving the separate article in a way that substantially changes the prior AfD'ing or other discussion resulting in the redirect. Our goal should be to keep as many appropriate things in mainspace, and not use blunt force tools designed to prevent harm inappropriately against popular yet insufficiently notable content. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as many appropriate things in mainspace? I don't fully understand what you mean, but I don't think that should be our goal. Whatever would hypothetically be worth saving could be recreated with no loss in quality in far less time than we've spent debating this. Why, exactly, should we go out of our way to preserve this? Wouldn't protecting the redirect just make it harder to actually create an appropriate article? I don't accept that the deletion of trivia is "inappropriate", "draconian" or "blunt force". Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep as much in mainspace as belongs in mainspace, but also keep as much that's both not appropriate in mainspace nor problematic (attack, copyvio, promotional) in a way easily accessible to any other editor who may want to come along and improve it. The fact that you categorize anything contributed to Wikipedia as trivial is problematic; one man's trivia is another's cherished contribution. Wikipedia as a whole has a problem with self-appointed adjudicators of content scaring off contributors; we want people to write about trivial things, even if we don't keep it all in mainspace, because the alternative is that only highly motivated contributors (who are often reimbursed in some way, often problematically) are going to be trying to get new content into Wikipedia. The effort behind recreation isn't the issue; rather, the act of "throwing away" (deleting such that no non-admin can see it) is a virtual slap in the face to the editor who added it in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you make a compelling argument. I dunno. I think the best way to encourage new editors is, in addition to basic decency, to take their contributions seriously. I don't think preserving their edits is always taking their contributions seriously. I think it's the opposite, actually. With articles like this we aren't just saying "please contribute" we are saying "any topic's a potential article, no matter how obscure" which sends an untrue message. Some of these are so bad it's saying "nobody's paying any attention, so do whatever you want". Neither of those are really encouraging. If our goal is to encourage new editors, we're... trying? B- for effort? Still, if that were all there were to it, I would flatly agree that deleting the article is far too extreme, and wouldn't have proposed it in the first place.

As I've said, I'm skeptical that this is the behavior of new editors. Some of it surely is, but I no longer think the main problem is that simple. As I said at the Wikiproject, there's enough similarities and patterns that demonstrate, to me at least, that these edits are knowingly reverted without regard for consensus or community guidelines. I believe attempts to foster a welcoming environment are, effectively, being taken advantage of here. I say "effectively" because I'm not sure if I would characterize it as deliberate, but the IPs doing it aren't oblivious to what's going on. I don't specifically care if we delete this article, but I would like to take this problem seriously. Your comments about trivia are a fair point, but whatever we call it, almost every editor who's commented on these many AFDs agrees that we have a problem with very poorly sourced article on very obscure topics related to D&D. If I still believed this was just new editors, I would !vote, shrug, and move on, but... this looks like something else to me, and I would like to see if we can't do something about it beyond the same-old, same-old. Obviously this isn't the best forum for figuring out how to address this, though. Grayfell (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Torchiest. BOZ (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine, but as I noted above, there is nothing to merge. The article doesn't cite a single independent reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As Grayfell notes, the AD+D character obviously exists in multiple media and as Torchiest notes, the term is searched for on Wikipedia. The action figure is mentioned and illustrated and placed in context in the book Totally Tubular '80s Toys; a brief mention, but a secondary source. The character also gets a brief mention in the book Marvel Graphic Novels and Related Publications: An Annotated Guide to Comics, Prose Novels, Children's Books, Articles, Criticism and Reference Works, 1965-2005, another secondary source. The character was on the cover of the childrens book AD+D Forest of Enchantment, a primary source. There's not much, not nearly enough for notability, but enough to verify a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the hits simply mean that it's getting clicked on at the articles where it's hyperlinked to? For if you search for "Kelek", you don't even a get disambiguation page. You go straight to Kelek. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps at best because there are no convincing signs of a better independently notable article and is obviously best connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anubis Ice Hockey Team[edit]

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

Fails all notability guidelines for sports teams. ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Facebook page going back five years suggests this isn't a hoax (which, I admit, an alleged head coach named "C. Rolf" who allegedly -- and falsely -- played for the Bruins had me leaning towards), but there aren't any sources other than the FB page, the group's purported website is a broken link, the IIHF recognizes no hockey in Egypt, and no notability's been established here. Ravenswing 03:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed the IIHF did recognise anything in the article. It's CLEARLY mentioned that the team is an amateur team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anub Anubis (talk • contribs) 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that is likely the reason why the subject fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, Anub Anubis. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. An amateur team and so not passing any of the specialized notability guidelines for sport. No independent coverage included in the article. However, if this is in fact Egypt's first serious hockey team, it might have attracted significant news coverage, which, if cited here or in the article, might pass the WP:GNG. If such coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and if in some detail in each, is added to the article or provided here, my view might change. DES ^(talk) 12:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk)
Delete as there are no reliable sources that confirm this team's existence. Deadman137 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not convincing enough to keep, best restarted later if better is available. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Haughton[edit]

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

I cannot seem to find much information on Haughton besides that which is already on the page. He only seems notable for Noca inc (which doesn't even have a page of its own), and for winning the Technology and Innovation for the 2014 Harry Jerome Awards. All I could even find on the Harry Jerome Awards was a readlink on Harry Jerome. Also, only the first reference on Haughton actually focuses on him, the other one is more focused on Noca. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite some searching, I too was unable to turn up anything resembling substantial coverage in independent reliable sources; just volumes of "linked-in" style business networking/social media accounts. Does not seem to pass notability criteria at this time. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no minimal signs of any better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahillya Harjani[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the WP:NBADMINTON section of WP:ATHLETE namely "Gold medallist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics". Also meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Under 19 (youth) is not enough. Needs to have played at a senior level to pass WP:ATHLETE in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AusLondonder's sound analysis. Nom's cursory and unexplained assertions are clearly insufficient to refute claims of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AusLondonder's sound analysis.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:54, 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 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Otovescu[edit]

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

No real indication of notability, as defined by WP:PROF. In terms of the sources presented, we can safely start by discarding the résumé, the directory entry hosted by the subject's employer and the site of the subject's publishing house. Moving on, I'm distinctly unimpressed by the local news briefs. The first has some quotes of a speech the subject gave on the occasion of his faculty's 12th anniversary, while the second basically indicates he took part in a conference. In other words, neither indicates particularly noteworthy academic achievement. The final link indicates he won a prize from the Romanian Academy, and while this is certainly not to be dismissed, the fact is that the Academy hands out a total of seventy-seven annual prizes. To be sure, some of the recipients are notable, but I rather doubt all of them are so, per WP:NACADEMICS point 2. In sum, then, the subject is respected and has has some achievements in his field, but does not appear to rise to an encyclopedic level of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Biruitorul seems to have the right of this. Only one of the present sources really qualifies as RS for the purposes of establishing notability, and unfortunately, it's little more than a blurb. I did some brief searches and did not turn up anything more significant. It could be that someone more familiar with Romanian academic media could turn more up, but on the analysis of what we have on hand presently, this article seems to fail both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable at best and no better signs of a better article here, best deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 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. Sandstein 08:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Hello Venus[edit]

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

The speedy deletion tag was removed, so I am bringing it to AfD. To anyone familiar with K-pop, this is an obvious hoax article. The real history of Hello Venus is mixed with facts and fiction about other girl groups, including Girls' Generation and After School (band). A lot of it is simply fanfiction. There is nothing to merge because the real history is already on Hello Venus. Random86 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable, nothing convincing to keep if it's all questionable. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is still a hoax. Although the creator did add some semi-accurate information since I first started my quest to get rid of this hoax, their edits are still obviously not in good faith, since, for example, some of the new content is copy-pasted from the main Hello Venus article except the dates are changed. Like they literally went into those sentences and changed the dates for some reason. Extremely blatant inaccurate information is still there too, starting from the 3rd section. (The first two sections are less inaccurate.) I am not going to post my lengthy paragraphs with justification and evidence for why this is a blatant obvious hoax and should definitely be deleted. I will just link them here instead so you can go read them: 1st rant 2nd rant. (Note: In the second rant, I mention f(x) being referenced on the page. That has since been deleted and replaced by something else false.) In addition, even if all of the information in this article were to be replaced with accurate info, I still think it should be deleted because it'd be pretty redundant. Hello Venus has not been out for that long, and this is not a discography, so I think the main article should contain any timeline info. I don't think I have seen many timeline articles for bands anyway. I may not have seen any. Either way, this page definitely needs to be deleted. Gottagotospace (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The page creator has just added more fictional content to the article, including elements inspired by Produce 101. Random86 (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. With the exception of the article's creator, we have close to unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Chocolate[edit]

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

not seeing adequate actual reliable sourcing despite the host of links; awards seem to be insignificant –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As far as adequate links, what are we looking for? Not significant recognition? No, every company is not Hershey! Reputable sourcing - this is a niche product in its own way, not an established company or conglomerate. Of course at present, sourcing will be scant at best. Should we delete every chocolate company which does not meet Fortune 500 standards? Product is unique, that alone makes it notable. Cutting-edge market - what evidence are you looking for? Appearances on major networks, Emmy Awards association - are we looking for the next Hershey here? I provided significant sources and noted recognition by major media enterprises - beyond that is unreasonable. This is a new market, growth will occur. Put it this way - I know of no other company producing raw chocolate that would even begin to achieve notability by Wikipedia standards. If this is about David Wolfe, let's not go there. Regards, Glacier2009 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your alleged Fox News coverage is David Wolfe, the company's founder, talking about it in an interview on a daytime fluff show, and if you believe naturalnews.com is a "major network" or the San Francisco Chocolate Salon is a major industry award, you need to take off the WP:COI glasses. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say each source is a major network or award. Point being they are significant or credible sources, though perhaps not well-known. Glacier2009 (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Product is unique, that alone makes it notable." Yeah, no, no it doesn't. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. SarrCat ∑;3 03:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in that this is a new, fundamentally different process for producing chocolate, that is notable. Please, tell me how Wikipedia works, again? Glacier2009 (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "fundamentally different process" huh? How is it different? What makes it so special? Do you have any reliable sources that explain exactly what it is about this "Sacred" chocolate that makes it so fundamentally different from ordinary chocolate? SarrCat ∑;3 15:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believed that was self-explanatory. Conventional chocolate is roasted, but Sacred Chocolate is low-heat or raw-processed. Also, it is slowly stone-ground to help preserve vitamins and minerals, which is not at all standard procedure. In addition, this chocolate is poured and shaped in a way that may seem to have health properties. If this is about sourcing, we may just have to settle for new article "raw chocolate," as I have already made a good-faith effort to find credible, reliable sources. Glacier2009 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, what exactly would a "significant" award look like? This is a startup - need to win the award for largest market share to be considered notable? Glacier2009 (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability standards. I'm finding only very limited coverage in verifiable, third party sources as, for example, this passing mention (scroll down to the 12th paragraph). Perhaps it is too soon for this company to have sufficient third party coverage? At best a merge to the founder's article, David_Wolfe_(nutritionist), but I see that one has its own sourcing issues. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain If Wikipedia cares about being relevant in a meaningful way, article on raw chocolate should be retained. Where is the bias here? For the record, I have no "conflict of interest," and do not know anyone related to this enterprise directly or indirectly. Moreover, I have nothing to gain from this company's success or recognition, except seeing greater coverage of superfood nutrition on Wikipedia.

What passes for "reliable sourcing" on Wikipedia varies from page to page, and is quite amusing in some cases.

If this article is to be deleted, watch me create new article "raw chocolate." Glacier2009 (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, that this product was even mentioned on a major TV news network is notable. In addition, there are subjects of a scientific nature which may seem to have "rough" sourcing, but warrant a Wikipedia article. Further, to accuse me of bias, and/or direct connection to subject, seems a deflection tactic, while Wikipedia may seem to have a general bias against the alternative and unconventional. Glacier2009 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is currently nothing but a promotional piece for a product that is, quite frankly, woo-woo. Now, something being woo doesn't disqualify it from having an article on Wikipedia, but the lack of reliable sources DOES disqualify it. Find reliable sources, and there won't be a problem. SarrCat ∑;3 03:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Woo-woo" - hope that's a good thing, whatever it means. As stated earlier, we may have to move to article "raw chocolate." As far as "promoting," if by acknowledging people and entities, we are promoting them on Wikipedia, I hope we are not promoting cyanide as well. Glacier2009 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now updated the article to reflect the notability of the product and its fundamentally different production procedures. I have also provided a link to a BBC article on raw chocolate, which helps establish media recognition of this market, though it does not mention Sacred Chocolate specifically. Glacier2009 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Wolfe (nutritionist) without prejudice against undoing the redirect once significant coverage has been found. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wolfe (nutritionist), I listed two sources that could be used to verify information about Sacred Chocolate in co-founder David Wolfe (nutritionist)'s article, so I support a selective merge. There is not enough coverage at this time to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To wait for the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wolfe (nutritionist). Sandstein 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia reflects and does not give commercial products credible third party coverage. So if it has not had significant coverage elsewhere, it doesn't get it here. The other assertions about the uniqueness of the product are utterly irrelevant. JMWt (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ITSSOURCED is not a valid reason to keep an article. The thing that defines the WP:Notability of a subject covered here is not just the quality of the source but the type of source. WP:Routine coverage in WP:Reliable sources does not confer notability to a subject, and a product review is the definition of routine coverage. As the majority of the sources fall under routine coverage or are WP:Primary in nature, I see no notability in the subject. If you could find sources that meet the WP:Sourcing standards here, I would easily support its inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glane23 (talk · contribs) and I are supportive of a merge. Glacier2009 (talk · contribs), JMWt (talk · contribs), and Jerem43 (talk · contribs), would you support a merge/redirect of Sacred Chocolate to David Wolfe (nutritionist) if David Wolfe (nutritionist) is kept? Cunard (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cunard. Yes, that seems most reasonable here. I think we can agree that, if David Wolfe (nutritionist) is kept, this subject is worthy of mention, as it represents not just a significant part of Wolfe's life-emphasis, but a breakthrough in the chocolate industry. Glacier2009 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Should we delete every chocolate company which does not meet Fortune 500 standards?" Well, yes. Not as a guideline, but most are, like this one, probably WP:NOTNOTABLE. Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 12:46, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alek Lexa[edit]

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

Contested speedy; I still maintain that there is no credible claim to importance or significance here so it should in fact be speediable (but I'm not about to start a revert war over it). I can find exactly zero independent sources, and the person's own website doesn't support any of the claims in the article. Also note that there's been a fairly high level of vandalism by what looks like a small drawer of socks. bonadea contributions talk 19:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage att all to meet WP:BASIC. Plus, the dubious claims in the article are not substantiated by sources. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While keeping in mind WP:SUSC regarding vandalism, I agree with the rest of the rationale presented. Looking through WP:ATD, without an article for the actual company there's nothing to merge/redirect to, draft would probably not solve the notability issues unless this person actually starts getting significant coverage. Appable (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that (so thank you for reminding me! :-) ) : an article about the company has been speedily deleted, see deletion log for MYBUS Technology. That the article is vandalised a lot is of course not a reason to delete it, but it is relevant to mention the fact so that the participants in this discussion are aware of it. --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom and the above. Clearly a self-promotion. Couldn't find any news coverage or secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. On a side note, I did find the Facebook page of the subject's apparent company, and 6 likes hardly seems to suggest any notability. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above arguments, this is highly dubious. GAB^Hello! 21:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire This is a 16-year-old child (or maybe 15) who per his website is running for class president at "Haverford", with goals of installing a vending machine to pay for upgrades to the community room. As best I good do, I could not get any context as to what exactly Haverford is, but I think it is either a British educational instituion, or one using the British system. Even people elected presidents of their high school class are not notable, those running for such an office are way below even not notable. This article should have been speedy deleted, it has absolutely no place in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not even close for any minimal improvements, not acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Caltex Soccer Cup[edit]

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

Article is about a soccer tournament being played in Australia 3 years from now. There is no sourcing on this tournament, or any details on when and where the games are being played. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON I feel. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, far too early. Giant Snowman 18:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All this article says is it exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its a clear WP:CRYSTAL Matt294069 is coming 23:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Awodeyi-Akinsehinwa[edit]

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

Board member at a lot of companies, but none of them are notable. Seems like a classic instance of WP:RESUME to me. IagoQnsi (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I need to remind the article creator that Wikipedia is not a place for political campaign. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam of a non-notable politician. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing imaginably better. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Netball World Cup[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Unreferenced article about an event that is still 3 years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Host city named and ref'd in the article, per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a source for the host, although there are a number of other sources on the bidding (there was only one bidder), confirming the host, citing various people as being excited, etc. There is not much that I can find beyond the bidding procedure and some qualification information, meaning that the article would remain a stub for now, but a useful stub nevertheless. I don't think WP:TOOSOON applies here: "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". Sources DO exist for this one. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks for the addition of a source. For an event only three years away, preparations will probably be already underway or will be soon. Insisting that the article be deleted now and recreated (when? soon, certainly) is just a bit much. The article can stay a stub for now without doing anybody any harm. Blythwood (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National College Committee[edit]

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

Contested Prod. I can't find anything independent about it other than other directories or wikis. Richfife (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:NCOMPANY. Unreferenced, too, and I don't really see any sources for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as newly founded, no signs of any better yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Rugby World Cup[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The event is 11 years away and the article is also unreferenced. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article to support this. It probably will happen, but as the bidding hasn't started, seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage that I could find. Bidding is only starting for the 2023 event and the only items concerning the 2027 event are that USA "might possibly maybe" consider bidding. I don't think that kind of information would make it into the article and so the article should not exist. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with the above. If there was just a little more coverage other than one or two potential bids, then maybe. Until then, it's too soon. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way too soon to have an article be created and I will concur with the above two replies. Matt294069 is coming 23:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly simply too soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shediran[edit]

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

Doesn't look notable or encyclopaedic. Greek Legend (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No claim of notability whatsoever. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--Samək^Talk 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achu Vijayan[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable subject. References establish that subject is an editor, but do not establish notability. Does not meet general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as considerably questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not testify to the subject's long-term and inherent notability, as per WP:NBIO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:36, 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) 15:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Stephenson[edit]

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

Putting this out for discussion. Am not sure this man meets the notability guidelines, although there are a number of references. Seems to be slightly promotional but I don't think it really meets the inclusion guidelines. H.dryad (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Mr. Stephenson is President of Vertex, a company with approximately 1000 employees across North America, and had received numerous business accolades, I do not see how he would not meet the notability guidelines. Please provide link to inclusion guideline? Dwinters12345 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, here is Wikipedia:Notability. — Maile (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is a factor of the volume and quality of reliable source coverage you can locate about a person's career achievements — no size of company gives that company's president an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists, and press releases or his own "our president" profile on the website of his own company don't count as valid sources. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, as a strict interpretation of WP:ANYBIO would place this in the delete category, but 'significant award or honor' is a tad vague. Dschslava (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I grant that "significant award or honor" is vague enough that it could be debated how significant this particular award is or isn't, so if the sourcing were solid I'd let it through. But the sourcing here is parked almost entirely on primary sources and trade-magazine listicles — there's only one source that counts for anything toward getting the subject over WP:GNG, and that source (Sherwood Park News) is a local community weekly newspaper in a suburban town on the edge of a larger media market. So it would count for something if the rest of the sourcing around it were better, but it cannot carry him over GNG by itself as the best source there is. So unfortunately, the sourcing here simply doesn't cut it, and Wikipedia's notability criteria do not confer exemptions from having to source the article properly. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable sources. There's a bunch on the subject, but nothing that suggests his notability beyond "he exists and is mentioned on the internet". Ajraddatz (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only is he questionable for better notability, I'm also PRODing the company itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation palmar hidradenitis[edit]

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

Fails notability: entirely based on a single article about a single case, which got picked up by a couple of popsci authors. Sneftel (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Health news "and finally..." story which has had no repeat occurrences. Nate • (chatter) 02:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, definitely WP:TOOSOON at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not opposed to a sensible redirect, but I don't know the field. czar 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now, still questionable for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this appears to be an isolated incident and is not notable enough at this time. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:15, 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 Tom Clancy's The Division. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet King[edit]

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

Non-notable video game character. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Tom Clancy's The Division - It was notable enough for the International Business Times, (a non-gaming-centric publication) to cover, as well as myriad gaming-news outlets to have covered. That said, I can certainly see how this is a rather niche bit of information that may not merit its own whole article. I maintain that it's notable enough to be kept in some form or another. Ghoti (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this thought; the character is probably not significant enough to warrant a separate article, but I think a merge into Tom Clancy's The Division would be appropriate. I think this will likely become The Division's Loot Cave "Loot Cave", which has it's own snippet in that article. Mischivin (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bullet King is a well known NPC in gaming community. A full guide about the Bullet King exploit has been released [1] on a gaming site that has a lot of notoriety. Tarballqc (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But since the exploit has been closed in the latest release, this seems like a thing that will not have lasting notability. Remember, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The exploit may have been removed, but the notable history and the NPC itself remain. Ghoti (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tom Clancy's The Division#Reception - Enough coverage to be mentioned, sure, but per the spirit of WP:NOTTEMP, a standalone spinoff is hardly supportable. (Disclosure: I farmed the shit out of BK before he got patched <3) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Salvidrim. Has coverage and history. Definitely not notable enough for own page. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. WP:NOTNEWS. Since the exploit's already been fixed in such a short amount of time, I can't imagine anybody looking it up on Wikipedia to learn more about it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tom Clancy's The Division. It does have coverage, but I don't think that it needs its own article. This appears to be the best solution. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Clancy's The Division as suggested because this is questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge as suggested, not enough notability. Just because there's a few news articles about the NPC doesn't mean it's automatically notable enough to have it's own article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above arguments. It would be a great fact for the parent article, but on its own it is not notable enough. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - while the sources show that its worth a mention, there's very little content here, nor is there really any potential for expansion, and all of the content is strictly in the context of The Division, so it makes much more sense as a mention there... Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 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. Many sources were presented, and shot down as not meeting our notability requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Fournier[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article is a content fork of Free Dominion. Other than that she is the author of a self-published book which has not been reviewed by any reliable sources. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this deletion discussion not a multiple-forum abuse? There is an extensive unresolved merge discussion for this article: HERE. The latter discussion also addresses independent notability of the BLP article. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the sourcing is not adequate to meet WP:GNG as the topic of a standalone article in her own right separately from the website's article. Of the eleven sources here, one is a primary source supporting a distinction that doesn't constitute notability at all: the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal was presented to over 70,000 other Canadians besides her, on an "if anybody at all nominated you then you were guaranteed to get one" basis, so it cannot confer an automatic presumption of notability on every one of those people in and of itself. Then she was the author of three of them, which means those sources can't support notability. Another one is the text of a legal decision, which is a primary source that cannot support notability. Another two just namecheck her existence while not being about her in any substantive and non-trivial way, so yet again they cannot aid notability. And of the four remaining sources which are substantively about her in the manner necessary to count as supporting notability, all of them are covering her specifically in the context of the website. None of this suggests the need for a BLP of Fournier as an individual alongside a separate article about her website — it suggests adding content about Fournier to the website's article. Redirect to Free Dominion. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are not reading the same sources? I see reliable independent sources about Fournier's contributions in matters distinct from Free Dominion: (1) on-going battle against Bill C-51, (2) opposition to Prime Minister Harper during a federal election using her book and despite being a known Conservative activist, and (3) successful campaign against the hate-speech provisions of the federal human rights code. In addition, she was the main self-represented defendant in major lawsuits tied to Free Dominion. The article's category is "Canadian activist" and few if any in this category have won three awards given for activism, including a national medal and a provincial civil liberties association award. I wonder if the WP notability test is not being taken too far here, especially in light of:

(A) the WP policy for proposed deletion of biographies of living people: "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere."

(B) The WP practice for the "Canadian activist" category has not been to negate BLP pages in such cases as this one. In fact, as I examine the articles in the "Canadian activist" category, I find that approximately 30-50% of the articles are much less supported by sources and outward signs of notability than the Fournier article. For example: Mark Freiman, Sylvain Abitbol, Herbert Brownstein, Hershell Ezrin, Moshe Ronen, and many many others.

Keep Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal is not an award that can make every recipient notable enough for an encyclopedia article just for receiving it — as noted, it was presented to 71,000 Canadians nationwide, and was essentially presented to every single person who was nominated for it for any reason whatsoever by any nominator whatsoever. So it doesn't aid notability at all, because it doesn't inherently constitute a noteworthy distinction.

And as already noted in the talk page discussion, you're personally involved in the organization and administration of the civil liberties association award that she was given — which means you are not a neutral or objective party in any debate about whether that award constitutes enough notability, in and of itself, to make its winners suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia or not. You keep trying to dismiss that as irrelevant to the matter — but it's not. The question of whether an award is notable enough to constitute a valid notability claim in an article about its winners or nominees is entirely a question of the degree to which reliable source media outlets do or don't cover the granting of that award as being a news story in its own right. Major media outlets report it as news when a writer wins the Giller Prize, when an actor wins the Academy Award, when an activist gets named to the Order of Canada, and on and so forth — but if I can't find any article in any major media outlet in which "Connie Fournier named winner of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association award" is being reported as news in and of itself, then the award is not one that can get its winners over the notability bar in and of itself. The award's ability to get its winners over the Wikipedia notability hump is not something that the award's own organizers get to decide for themselves — the presence or absence of media coverage of that award, in sources independent of the award's own organizing committee, makes that decision for us.

(A) That criterion only makes an article ineligible for the {{blp prod}} process in particular. It does not preclude the possibility of an article being taken to AFD for a deletion discussion if there are valid reasons to reconsider its includability — it only makes it ineligible for one particular specialized deletion process, while not making it ineligible for our general deletion process. Did you miss, or misunderstand, the part of the quote you pasted where it says "This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere"?

(B) Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing is stopping anybody from trying to create any article about any topic. I could try to create an article about myself, my best friend, my spouse or my cat if I wanted to — it wouldn't be a keepable article by any stretch of the imagination, but no process exists to stop me from trying, and even as a deletable article it could linger around here for weeks or months or even years until somebody noticed, and took action on, its deletability. The existence of a problematic article about one topic, thus, does not mean that another problematic article has to be kept just because it's not any worse than the other one — it means that the other one may need to be deleted too, and just hasn't been noticed yet. So that's an argument that just backfired on you, because all of the five articles you singled out just there are now going to get reviewed, and also nominated for deletion if they're really as bad as you claim they are and can't be salvaged with better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now run sourcing checks on all five of the "comparable" activists. Four of the five each garner hundreds of coverage hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, and thus are salvageable and have been flagged for referencing improvement. Only Herbert Brownstein was unsalvageable, as he garnered just 15 hits of which 14 were mere namechecks of his existence — so he's been listed for deletion. Connie Fournier, by comparison, garners just 16 hits, of which most are just glancing namechecks — and all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have both presented our arguments. Your arguments are informed and strong. There is no need to talk about "backfiring" because I am acting in good faith here. I continue to hold, as I would with any comparable article, that you are applying an overly high threshold, in light of all the BLP items taken together, and not leaving out this one, published in The Tyee, as you have done since it is presently not in the article, which is substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider -- @Bearcat: Please reconsider your position in light of the following. I was prompted by your assertion "all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment" to do more research. In addition to the eleven (11) sources presently in the article, which you have reviewed and interpreted, I have found the following:

Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above).
Disgruntled Tories consider rebuilding Reform Party, The Globe & Mail, 12 may 2007 and updated 13 March 2009. - Connie Fournier interviewed and cited about reforming the Conservative Party of Canada.
Maclean’s Live: The public safety committee scrutinizes Bill C-51, 23 march 2015. - Article and video that includes Connie Fournier's intervention in the House of Commons committee on Bill C-51.
Bill C-51: Sister of slain soldier Patrice Vincent testifies as committee review resumes, CBC News (TV and print), 23 March 2015. - Connie fournier intervenes on Bill C-51, as a representative of the Protect Our Privacy coalition.
Ms. Connie Fournier (Founder, Free Dominion, Protect Our Privacy Coalition) at the Public Safety and National Security Committee, fedral government archives, 23 March 2015. - The Protect Our Privacy Coalition was also co-represented by Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Sukanya Pillay. The government report also describes Fournier's role opposing section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
Harper is losing the argument on C-51 … with Conservatives, iPOLITICS, 26 March 2015. - Fournier is interviewed and cited regarding here oppositions to Bill C-51 and the CPC in the coming election.
Federal parties tussle to pull ahead in a tight 3-way race, The Current, CBC Radio (national), 13 July 2015. - Connie Fournier interviewed about the coming fedral election.
CHQR 770AM radio, Calgary, Alberta, 17-minute interview with Connie Fournier: Conservatives who oppose Bill C-51, posted 24 June 2015 and the sound recording on YouTube. - All about Fournier's opposition to Bill C-51.

Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a giver of soundbite in an article about something else does not assist a person's notability at all — she has to be the subject of the coverage, not a commentator within coverage of some other subject, for that coverage to count toward getting her over WP:GNG. So exactly zero of these new sources are game-changers. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Individually (e.g. Tyee, 22 september 2015) and together the now nineteen (19) sources (mostly renown national media) provide "significant coverage" of Canadian activist Connie Fournier's activism. Contrary to your reading, the sources do not interview Fournier solely for information about other subjects unconnected to her. Rather, the sources expressly state and imply that Fournier is a main persona in these "other subjects", and describe and cite Fournier's own activism in these "other subjects". Look at all the sources, and the three independent prizes, together. Even fewer of these should be sufficient to pass the notability threshold. Her Queen's Diamond Jubilee award was reported in The Tyee as: "Long-time Conservative supporter Connie Fournier, left, received a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for her work on free speech in 2013.", with photograph of Fournier receiving the award. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Free Dominion) as nominator and as per Bearcat's arguments. I think Denis.g.rancourt is somewhat embellishing Fournier's profile. She was one of tens of thousands of people who campaigned against Bill C-51 and as far as her opposition was notable it was through her temporary re-activation of Free Dominion and was not the key or even a main organizer (or as far as I can tell, an organizer at all) of the campaign. Similarly, she was one of many people who opposed Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and again was not an organizer of that campaign. Her notability as far as the lawsuits goes relates to Free Dominion and is covered by that article. Lastly, her opposition to Stephen Harper's re-election is no more notable than that of millions of other Canadians and the self-published book she wrote was not notable enough to be covered or reviewed by any notable media. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. WP:NOTE At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. WP:THIRDPARTY

There are many more than two reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject in this case. I can find no Wikipedia policy that states that a source weighs less toward notability if the media outlet has sought out the subject's opinion as an expert on a certain topic, as opposed to simply writing about the subject herself. Indeed, it would stand to reason that being sought by the media as a commentator would tend to point to greater notability, not less. Certainly, an interview is more than a "trivial mention", even if she is not the "main topic of the source material". WP:GNG

In any case, this article was barely created before it was nominated for speedy deletion and, when that failed, this AfD process was initiated. This is contrary to the policy on article quality that states that attempts should be make to improve the article, and to give others time to improve it rather than immediately propose for deletion. WP:AQU WP:BEFORE Given the time frame involved, it seems this would be an overzealous deletion. What's the rush? WP:RUSH

All that being said, if there is no rough consensus, a page should be kept, so I say, "keep". WP:DPAFD 70.210.192.175 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to admin: the above is from a single purpose account and is its only edit)

IP-175, I agree with you that those particular interviews in the media are valid sources for notability, not because Fournier is called upon to give "expert" information, but rather because she is called upon to comment on matters of public interest, which are connected to her person, such as her own opinions and activism on Section 13 and on Bill C-51. A specialized expert that simply contributes objective content is not necessarily notable. In the case in question here, Fournier is called upon not because she is an expert but rather because she is herself a prominent player in the political issues. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She goood at getting her publicity published; we shouldn't appropriately be another source for her. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Which of the 19 independent sources (many national media) are examples of Fournier "getting her publicity published"? And what exactly is "her publicity"? Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things. marginally notable and the effort to promote her pushes this over the edge to deletion for me; we don't have bandwidth to maintain article of people of marginal notability who are being promoted in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: The question is notability. The characterization "she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things" is not a criterion and is not relevant. Likewise, an alleged "effort to promote her" is not a criterion, is not relevant to notability, and is a personal attack if it refers to an editor's work on WP. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this article is still questionable at best, despite the current article's appearance. Delete for now at best and restart later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some folks seem to believe the majority of sources are reliable. Here's my assessment of them:
- National Post: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
- Macleans: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
- CBCNews: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
- iPolitics: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
- The Tyee: Entirely an interview, even the non-quoted portions say "Fournier said..." or "...said Fournier" - as a primary source, it's not reliable for establishing notability.
- Betrayed by Connie Fournier: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
- Ottawa Citizen: This may actually be a reliable source, however it's regional news
- Ottawa Citizen 2: This may actually be a reliable source, but it's only about the lawsuit that the above ref discusses, and it's regional news
- Lawyers Weekly: Comprehensive coverage, seems solid enough, but again, only for the lawsuit (thinking WP:1E here)
- Judgement for Appeal: This is just the judgement, not media/journalistic coverage. It's not a reliable source in the context of Wikipedia. Including it is original research and isn't really necessary.
- The Diamond Jubilee Medal: It's not notable if it's awarded to 70,000 other people, as noted above.

So, for reliable sources (in the article), we're left with the two Ottawa Citizen articles (regional coverage only) and one industry specific article - all of which are specific to one event. And while not truly relevant here, I should also point out that the entire lead is sourced from the unreliable sources and actually amounts to WP:OR in and of itself. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisw80: You seem to have stopped reading too early. You covered the 11 sources in the present article. You were silent on the 8 additional sources listed and described above, for a total of 19. (Not that I agree with your evaluation of the 11 original sources.) Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denis.g.rancourt, I did read them, but I didn't feel it necessary, appropriate, or constructive to bash on each and every one - I felt sticking with what was incorporated into the article was best. I did not see enough difference between what was included in the article, and the supplementary references provided above to make it necessary. My assessments of each source are based on a thorough reading and understanding of WP:RS. It's an interesting and informative read, and if you haven't read it, I would recommend it. If after reading WP:RS, you disagree with my assessment, I would be happy to discuss the specific points you find inadequate in my assessment. Thank your for taking the time to reply! Chrisw80 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisw80: Thank you for your clarification, and for your reading suggestion. I fail to understand how you can justify: "I felt sticking with what was incorporated into the article was best". I think the 8 other sources merit as much attention a priori as the 11 that you chose to specifically critique. Since you have already read the other 8, please provide your assessment on them individually, for the benefit of this discussion. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to see how you can discount them, as I have already explained above why I think each one is a valid source that adds to the question of notability. Maybe you could explain where you think I am incorrect in my individual assessments. After that, maybe we could discuss the cumulative value of the 19 sources taken together, since most are unambiguously independent and reliable. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Denis.g.rancourt, there is no reasonable expectation that I provide an analysis of every source proffered to support the potential notability of an article. I gave a guideline based analysis of more than half of the 19 total to support my position based on policy and guidelines (which is more than most editors do at AfD). To be clear, it's not about the quantity of the sources, it's about the quality. The "cumulative value" of a large number of unreliable sources has no meaning as it becomes original research at that point. I chose the ones in the article to analyze as they should be the ones that BEST represent the subject's notability. My analysis was based concisely on guidelines from WP:RS and WP:GNG. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisw80: Given the primary importance of quality, which you explain, let us start with one of the 8 sources that you did not expressly assess. This is what I wrote above about it: "Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above)." What is your argument to discount this one, which you have already read? After we complete this one, we can move on to another. I see several quality sources that address notability. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Denis.g.rancourt, as I mentioned before, there is no reasonable expectation that I provide a detailed analysis for every source proffered to support the potential notability of an article. I have looked at all the sources and come to my conclusion, as is my prerogative. I will give you ny short analysis of this one extra source as a courtesy, I do not intend to provide any more analysis of further sources despite your seeming wish that I do so. If you wish to dispute the analyses that I have performed already, please be specific. I may choose to look at further proffered sources, but I will not provide any analysis for discussion. This source is not about Fournier, but about Harper. While there is some in-depth discussion of her, it is not comprehensive. It might help establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, but it's not nearly enough to tip the scales for me, nor are the other sources proffered. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Plummer[edit]

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

The subject had a sad death, but with nothing to distinguish her from many thousands of other murder victims in the world every year. The refs all date to the time of her death and her killer's trial. Nothing to indicate the "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources" required for notability of a crime victim in WP:VICTIM. PamD 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much as I hate to say it, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. I'd change my mind if others find such. Ross-c (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Meets WP:GNG as per: [2], [3], [4], [5]. I have less confidence about WP:VICTIM. ~Kvng (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN murder victim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete article appears to have been written in good faith by a new editor, and I do see how new editors can misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Of course, Winter Plummer's life was notable, and her death was a notable tragedy. The life of a human being can never be non-notable, certainly a murder cannot. However notability as the word is used in Wikipedia is a term of art applying standards of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. These are only met if a crime receives an extraordinary amount of attention in the press, or if it has a demonstrable impact on policy, or passes WP:GNG for some other reason, for example, if a notable author bases a screenplay on a specific murder. I do want to thank User:Nicolehood for creating thi sarticle, and encourage her to join us at Wikipedia. It takes a little time to learn how this crowd-sourced encyclopedia works, and I do hope you will join us.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm sorry, but neither any individual aspect of her life and death nor the totality of it crosses over the line for notability. I've seen so many sad cases like this where articles created by well-meaning students on a course end up in deletion discussions, and I wish that these courses could focus more on improving existing articles, the mainstay of most contribution to Wikipedia, rather than creating new ones of doubtful notability. Blythwood (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:VICTIM. We would need coverage beyond the crime itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Violence against women, especially in the military, is often hidden. While the article may be borderline, I encourage cleanup and addition rather than removing information about death and sexual assault in the military.Bellicist (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing else I would imagine for a better article because of her death and thus there's no improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 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 no consensus. We had informative discussion which shows that some of the nominated players may be notable while others may be no notable. I therefore close this as no consensus so that non-notable players could be renominated for deletion individually. Whoever wants to remonimate them, I recommend reading this discussion carefully, so that we do not waste our time for players which are clearly notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasoul Najafi[edit]

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

sports person isn't notable according to notability policy for volleyball players Tomcat313 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:Tomcat313 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! All these pages are created by Sander.v.Ginkel and I know he/she creates pages for all volleyball players, who played in any FIVB or CEV tournaments... I wrote to him/her, but he/she thinks she/he do it right but it is not truth - ALL pages of volleyball players created by Sander.v.Ginkel has only information from the link of FIVB or CEV tournament even from few previous years and the informations are not right or complete. Please, someone should do intervention and stop Sander.v.Ginkel. - DariaPolonia (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the problem here is even more,most of people who Ive nominated hadn't played any FIVB tournament even on the bench, but because their name is on the expanded list (e.g. world league 25 names list), this user has created their page. Tomcat313 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DariaPolonia, just for the record, these pages are not all created by me. I created the pages of above nominated volleyball players who competed (for the national team) in the highest FIVB volleyball competitions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iran is 8th power volleyball in world, All players are prominent in Iran's Premier League.All players are members Iranian Volleyball Super League teams, this league is best League in Asia. and some players are member of Iran men's national volleyball team in a prestigious event.--Samək^Talk 21:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many players nominated, and I have several reasons to keep them.

1) Tomcat313 your reason for nominating is sports person isn't notable according to notability policy for volleyball players, but there isn't a policy for volleyball players. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) Volleball is one of the biggest sports in the world (see for instance here and here). When we take a look at the notability guideliness on WP WP:SPORTS, we see that for the popular sports the players who compete in the highest world competitions are notable. Even for the less popular sport lie cycling all UCI riders are notable competing in the UCI Women's World Tour, the same for all men's riders in the UCI World Tour and all track cyclists at the UCI Track Cycling World Cup. For volleyball the highest annual competition is the FIVB Volleyball World League. For that reason all the players who have played in the world league have been created. Many of the above nominated players are these players. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3) As also mentioned by Samak Iran is a big volleyball country with a prominent national league. The national team qualified and competed in all the last World Championships, World Cups, World Leagues, Grand Champions Cup and won medal in the last Asian Cup, Asian Games and Asian Championships. These two reasons means that if you're part of the Iranian national team and have competed at international competitions, you have to be a really good player, meeting notability. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4) There are 1000nds of volleyball clubs worldwide. Only 6 teams takes part at the FIVB Volleyball Club World Championship. For that reason all the players who have played in the Club World Championships have been created. Many of the above nominated players are these players. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5) Above nominated players won (gold) medals at international volleyball competitions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just looked and expanded two articles Vali Nourmohammadi and Rasoul Najafi to show these are obvious notable players. (Don't have time to expand them all) Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Dear Sander.v.Ginkel; Yes volleyball doesnt have a concluded notability discussion but there are some talks on volleyball project page that some users support, I hope they come here and express their opinion.

2. you think any player who have competed in world league should be considered as notable. I dont want to discuss it here, but players Rasoul Najafi and Reza Abedini didn't even played there and only their name is on the expanded list. being on the 25 names list of world league doesn't mean they've played there because for every match 14 players are chosen.

Reply, It would be good to indicate at the team squads pages the players played or not. However, I don't were to find this information. At least they are part of the national team and so one of the best 25 players of Iran. I think for Iran this meets already notability. Also, for others sports (is this also for volleyball?), players who didn't play also receives a medal if the team wins a medal.

It is the same as for instance with cycling. All cyclists at the List of 2015 UCI Women's Teams and riders are notable, altough they didn't all competed at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships or 2015 UCI Women's Road World Cup. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. I admit that I didn't make a good classification for this process. Rasoul Najafi and Reza Abedini dont have any national team appearance.

Reply Jajafi played at the Universiade for the national team (see here). According to the FIVB website Jajafi represented Iran 6x see here (yes I know, the 2 Worlds are the U23 champs). How do you know they didn't play in the World League? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because Ive watched the matches! But if we want to prove this we should look at all the reports of the matches of world league (like this: http://www.fivb.org/vis_web/volley/WL2015-1/WL2015-1_p2-005.pdf) to find out who really played from those 25 people.(by played I mean be present there, even on the bench. But they wont give world league medal to all 25 people, they give it to 14 people) Tomcat313 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Shaban, Hamed Rezaei, Vahid Seyed-Abbasi and Iraj Mikaeilzadeh (which are created by User:Samak and User:Princeofpersia1) didnt even have their names in a national team expanded list. They must definitely be deleted because they've only played in domestic league.

Reply What is the national team expanded list? Can you show where I can find it. I saw that a few of them were invited to play for the national team. It also looks like the articles have enough secondary sources. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply By expanded list I mean list of players that is more than need of that tournament, and normally is sent 1 month sooner to the organizers (and appears on the site of tournament), but for the matches, only 14 players will be announced. Tomcat313 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Others only played in club world championship, we can discuss it in the volleyball wiki project and wait until reaching an agreement. If current process wont be successful, then I will bundle these pages in 3 groups and again start deletion process.

4. If we look at basic criteria of notability: "person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject."

I think that having somebody's name only in one page of fivb site that doesn't have any special information doesn't have some of these conditions. (it is not multiple, non-trivial and secondary).

Reply I created the players with help of the FIVB information because I think that the players reaches notability on the bases of his performance. Most of the secondary sources of these players are in Farsi and I can't use them. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5. Your expantions contains wrong and without source information. Rasoul Najafi wasn't on matin's roster in 2014 asian club as this source says: http://iranvolleyball.com/Content/Content.aspx?PageCode=30925 , and wasn't in avc cup 2012 as this source says: http://www.iranvolleyball.com/Sport/Tournament.aspx?TournamentID=22. almost all the pages you've created have wrong or outdated information. Thanks. Tomcat313 (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I can't read Farsi, so I'm not able to use these sources :(.. This source says he was part of Pool B of the Asians Club Championship: here. But I changed it in the article as you say it is not sure. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Duplicate !votes struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here some individual notability reasons: Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Ghara - played in the 2014 World League
Mojtaba Shaban - Added secondary source from news article ([6]). He is U19 World Champion 2007 (in most sports the a junior world champions are notable)
Ali Sajjadi - won with the national team gold at the 2013 Islamic Solidarity Games
Nasser Rahimi - Added secondary sources. He competed with the national team in international competitions (2012 Men Volleyball Asia Cup, 2013 FIVB Volleyball World League(?) and 2013 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Grand Champions Cup)
Alireza Nasr Esfahani - Won with his club the gold medal at the 2014 Asian Men's Club Volleyball Championship. Also 2010 Asian youth champion and 2015 Asian U23 champion
Vali Nourmohammadi - won gold with the national team at the Asian Senior Men's Volleyball Championship (Central Zone)
Behzad Heidarishahi - Secondary sources 1, 2)
Saeid Shiroud - Added secndary sources. Besides of that he competed at several international competitions for the national team and best outside spiker of the 2014 Asian Men's Cup Volleyball Championship. Gold medal at 2008 Asian Youth Boys Volleyball Championship.
Alireza Jadidi - With the national team he won the silver medal at the 2012 Asian Men's Cup Volleyball Championship and was the best blocker of the championship.
Parviz Pezeshki - Added secondary sources ([7][8])

Dear User:Sander.v.Ginkel; I really appreciate and thank your hard work and effort to improve these pages; but our main difference is in point of view to consider people notable or not. I'm not saying Parviz Pezeshki and others didn't attend tournaments you are mentioning and I can find tens of interviews with them and articles about them in Persian sites (this doesn't mean they are notable internationally, and even in Iran, volleyball followers mainly don't know players out of main national team roster). But I and some other users on volleyball project generally support something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Osplace/Volleyball_notability in volleyball for notability. So I think it is better to start a discussion on volleyball project page about notability and try to conclude it this time. Then we can easier decide which page we keep and which we delete. Tomcat313 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deat Tomcat313, thanks for your kind reply. The notabiility guideliness you're mentionong will be players who will be kept without secondary sources on the basis of 1 performance (so for instance Vali Nourmohammadi and Alireza Nasr Esfahani). But this does not say that this are the only notable volleyball players! All volleyball players with secondary sources are notable, see guideliness. So including the players I summed above. To have a WP page you can be notable within a country without being notable international. Where did you see that a person has to be international notable? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - based upon current guidelines, these players do not pass notability criteria, either WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Reply to Onel5969 can you please expand your opinion, as several of the articles have been expanded with good secondary sources. Others are notable due to winning medals at notable International competitons. And my third point, as also stated above, volleyball doesn't have notabiility guideliness, so what do you mean with WP:NATHLETE?... Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 23:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for administrators: close this one with not reached consensus, what is the case with only a few contributors. The nominator Tomcat313 can than nominate the players separately or in groups again as he indicated himself above.The above nominated players are completely different, and should be discussed with separate discussions. I think with a better categorization, a better discussion will be reached. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The Article has References, but it does need to be expanded significantly. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:16, 4 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 speedy delete as WP:G7 Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products[edit]

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

Very clearly WP:OR . The references are used as if they were academic references and not references for the article itself. No notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ I have always said that there needs to be a speedy deletion criterion for pages that are clearly not intended to be encyclopedia articles. I've seen social networking pages, resumes, and even Choose Your Own Adventure-style stories. In this case, we have (what appears to be) a research paper. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:OR certainly give ample grounds for deletion in this case, but it's too bad that we can't take swifter action here. I would like to note, however, that there are Wikipedia articles about notable experiments (see, e.g., Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment), but Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing the results of new or novel experiments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can now speedy delete this per WP:G7 as the author has requested deletion. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above. This is a research paper, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTESSAY. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. I have understood the reasons. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaymassey (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 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. No consensus for a particular action has resulted from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Canova[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a criterion that gets a candidate over WP:NPOL -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat. This article, however, makes no valid claim that he had preexisting notability for anything -- it's written like a campaign brochure, and two of the three citations are to a Reddit AMA (not a reliable source.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. John Z (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Although the article obviously needs improvement, Canova's primary opponent, Wasserman Schultz, has drawn considerable criticism for what has been seen as using the DNC for inappropriate partisan efforts in the presidential primary to support Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Canova has also differed substantially with DWS on major divisive issues in the District such as fracking in the Everglades, for-profit prisons especially in Broward County, etc. That could put this safe Democratic seat into play. Activist (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support At best, that means that he deserves a solid mention in *her* article, since you're basing his notability purely based on her. He does not have any notability as per WP:NPOL. Blackbird_4 00:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. This isn't just some also-ran in some nondescript congressional race. This is a highly publicized run against the party chair who is highly controversial. I ended up here because I was seeking more info about this noteable and fascinating race, and who is the challenger involved. There will be a large amount of traffic just like me. Come back in November and delete it if he doesn't win. This is big news. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opposition. I tried to modify the article today so that it conformed more to Wikipedia standards which was no small task, and found this candidate could certainly be considered notable even if he wasn't running at all. For instance, I'm gathering that he's written dozens of prestigious journal articles, book chapters, etc. His graduate work has been done at two top-tier institutions, and he graduated magna cum from Georgetown. He's presented on the law end economics in a wide variety of top tier forums. He's drawn notice in this race from the national press. He is not a vanity or gadfly candidate, it appears. Activist (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where a person studied does not constitute a notability claim in and of itself. And writing journal articles or book chapters only counts as notability if reliable source media coverage has written about his writing of journal articles or book chapters — it does not constitute notability if your only source for it is the publication details of his own content in a directory. And a person does not get over WP:NACADEMIC just because their academic work is presented as background information in coverage of the candidacy, either — the academic work has to, in and of itself, be the context of what he's getting covered for. As currently written and sourced, none of this actually demonstrates that he's anything other than a WP:BLP1E at the present time — it's certainly possible that he actually might be, but nothing here shows that properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate for office does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he's running against a nationally known figure. It might be possible that he actually has preexisting notability for something other than his candidacy, but this article as written and sourced isn't demonstrating that — it's still written fundamentally like a promotional campaign brochure rather than a neutral encyclopedia article, it's sourced entirely to campaign coverage with not a single reliable source dated anytime prior to his announcement of his candidacy, and none of the content or sourcing suggests that he's anything more than a WP:BLP1E at the present time. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The subject qualifies as notable per multiple journalist written news articles: google news search for Tim Canova — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillMorganSeattle (talk • contribs) 01:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Source material relating to Wasserman Schultz's factual role in engineering the Clinton candidacy should be an available wiki resource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WillMorganSeattle:@Bearcat:, When I first reviewed recommendations for deletion, I looked at what he had done before he filed for this district seat. I had no idea what I'd find. What I quickly discovered was that Canova has been an extremely important voice in the field of economics going back to the '80s, at quite a young age. He had an op-ed in the NY Times in 1996 making a case for not reappointing Alan Greenspan as Fed chairman. His opposition to deregulation was truly prescient. Here's a economics paper that cited articles he wrote from 1995-2009. file:///C:/Users/Public/Documents/Downloaded%20Installers/SSRN-id2072595.pdf Here's a comment by Noam Chomsky, one of the most infleuntial voices regarding international politics for more than 50 years, and who has regularly cited Canova for years: https://chomsky.info/20081102/ So, what are we to make of Chomsky's comments such as these, as opposed to your dismissive opinion on Canova?:

Rubin is the chairman of the Executive Committee of Citigroup, and as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, bears substantial responsibility for the deregulation mania that was a crucial factor in the current disaster – from which, incidentally, he gained considerably when he moved from Clinton’s Treasury Department to his present position, leading international economist Tim Canova to ask why charges are not brought against him “for his obvious violations of the Ethics in Government Act.”

Activist (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's always possible to find "multiple journalist written news articles" about any candidate for any political office — the media have an obligation to cover local politics, so coverage in the context of the candidacy falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot show or bolster the person's notability so long as they're still only a candidate rather than an actual officeholder. And a person also does not get a Wikipedia article just because you can find academic papers in which they've been cited, or quotes in which other notable people have glancingly namechecked their existence — what's necessary to save this, but has not yet been shown, is reliable source coverage about his academic career. I'm not being "dismissive" at all — Wikipedia's rules for political candidates are that either (a) you show, and properly source, that they were already eligible for an article before they became a candidate, or (b) they do not become eligible for an article just on the basis of the candidacy alone, but must win the seat before they become eligible. I already said that it's possible that he might have enough preexisting notability to be eligible for an article on that basis — but you haven't shown that properly as of yet, because you're showing candidacy coverage and not sources in which he was getting substantively covered in the context of his prior career. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WillMorganSeattle:@Bearcat:@Blackbird 4: While your original opinion regarding nomination of this article for deletion had valid points, you did not try to improve the article, despite Wikipedia policy recommending that alternative, Bearcat. Then when other editors contributed substantial improvements to the article, your intent seems rather to be determined to minimize or ignore the subject's notability in the academic fields of law and finance, despite the copious body of contributions he has made in that arena. cf Wikipedia:Notability (academics);. Canova has contributed dozens of articles to prestigious academic journals over the past two decades. Articles about Canova's work have appeared for that period of time. He was selected by the NY Times in 1996 to write an Op-Ed regarding the case against renomination of Fed Chairman Greenspan. In 2011, he was deliberately recruited to join a small group of some of the most prestigious economists in the U.S. by Senator Sanders, to contribute to the crafting of economic policy initiatives. He was not casually (or. as you pejoratively term it, "glancingly" "namechecked") mentioned by Chomsky, when the opposite is demonstrably the case. Canova's career of significant academic influence is at the core of his notability, not his candidacy. You're painting yourself into a corner with these ever more insubstantial arguments. Activist (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Articles about Canova's work have appeared for that period of time", but you still haven't shown any. As of today, the article is still based entirely on candidacy coverage, and you haven't contributed any proof of preexisting academic notability coverage in this discussion either — you're just asserting that it's there, without showing the reliable source proof that it's there. And the Noam Chomsky quote, at least the one you provided here, is just a glancing namecheck of his existence rather than substantive proof of notability — if there's more to it than you quoted, then you need to show that, but what you quoted is not in and of itself sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article.

And, for the record, I already did all the WP:BEFORE that I can do with the resources I have access to, and came to the conclusion that there just wasn't enough reliable source coverage there. I'm under no obligation to personally take it upon myself to be the fixer of any article I don't have the necessary background knowledge, or the necessary source repositories, to fix myself — if you want the article to be kept, then the onus is on you to make it keepable. I've said all along that preexisting notability may be there for other things prior to his candidacy — but this article, as written and sourced, is not showing that in the manner necessary to make it keepable on that basis. And if you feel that strongly that the preexisting notability is there, then you need to make the necessary edits to show that better than it's being shown right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WillMorganSeattle:@Bearcat:@Blackbird 4:I'm not "asserting" anything, Bearcat, without providing sources and take exception to such a characterization. For instance, present citation #2, "Selected Works," contains 11 important articles dating from 1990 to 2013, published in three languages. When I went to Google Books, per Wikipedia advice, and found almost 5,000 citations, with those that I looked at mostly referencing his contributions to the thoughts of other academics and critics, or were acknowledgments for his direct assistance in the writing of those books, the vast majority of which were made long before he announced his candidacy this year. Google Books is no more accessible to me than it is to you, and another editor referred to nearly 9,000 newspaper references to Canova. Your initial observations regarding the AFD were absolutely legitimate, but those reservations have been addressed exhaustively, IMHO. I'm beginning to feel like I'm trying to explain evolution to the Chairperson of the Flat Earth Society. Activist (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've already pointed out above, Citation #2, "Selected Works", is not other people writing about his academic writing, but is a simple directory listing of his academic writings — and thus, it is not a source that can get him over WP:NACADEMIC for that writing. You're not getting what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, if you think that source counts for anything — there's a big difference between verification of notability and verification of existence, but that citation only verifies his existence, and does not confer notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. I agree that this page needs improvement and is a work-in-progress, but regarding academic "notability", I believe source #3 is sufficient for that: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/top-economists-to-advise-sanders-on-fed-reform. Being called a top economist by a press release by a U.S. senator when enlisted as an advisor on the Fed, especially when listed with nobel prize winners and household names, definitely is a reliable source to me for his academic reputation. I'm sure other reliable sources and coverage of his academic career will turn up as this page gets improved, give it time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crrl333 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Crrl333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's a press release from a political campaign, not media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're deliberately misrepresenting what it is. You've made the claim that you've looked at all these references, and therefore you're aware that the Sanders press release is five years old, not about Canova, not about any electoral campaign at all, but about the task put to the 17 experts appointed to that advisory group by the Senator who is the leading advocate in that body for change in the Fed, though he since has been joined by Elizabeth Warren. Activist (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first of 800 or so pages of Google Books citations, including repeated references to Canova by Chomsky.

Hopes and Prospects - Page 306 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1931859965 Noam Chomsky - 2010 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Tim Canova, “The Legacy of the Clinton Bubble,” Dissent, Summer 2008, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229. David Felix, “Asia and the Crisis of Financial Globalization,” in Baker, Epstein, Pollin, eds., Globalization and ... The Obama Vs. Romney Debate on Economic Growth: A ... - Page 349 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1475940696 Samuel C. Thompson - 2012 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions For example, during World War II marginal rates were as high as 90% and yet real economic growth ranged from 8.1% in 1944 to 18.5% in 1942.407 Professor Tim Canova makes the following point concerning the economic growth during the ... Infringement Nation: Copyright 2.0 and You - Page xi https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199750106 John Tehranian - 2011 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions I would also like to express my gratitude to Peter Afrasiabi, Josh Agle, Safa Alamir, Chris Arledge, Mark Bartholomew, Tom Bell, Oren Bracha, Dan Burk, Dan Burn-Forti, Tim Canova, Anupam Chander, Hiram Chodosh, Chris Collins, Jay ... Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0872865592 Noam Chomsky - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Financial economist Tim Canova writes thatRubin had“a personal interest inthedemise of GlassSteagall.” Soon after leaving his position asTreasury Secretary, Rubin became “chair of Citigroup,a financialservices conglomerate that wasfacing ... Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility - Page 298 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307959805 Robert Kuttner - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Others who helped in innumerable ways included Michel Aglietta, Phil Angelides, Gerry Arsenis, Sheila Bair, Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein, Marc Blecher, Alan Blinder, Andreas Botsch, Pia Bungarten, Tim Canova, Peter Coldrick, Andrea ... Law, Bubbles, and Financial Regulation https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1134642768 Erik F. Gerding - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions 80th Anniversary of the Great Crash of 1929: Law, Markets, and the Roleofthe State ̄organized by Tim Canova, the2009Rocky Mountain Junior LegalScholars Workshop organized by GordonSmithat BYU,the2010 Conference on International ... Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Versus The ... - Page ix https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1135952728 Jamin B. Raskin - 2004 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions ... Paul Butler, Peter Raven-Hansen and Jeffrey Rosen at George Washington; Lani Guinier at Harvard; Tim Canova at the University of New Mexico; Burt Neuborne at New York University; Erwin Chemerinsky at the University of California, Los ... It's Your Money https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0968068111 William F. Hixson - 1997 - ‎Preview I have received much valuable input from COMER members and close associates: most notably, the late John Hotson, William Krehm, William Henry Pope, Tim Canova, Paul Hellyer, Jack Biddell and Robert Good. The task of transforming my ... Citizen's Guide to U.S. Economic Growth and the Bush-Kerry ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0595330207 Samuel C. Thompson - 2004 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions This course, which I periodically taught with Professor Tim Canova who is now with Chapman University School of Law, examined not only microeconomic concepts, which are frequently examined in law school courses, such as antitrust, but ... Whitewashed: America’s Invisible Middle Eastern Minority https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0814782736 John Tehranian - 2010 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to my students, colleagues, friends, and family, especially Peter Afrasiabi, Tony Anghie, Chris Arledge, Mark Bartholomew, Ruba Batnaji, Steven Burt, Tim Canova, Zev Eigen, Martha Ertman, ... I hope that will suffice... Activist (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the links you've listed here, nearly all of them are the simple presence of his name in the acknowledgements sections of the "cited" books, and not to any substantive discussion about him in the books' content sections. That falls under "glancing namechecks", not "substantive coverage" — a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because some other writer listed their name in the "thank you to mom, dad, David Bowie and God" page at the end of the book. And the only links in which his name actually appears in the content section of the book still just passingly namecheck his existence while not being about him in any discernible way. This is not a situation where you're bringing solid sources which properly show his notability and I'm just being unreasonable or refusing to acknowledge them — you are bringing sources that are not substantively enough about him to satisfy what our sourcing rules require. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contentions simply do not reflect reality, Bearcat: Canova has contributed substantially to critical thought in both academia and public discourse about a plethora of issues in his fields of focus, such as the role and performance of the Fed, the influence and genesis of Occupy Wall Street, the use of and danger inherent in the proliferation of shaky financial instruments in an overheated, speculative, economy, the pervasive fraud omnipresent in the Wall Street milieu, the abject failure of regulatory mechanisms, and the role of corporate contributions in the distortion of democratic institutions and the democratic process itself. You also apply a inappropriate standard to judging his notability in his field. He's been writing for decades in many of the most influential journals in his field. The editors of these publications solicit contributions from him, or consider his submissions, and weigh consideration regarding prospective publication on what they believe will be the impact that content may have on thought in the field and upon their subscribers. His work may generate discourse amongst practitioners, or they are solicited to respond in the same or subsequent issues of those journals and other professors might introduce the material to their classrooms in schools of law. No one is going to review his or his peers' writings in newspapers or on television to analyze plot twists, or character presentations or development, or the likelihood that they will be optioned as the basis for a movie, so that can't be the basis for judging his notability. That would be using wholly inapplicable criteria. He's not writing novels for entertainment value and consumption of the general public. Notability in his field in fact is recognized by the publication of his articles in so many influential journals themselves...that is validation for his importance. Now secondly, your demand to be spoon-fed his writings or commentaries about him by others is wholly unreasonable. I actually went to the pages of the first Chomsky mentions and laboriously copied them (I don't believe there's any other way to do it) by reading them on my P.C. and then typing out the excerpts on my laptop and sending them to my self. It's tedious, when if you wanted to actually know what was in them, you could simply click on URLs. However, you claim you're too busy to do that, so you apparently dismiss them without any actual knowledge of their content. I presume your labors are largely expended in making tens of thousands of immensely important Hotcat additions to articles about obscure movies. I really can't fathom any interest you might have at all. So I stopped after transcribing this:

Hopes and Prospects: Noam Chomsky ELECTIONS 2008: HOPE CONFRONTS THE REAL WORLD Page 219: Economist Tim Canova comments that Rubin had “a personal interest in the demise of Glass-Steagall.” Soon after leaving his position as treasury secretary, he became “chair of Citigroup, a financial-services conglomerate that was facing the possibility of having to sell off insurance underwriting subsidiary...the Clinton administration never brought charges against him for his obvious violations of the Ethics in Government Act.”(footnote 24) Page 221: Tim Canova observes: “Supporters of President-elect Obama will be tempted to embrace the experience argument, and it true that Geithner and Summers have lots of experience at crisis management and doling out bailout funds to their Wall Street clientele.” As the crisis began to hit, Geithner hinted that he would use the enormous leverage he had as president of the New York Fed to impose some controls on exotic financial instruments, but “there is no evidence,” Canova writes, “that there has been much action, even though Geithner has used this time to negotiate multibillion-dollar bailouts and deals associated with the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AGI and now, Citigroup.”

This isn't bestowing kudoes upon David Bowie, or giving thanks to your mommy and daddy, or God. I never claimed that it was: This was your trivialization of the recognition of the value of Canova's work to the analysis of important issues of our times. This is recognition of Canova's work coming from one of the most important thinkers of the 20th and 21st Centuries taking note in a widely circulated book of the relevance of Canova's observations. Since you find it too much of a burden to simply click on a URL, I'll post one of his many, more recently published articles, this one from Dissent to your TALK page. How's that? If you want more, just exercise the index finger on your right hand on the mouse or touchpad you're using. Activist (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me "trivializing" anything, and it's not about me "finding it too much of a burden to simply click on an URL".

I've already said several times in this discussion that he may have the notability necessary to get over WP:NACADEMIC — but a person does not get over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion just because they're asserted as passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, they get over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion by being properly sourced as passing the criterion. And I have clicked on and personally reviewed every single URL you've provided — and right across the board those URLs are simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to make an academic notable.

Right across the board, the sources you've provided so far have been (a) content for which he was the author, and not the subject, of the work, (b) mentions of his name in the acknowledgements section of a book which doesn't contain even one single solitary mention of his name anywhere else in the entire book besides the acknowledgements page, (c) brief mentions of his name in the content section of one or two books, which is a step in the right direction compared to the other two types of "sourcing", but unfortunately fail to be about him in enough of a substantive way to get him over the bar by themselves. You still have not provided a single source that actually provides proper support for notability as an academic. And not because I'm "trivializing" anything, or "refusing" to even consider it — because the sources simply are not what the sources have to be.

And posting the entire text of an article he wrote to my talk page was not the correct approach either: for one thing, that violates our WP:COPYVIO rules, and had to be removed. And for two, as I've already explained several times a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of the citations, not the author of them.

One more time: I'm not "trivializing" anything, or "refusing" to look at the sources you're providing. I have looked at all of the sources you've provided here, and they're simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to get this where you want it to be. And kindly take your condesecending attitude and put it in the garbage can — the problem here is not anything that I'm failing or refusing to do. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading or ignoring [notability criteria for academics], not limited to the following: "For instance, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research," and "...publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals." Activist (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you're missing the part where even those criteria still have to be sourced to media coverage about those things, and not to primary sources. No notability criterion on Wikipedia can ever be passed by simply asserting or primary-sourcing it — notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is conferred or withheld by the existence or non-existence of media coverage about the distinction that's being claimed, not by the claim in and of itself. An academic does not get an article just because his "our faculty" profile on the website of his own institution, or a directory of downloadable PDFs of his academic writing, verifies that he exists; he gets an article when media are writing substantive third party content about him in that role. A novelist does not get an article on the basis of her own books' promotional profiles on Amazon or Goodreads demonstrating that her novels exist; she gets an article when media are writing substantive third party content about her writing career. And on, and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that when you're reviewing thousands of articles and doing Hotcat changes, that you regularly ignore the fact that they're stub articles, or entirely sourced to the subject themselves, or are entirely self-published (i.e., writer R.R. Turock, who may never have sold a book), but you don't recommend deletion of those articles. Another article you worked on is of a nonentity who has done voices in a handful of anime shorts. He would be completely unknown, save for someone noting the names of those who were cast for the voice parts. You didn't have a problem with that. Yet you have consistently minimized the widespread recognition that Canova has gotten in your efforts to remove the article about him. You also have not responded to my request that you remove from this and the article itself, those legitimate issues in your AfD that you brought up weeks ago, i.e., the Reddit sourcing, that have been been amply resolved for some time. If editors visit only this page, they would not be aware that those issues have long been cured. Activist (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is simply making routine maintenance edits to an article within a maintenance batch, such as removing an inappropriate category via Hotcat or tagging a page as uncategorized via AWB, that does not necessarily constitute evidence in and of itself that the editor in question has done a detailed review of that article's content. I am not personally responsible for catching every possible content issue in an article to which I'm applying an automated maintenance edit — AWB, especially, is a spectacularly ineffective tool for actually doing full-on content reviews of articles.

And again, for the last freaking time, I am not "minimizing" anything that has been properly demonstrated and sourced — you have so far tried to park his notability as an academic on sources that cannot carry his notability as an academic, such as glancing namechecks in the acknowledgements sections of other writers' books, and have yet to show even one single solitary source of the type that can properly confer notability on an academic by virtue of representing substantive coverage about his academic work in reliable sources. All I'm doing is looking objectively at the sources that are being offered — and so far those sources are not good enough to carry what you want them to carry. Again: a person does not get an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, or because primary sources and glancing namechecks confirm that they exist — a person gets included in Wikipedia by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources which demonstrate that they pass an inclusion criterion, and you're not showing the kind of sources that it takes. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON applies here. If and when this subject has demonstrated notability, an article can easily be created. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be helpful, Bearcat, if you would remove your resolved complaints, such as the one about the long gone "Reddit" citation," from the AfD notice you posted. Their retention muddies the waters. Activist (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. While I agree that the article when originally flagged did not meet notability requirements, however I spent some time adding edits (as well as Activist) that I believe address the original concerns. The article as it stands now meets notability requirements and this article should no longer be considered for deletion. Bluestategirl (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable because of sources establishing notability. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN. Article was started during campaign for office, so there are 2 questions here 1.) Would he have qualified for an article before he announced his candidacy. 2.) Has coverage during his candidacy broken though the WP:POLITICIAN barrier: "can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources." Nothing in the article shows per-candidacy notability. I checked him on Proquest Newspapers and found only 2 per-candidacy mentions, 1 where he gives a single sentence quote and 1 where he is listed as taking part in a panel. So, no, it does not appear that he could have had an article before this candidacy. It would be highly unusual for a candidate for a congressional seat to pass the notability bar during the campaign. And I cannot make an argument that it has happened in this case. Coverage of the campaign is mostly regional and routine. He has attracted some national coverage, however, the handful of national coverage that goes beyond mentioning him in a list of contenders to win a seat in Congress, does so in the coverage like Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Challenger Has a Chance [9], or this, [10], articles, that is, that are about the race, fall under WP:POLITICIAN and do not carry Canova past WP:N.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat. Do we simply delete or do we redirect Tim Canova to the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz article, 2016 campaign section? Whatever the usual practice is in this situation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you found only two minor mentions of Tim Canova pre-candidacy - did you search for Timothy A. Canova? Given that he wrote a very high-profile op-ed in the New York Times regarding Greenspan that put him on the map as a opponent of the Federal Reserve's policies back in the 1990s, I'm surprised that any search wouldn't even turn up that opinion piece. Bluestategirl (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and did not include it because having an op-ed published is not an indication of notability, a subject's own published work never is - unless the work gets covered by other media, as some books, articles and op-eds do. What is needed are articles that profile or describe him in some depth. Searching Proquest on "Timothy A. Canova" turns up 31 hits (many duplicates) but almost all are articles, letters to the editor, and op-eds that Canova wrote Another editor just came to my talk page to assert that there are "hundreds" of pre-candicacy hits on Canova's full name. I admit that, having gotten hits on "Tim", I didn't think of using "Timothy". "Timothy Canova" got 56 hits (count includes duplicates.) The problem is that all seem to be like the 2 per-candidacy hits on "Tim Canova" - they merely quote him or list him as being on a panel. The pre-candidacy article from Z Communications does not seem to be a source that supports notability. What would make me reconsider is if someone combs through Proquest or similar archives and finds pre-candidacy coverage in major, reliable media that cover the man and his career in some depth. Flag me to return if that happens.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New editors who have weighed in during the heat of a major congressional campaign should consider that we here at Wikipedia are not paid staffers, but, rather, dedicated volunteers like most of the people who work on Congressional campaigns. As editors we are dedicated to running an encyclopedia that strives to uphold objective and consistent standards. We do it using both case and black letter law (WP:POLITICIAN). If Canova wins, you can celebrate by giving him an article as soon as the ballots are counted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is really odd that we have a number of accounts voting (all of them keep) who have been here for years, have couple of dozen edits and apparently have difficulties with wiki-markup. It is clear that they have been canvassed, their votes do not contain policy-based arguments and should be ignored, But then we have insufficient discussion, and since there are at least two users in good standing voting keep, it is best to relist the discussion for one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @WillMorganSeattle:@Ymblanter:@Bluestategirl:@Montoya44:@MrWooHoo:@Crrl333:@50-34-103-73:Dear Ymblanter, a.k.a., "Fearless Fosdick." Thanks for letting us all know who is a legitimate opponent of deletion of this article and who is not. Your deductive skills are amazing. So those who are voting to keep can be identified by the following characteristics: They, "...have (sic) couple of dozen edits and have difficulties with wiki-markup." Let's examine that contention.

A. The article on Canova was started on 22 February, this year. Remember that date.

B. Those voting to keep {"at least two of us 'in good standing', though plagued with "limited wiki-markup" (sic) skills"} are (clearly) up to no good, assumptions of good faith notwithstanding.

Me, editing since 2006. 3309 edits to date, counting this one. BUT(!) I only made a few edits, the first couple of years. Obviously I was a plant (so to speak) by those who are planning to take over Wikipedia via the pod people.

WillMorganSeattle, since 6/20/07, but only 61 edits. This is very suspicious. We will get to the bottom of this.

Bluestategirl, who has been editing since April '08. Only 44 edits. What does that tell us? Hmmm.

Montoya44, since 1/10/10 Only 33 edits. I zink ve are startink to zee ein pattern, hier.

MrWooHoo, since 8/2013 2703 total edits. (Ignore him. Not part of the pattern. Obviously only here to throw those determined sleuths off the track.)

Crrl333, since 1/31/16 Only Five total edits. Four are to Debbie's article, before there was a Canova article, the last to Tim's. A "newbie." A fifth columnist, no doubt.

And here's the kicker: 50-34-103-73, who's made 20 edits editing since making one to the Rocky Horror show lip syncher's article on 1/23/16, five weeks before the Canova article was posted (how's that for prescience?). Ve vill get to ze bottom ov zis!

Let me summarize: Four editors who have a total of 23 years editing at Wikipedia, might have "limited wiki-markup skills?" How can you possibly explain that? What do you think about that, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!!! How's that for part of the worldwide commie conspiracy?

So tell me, "Ymb," which of us are "odd?" How long to we have to be around before you accept us as genuine? How often do we have to post?

You obviously have a crystal ball at your disposal.

Are you willing to share it? I could use it at the track, next week.Activist (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluestategirl:@Crrl333:Got these two addresses wrong. Sorry about that: Activist (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: Thank you Activist for keeping up the good fight here. I plead guilty of poor editing skills, particularly in talk, because I only edit occasionally and have only once before posted in a discussion about an article. I believe I was accused of being 'canvassed' above which I was not. I came to Wikipedia to learn about Mr Casanova, was glad to find the article, and tried at least in a small way to improve it. My feelings on the proposal to delete is to suspect that some are overly tidy, and also that there are some with political motivations behind wanting to delete the page. The idea of an article being deleted out of political motivation is frightening to me. I am politically motivated to keep the page, I support Mr Canova's candidacy, but to present information out of political motivation seems to me the lesser of two evils compared with disappearing information out of political motivation. PS If I'm to be discounted for editing too infrequently can we apply a discount for people who edit too much? WillMorganSeattle (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluestategirl:@Crrl333:@WillMorganSeattle:@Ymblanter:@Bluestategirl:@Montoya44:@MrWooHoo: Well, thank you for weighing in, Will. I hope the we're able to somehow prevail over the determined good faith effort of Bearcat to delete this article. He'd be with us right now, but he's busy doing tens of thousands of incredibly important Hotcat edits to articles for notable people such as Makoto Yasumura, where he changed the listing from Category:voice actors to Category:Japanese male voice actors, an edification and elucidation that helps us all to truly grasp the significance of that monumental moment in cinematic history. You'll remember Makoto, of course. It was he who joined to deliver the unforgettable "Evil Concerto" duet performance as either Oingo or Boingo in the anime episode 27 of 48 of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders. There is a small problem with that change, however, as there is no reliable source in Yasumura's article to establish whether or not the actor is either male or Japanese. The song was performed twice more in episodes 36 and 37, but alas, Makoto was not recast in the role he made so memorable. Activist (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'delete Even ignoring the dubious notability of this candidate, WP:TNT surely applies to this campaign flier. But he isn't notable either as an academic or as a politician. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NPOL or the GNG. Respected academic who is in a decidedly not-ordinary Congressional primary race. It has already gotten substantial national attention, from outlets like The New Republic, Newsweek, Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept, etc. Enough to be able to write a substantial article on him, and to make this a clear keep. As WP:POLOUTCOMES puts it, he has " . . received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected . . ." He may qualify under WP:PROF (I came across this as I was about to cite his work at the ref desk). His gscholar h-index is 10 or 11, and his advising Sanders may satisfy Criterion 7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.John Z (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Canova is particularly noteworthy since, though he teaches law and finance, his influence soars far beyond those two academic disciplines, into immigration and labor issues, public and economic policy, political and popular reform movements, and has drawn the attention of noteworthy scholars working in many countries and languages. The encyclopedic Who's Who in Economics refers to a pair of papers he co-authored, the first being: When Government Helped: Learning from the Successes and Failures of the New Deal, a compendium of the analyses of six cutting edge thinkers, edited by Sheila Collins and Gertrude Goldberg, from Oxford University Press (2014). Canova's brief bio, the longest in that book forward notes: "Timothy A. Canova is a Professor of Law and Public Finance at the Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center in Florida. His work, which crosses the disciplines of law, public finance, and economic history, has been published in numerous articles and book chapters, including academic journals from Harvard, Georgetown, Minnesota and University of California. Canova has held high academic and administrative posts at the University of New Mexico and Chapman University. In 2011, he was appointed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to serve on a blue-ribbon advisory panel on reforming the Federal Reserve. Prior to teaching, he served as a legislative assistant to the late U.S. Senator Paul E. Tsongas and practiced law in New York City with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon." From the abstract of the second paper at that source, Keynesian Comparative Economics, by Canova, Richard P. Holt, Robert N. Horn, and Barkley and Marina V. Rosser, published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2003, vol. 62, issue 3. (T)he authors of this article review the late E. Lynn Turgeon's contributions to economics, including his studies of the Soviet economy, use of qualitative and demographic analyses, his Keynesian critique of U.S. economic performance, and his critique of international financial markets. Turgeon's comparative approach led to unique insights about the challenges that confronted planned economies, including the differential impact of military spending on the demand-constrained economy of the United States and the supply-constrained economy of the Soviet Union. His study of the Soviet and planned economies also informed his analysis of the U.S. economy and international adjustment mechanisms. Canova's "Selected Works" page at a single distributor, BePress, lists 20 additional articles he authored, mostly in law journals, and another he co-authored, between 1990 and 2013.Selected Works of Timothy A. Canova, Bepress. Activist (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:CSD#G11, unless completely rewritten. He probably passes WP:PROF for his academic positions. But that's not what this thinly-disguised campaign flyer is about; he does not yet pass WP:NPOL so an article centered on his political activity and positions is inappropriate here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I volunteer to do some needed cleanup. But some WP:NPOL arguments here & elsewhere are logically defective. They seem not to be based on anything that guideline actually says, but read things into it that are not there: In effect that candidacy (or lesser offices) works against notability. That if there is reliable source coverage that would have decisively proven notability in any other context, the fact that it was coverage related to political candidacy makes it inadequate to prove notability; That proof of notability outside of or prior to the candidacy or non-notable office is required. The guideline does not say that. In this example, although many might judge him notable for other reasons, the substantial coverage of him (& the race) in major, national sources make satisfaction of WP:NPOL (& WP:POLOUTCOMES) as written completely unambiguous.John Z (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BASIC's "significant coverage" requirement reinforced by its coming close to qualifying for speedy deletion under WP:G11 (promotional material). It's not germane to my vote, but I'm dismayed at the level of obvious meatpuppetry and over-the-top bludgeoning going on in this discussion. Rebb ing 04:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (See below.)[reply]
- @Rebbing: I'm similarly dismayed at your accusation of obviousmeatpuppetry. I came upon this article and the AfD nomination because I was wondering who might take on such a formidable fundraiser in a primary. Because of her proclivity for promoting contributors' agendas, I'm not a great fan of Wasserman Schultz, but that's not what motivated me. Bearcat had made some legitimate criticisms about the article in his (?) original nomination for deletion. So I read a bit more about the subject of the article and began to address Bearcats' concerns in an effort to improve the article, as we're expected to do as responsible editors, assuming we have the time to devote to it. That didn't seem to affect Bearcat's agenda at all. As his original concerns were thoroughly addressed he trotted out new ones, and repeatedly ignored requests to delete those obsolescent ones (i.e., about the original valueless Reddit cites) from his original AfD request, as if they still pertained, though they were resolved weeks ago. Not a single one of the editors who have supported deletion has made any attempt whatsoever to improve the article, and some simply carped on about it. So then, most recently, insulting questions and inferences of supposed conspiracies have been raised about the integrity of those long term editors who have opposed deletion. Somewhat exasperated, at this point, I addressed those concerns, and began to indulge in a bit of satire, which I thought was a legitimate response to what I still feel are the weak criticisms and the unfounded accusations that had been made. Now you've repeated those accusations against other editors in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. I'm not suggesting that you should change your vote, but I would hope you possess the professionalism to withdraw those baseless charges and the decency to apologize, perhaps. Activist (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed the part where I said that I am dismayed by the over-the-top bludgeoning happening here. What you're doing—writing walls of text to those who disagree with your desired outcome—is inappropriate, but your sarcasm towards and mockery of the nominator and relisting administrator is beyond the pale.

The evidence for my accusation of bludgeoning is your conduct in this very thread, including the reply above; my evidence for meatpuppetry is the unbelievably large number of editors for whom this is their first rodeo (cf. WP:DUCK). Please note that meatpuppetry is not the the same as sockpuppetry: I'm not suggesting that the suspect accounts aren't real, independent individuals (so your long-winded analysis of each editors' contributions is totally irrelevant); I'm simply pointing out that it appears they've been brought here through something other than chance or involvement with the article. I don't owe you an apology for expressing my dismay at what's transpired in this discussion (observe how my "charge" was a general comment on behavior that didn't name names). If you're going to continue in the same tenor, I would advise you against replying further: your exchange above with Bearcat about sources was a perfect performance of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and there's no need for an encore.

Please note that it's not custom to edit one's nomination in light of changing content (as you requested); AfDs frequently involve moving targets; changes are reflected in the discussion. In this case, it's a little hard to see: you've buried the discussion with your walls of text. Also, using {{ping}} is not necessary or conventional in most Wikipedia discussions, XfDs included, as it's assumed that participants are watching the page. Rebb ing 06:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After mulling this over and reexamining the available coverage, I believe the subject likely falls on the fair side of notability. Additionally, the concerns underlying the notability requirement are satisfied here: there's enough material to write a full and balanced article that draws from multiple independent sources, and there appears to be enough interest in the article that the neutrality problems (which aren't that bad) will be hammered out.

I also withdraw my remarks about this discussion. I failed to assume good faith: Activist's comments, while a breach of decorum, reflect an earnest, if inexperienced, attempt to defend the article on the merits; the recommendations from AfD newcomers can be explained by happenstance as easily as by off-site canvassing. (I had an Wikipedia account for six years before I did more than correct small errors.) I apologize for needlessly casting aspersions and for muddying an already contentious deletion discussion. Rebb ing 03:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your gracious apology. I admit that I am quite inexperienced regarding the AfD process, though not editing in general. I also greatly appreciate your efforts to improve the article, and your overall considerable contributions to Wikipedia, Rebbing. Activist (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page has references, and I think it can expand. There are a few citations outstanding, so there is room for reciting and growth. Normally, I'm a deletionist; I think all stubs should be removed, since they lack information... This page has the fluff and relevance. I've seen him in the media, so he has notoriety. Personally, I'll vote keep, but with limitation. The article still needs expansion, especially in the reference department. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and Draft if needed as the article simply needs additional work and is currently not convincing of keeping at mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Faye[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The subject of the article does not have significant roles in multiple films/series. In addition, there is hardly any independent media coverage (most references are primary/self published sources and even those are quite few). The article is also written in a promotional tone (although I tried to fix that). Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add several additional independent sources from the media, including a recent feature article by an award-winning website in the UK. Somehow, User:Lemongirl942 deletes several of these independent media references and then cites 'lack of independent media references' as a reason to flag the article. I apologize if the article had a promotional tone when I edited it. A lot of the phrasing simply came from the independent sources I was quoting, and I was not aware that the tone would read in such a way at all. If the phrasing can be improved upon, I welcome it. However, I disagree that the article should be deleted. Natalie Faye is an actress with a strong body of work that I, and many others, have been following since the early 00s when she appeared in many Mediacorp television series and theatre productions. I remember reading about her back in those days in publications like 8 Days, Cleo, Her World, New Man, The Straits Times, The New Paper and such, which cited her work in significant plays and tv series such as First Touch, Phua Chu Kang, Heartlanders, Achar, True Files, The Legendary Swordsman, Millenium Bug, We Do, Colours, and The White Road. As those were physical publications, I've had difficulties finding corresponding reviews and articles online but I have managed to find some independent media articles and have referenced them. Honestly, I am baffled that this article is being cited for having not enough independent references when the Wikipedia articles of other notable actors who were known in Singapore during the same era as Natalie Faye, such as Steph Song, Cheryl Chin, Janice Koh, and Celest Chong have just as many independent references, if not fewer. Also, it would help if the legitimate independent media references I add to the article would stop being removed. Kelly A. Cheng 09:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly A. Cheng: If they appeared in Singaporean (physical) newspapers/magazines (prior to 2009) you can search them online in the archive here. I did search for "Natalie Faye" and it returned 0 results while a search for "Diana Natalie" returns 4 results. I am unable to find evidence that she satisfies WP:GNG. The sources I removed were independent sources but self published sources WP:SPS. The other sources you used for citations were all linked to the article subject. The one link to Asiaone was good, but it was only one. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: You probably only found 4 because the site you provided only has an archive for a few newspapers, and not the vast majority of Singaporean magazines and media outlets. I have tried to find archives of those but can't. Anyway, this is my first Wikipedia article contribution and I decided to write this after reading a recent article about Faye. I felt that with her contributions to the theatre, film, and television industry since the early 00s and her appearances in so many notable Singaporean TV shows and plays of that time period, she deserved a Wikipedia page. But it seems that everyone is having trouble finding media articles that meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I understand the article being flagged for having insufficient sources. I have no objections to that - particularly since I currently don't have time to go dig up those old magazine and newspaper articles I mentioned but may do so at a later time. However, I am not sure this article should actually be flagged for deletion when it has more sources than dozens of other Wikipedia articles about Singaporean actors. When I made the article, I (mistakenly) felt that there were enough independent media references based on the pages of many other Singaporean actors - some of which only have two or three independent sources linked, and some, not at all. So I encourage Wikipedia editors to also examine these other articles as they are misleading in terms of how many sources are needed. I acknowledge that perhaps I did not provide enough for Natalie Faye, now that I know more about how many should be referenced. But other Wikipedia articles for Singaporean actors like Hayley Woo only have one reference, and yet that article is not being flagged for deletion. Even worse, Eileen Yeow has no sources/citations/references whatsoever, and the article hasn't been flagged for deletion either. Other Singaporean actor articles that have not been flagged for deletion despite insufficient sources include: Race Wong, Cheryl Chin, Mariam Baharum, Jeszlene Zhou, Michelle Goh, Melvinder Kanth, S. Shamsuddin, Elvin Ng, Baskar Subramanian, Anwar Hadi, Nathan Hartono (faulty links in references, and some are blogs). I can't remember all the Singaporean actor articles I looked at before I created my article, but these are some - there are countless others. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most articles about Singaporean actors on Wikipedia suffer from insufficient citations or proof of notability. A few are flagged in terms of needing more citations, but none are being flagged for deletion, while mine was flagged for deletion only two days after I made it, without time being given to improve it (while most of the above articles I cited have been around for years without being deleted despite insufficient citations). I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of Wikipedia editing standards when it comes to articles about Singaporean entertainers. Either all those articles should also be deleted, or my article should simply be flagged for needing additional citations, but not for deletion. Considering how new it is compared to the other articles with insufficient citations, it should be given more time to be improved.

@Kelly A. Cheng: I understand this is your first article and I appreciate your help. The Singapore newspaper archive contains most of the mainstream newspaper which are considered as reliable sources WP:RS. If the person wasn't featured in the mainstream newspapers, it is hard to conclude that the person is notable (see WP:NACTOR). Thank you for bringing the other articles to our notice. The way to go about is to first search if independent sources are available about the articles subject. If not available, then it is OK to flag it for deletion. I'll continue the conversation on your talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for all applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about her. It's difficult to find Singaporean articles about her, though, and there hasn't been anything that I can see in the US. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akoran[edit]

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

Upcoming movie that does not meet WP:NFILM. Creator has obvious conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

WP:INDAFD: "Akoran" "Aghori" "R. Dinesh" "Sutharsan G" "R Viththilingam"

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

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. It "may" be completed, but lacks enough coverage in reliable sources to meet inclusion criteria. If that changes after release, a resurrection can be considered. Send author to WP:NOTABOUTYOU and WP:NF and WP:PRIMER so he learns a few things about editing. and WP:COI. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find independent sources that indicate that the production is notable. The closest is the tamildelight.com article, but it seems to be more comparable to a capsule review than an article that confirms pre-release notability. Thanks. Chris vLS (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article contains no convincing signs of better notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy-i[edit]

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

No secondary sources or potential redirect targets. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) This would be a candidate for PROD, but it already had an underpopulated AfD so hopefully this can go faster. czar 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found some sources with passing mentions. Unsure of it's notability though.--TheDomain (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would describe those four as passing mentions and a (non-independent) media partnership, not significant coverage. czar 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is simply questionable for any applicable notability thus delete for now at best. Notifying 1st AfDer Happysquirrel. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more signs of notability than last time. All bare mentions or non-independent sources. I honestly should have just PRODed it last time, given that no one even showed up for the first AfD. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:34, 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) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuyuan Huangling Tourism Resort[edit]

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

This resort has no news results. This is not a place. There is no RS source about this resort even in the Chinese name. Greek Legend (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also speedy deletion request by me of an almost identical page and Wuyuan_County,_Jiangxi. Lithopsian (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are some Chinese sources ([11][12]), few of them have significiant coverage on this resort. --Antigng (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply none of this actually has any solid independent notability, nothing else which is best deleted for now and restarted if better later. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 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 September. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Septembre[edit]

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

Non-notable band. The name sounds the same as the ninth month of the year, September. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to September and tag with {{R from typo}}. I could not find any reliable sources on it. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Harwood[edit]

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

Secondary sources do not establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources, minimal cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
delete possible AUTOBIO. Fais WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharoq Ibrahim A Al-Malki[edit]

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

This doesn't give significant information as of why the person is significant. Coming from Malachq - I may be confused most of the time. (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Very few sources available. Looking at the talk page, I have a strong suspicion that the page was set up to promote her. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contents are real and references were added to external supporting citation, this person is a well known lady and playing a very active role in the Qatari Society for Qatar Vision 2022. any required proofs can be provided upon requests. Ms. Sharoq is also a key note speaker at important conference happening today 22 March 2016 (How Women Work ) and link can be provided to it. the intention of the page is not for promotion but for the purpose of fact listing as influancial person in the siciety who is a very well known publically, if any criticl issue noticed then it can be fixed and any required any evidences can be provided MrSolution (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSolution: I understand your point. But for a person to have their article on wikipedia, the person needs to be notable. There needs to be significant coverage (news reports etc.) of the person in reliable sources. In this case, I am not able to find significant media coverage. I would be glad if you could provide more. Additionally, I would request you to read WP:GNG and evaluate yourself if the person really needs a wikipedia article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Please allow some more time so I can gather Media links , the Lady have lots of public media coverage and will share proofs with you soon

@MrSolution: Thank you. This AfD will be here for about a week. I suggest you make a list of Reliable Sources (articles, news reports etc) discussing her and paste the links here Talk:Sharoq_Ibrahim_A_Al-Malki so that others can also look and comment. Before finding sources though, I would request you to please read WP:RS which describes what exactly a reliable source and also the page on notability WP:N to understand why I supported deleting the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest anything inherently notable about the subject. Her achievement to date sems to be that she- err- got a job with a bank. And had two newspaper articles published. Purely advertorial. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no convincing signs of any applicably better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keyrus[edit]

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

Promotional article for a company lacking notability. All listed references are to company related websites except possibly one which is in French. The majority of edits in last several years are by one editor who has not edited any other articles, therefore neutrality is in doubt. Did not find secondary coverage with an internet search. MB (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article doesn't really look much like advertising as far I am concerned. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite what VegasCasinoKid wrote above, this article begins with overt and explicit advertising language:

"An international player in consulting and technologies and a specialist in Data and Digital, Keyrus is dedicated to helping enterprises take advantage of the Data and Digital paradigm to enhance their performance, facilitating and accelerating their transformation, and generating new drivers of growth, competitiveness, and sustainability."

My gosh. No neutral encyclopedia writer would churn out marketing jargon like that. If the company is actually notable, produce the independent reliable sources that prove notability and eliminate the marketing language, describing the company from the neutral point of view. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be rewritten so it doesn't look like advertising, but consensus is consensus so if this article gets deleted, I'm not offended in the least. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a shocking breach of WP:PROMO and WP:N. A cursory google search reveals that apart from sites affiliated with the subject, this article is the only one on the subject. Dschslava (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are simply not finding convincingly enough, simply a few expected links. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Real TV[edit]

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

Weekly online video broadcast that was raised at AfD several years ago but had no discussion for some bizarre reason. The only thing that would stop it being speedied is an unsubstantiated claim that it has "established a reputation". Apart from that, it's cited to social media and its own website. I can't see any evidence at all online that it has been widely noticed or developed a 'reputation'. It truly fails WP:GNG and needs to go. Sionk (talk) 22:35, 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 01:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first eposode has 3,049 views since 2011 and others I checked are no beter. They don't have 250,000 subscribers, more like 150,000. Given their first episode has so few views it would be shocking if they added up to 40 million views. With the key claims overblown, I don't trust the rest of the article. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Davao#Vicariates and Parishes. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of parishes in Davao[edit]

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

No sources for the places to establish the stand-alone notability of this list. The article was deprodded by Sanglahi86. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Davao#Vicariates and Parishes (which gives exactly, or almost exactly, the information provided). The redirect would be helpful. And it is better to save record of contributions in the edit history of a redirect, which may be revived if/when the topic is split out from the larger article, instead of deleting all of a person's work on a given topic. :)

By the way, the contributor could perhaps consider adding Archdiocese of Davao churches into List of Catholic churches in the Philippines, which is part of world-wide List of Catholic churches. (Note there is also List of cathedrals in the Philippines#Roman Catholic). Not every parish church is notable, so perhaps meaning only Davao churches having individual Wikipedia articles or seeming to be important enough to have a Wikipedia article (such as Davao Cathedral (bluelink), Christ the King Cathedral (Tagum City, Davao del Norte) (currently a redlink, see pic at File:Christ The King Cathedral Tagum.jpg) and some of the more major parish churches) should be included. --do ncr am 21:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 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 01:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect - Even the target has more detail than is desirable: it will need maintenance which it will not automatically get as clergy move on. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that adding it to the church list article is useful: that would be better merged into one on its archdiocese. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Davao#Vicariates and Parishes per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Phoenix[edit]

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

No references (a couple links only) and I don't think he passes WP:ACTOR Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 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 01:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Hardly any references and article is written in a promotional tone. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having extremely small parts in notable films does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 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) 15:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAF Shaheen College Dhaka Green Thumbs[edit]

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

I tagged a CSD on this, because the author had blanked the page. It was deleted at 15:58, 15 March 2016 by user:RHaworth. At 17:21, the article was recreated with only a school logo with no indication of the copyright on it. I tagged it again for a CSD, but have now taken that off, as I believe the correct way to handle this is XFD. There is an existing Bangladesh Air Force Shaheen College, Dhaka, which I assume is connected somehow. But there is a different logo on that page. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that since I posted this AFD nomination, content has been added to the article, but no sourcing. Additionally, I find no sourcing from the links above. With the current content, this seems to fall under WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life and therein fails notability because there is no independent verifiable sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student club. Could support merge to Bangladesh Air Force Shaheen College, Dhaka if the club material were reliably sourced. Worldbruce (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A student club that shows no sign of notability or encyclopedic value.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above, it is a student club. No sources found to support that it is a notable one. Chris vLS (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 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 Keep at best for now as this could've had better comments and I would've voted myself but that's simply not going to help (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Platini[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. Paralympic athletes are considered notable if they won a medal, and Platini's team finished in 5th in 2012. JTtheOG (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Volleyball doesn't have notability guideliness at WP:NSPORTS. The almost established at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball/Archive 1#National team participants, was almost established. It indicates that volleyball members agree that the Paralympic participants are notable. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 22:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (reason 2)~~ Besides Paralympics won notable achievements: 3x Parapan American Games champion and one of the most important players in the 2015 edition; World championships silver medalist. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Sander.v.Ginkel (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 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 01:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jumbotron5000 (talk) 10:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majithia Sirdars[edit]

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

This article is same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Majithia Family that was deleted after being created more than once. Still no references found about the "Family". Notability of individuals may not pass on to the family. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC) ping User:Graeme Bartlett User:SpacemanSpiff User:Onel5969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) 08:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst the article needs improvement, a quick Google book search identified that the Majithia Sirdars (a title inherited from generation to generation) were powerful in the area at some point. --Soman (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:17, 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 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does need some improvement, but the sirdars were an important and notable group in the area in the past — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz643 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If truthful, the family is certainly notable. The article certainly needs a lot of referencing and improvement, but that implies tagging it,not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 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 Keep. There is a rough consensus below that the additional sources proffered during the course of the AfD are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Majmudar[edit]

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

Not notable; has written a couple books and poems none of which appear to be of encyclopedic value Mdude04 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Amit Majmudar

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as my searches found a few links but this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Is your !vote based upon just viewing the links and guessing that the coverage was not substantial, perhaps based upon how many times the subject's name appears in source summaries, or did you actually read the articles? I found many links by using the find sources template atop and then actually reading the articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Swangtgd (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Swangtgd: Actually, that's not correct. Please see the sources I have provided below. Also pinging other users here to review sources: @Mdude04 and SwisterTwister:. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes point #3 of WP:NAUTHOR because his works have received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and also meets WP:BASIC.

References

^ http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-heidi-cruz-20160131-story.html
^ http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-again-battles-globalist-charge-against-wife/
^ http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/28/Heidi-Cruz-Not-Ted-Leading-Final-Push-in-Texas/
^ http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/10/a-pit-of-vipers-also-his-wife-040327
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=political+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
^ "Donald, you're a sniveling coward. Leave Heidi the hell alone".

Review: "Book Review: 'Partitions'". NPR.
Review: "Review: Poetry by Lucia Perillo and Amit Majmudar". The New York Times.
Review: "Amit Majmudar's 'The Abundance' trades fake family happiness for something real". The Plain Dealer.
Review: "Four lives displaced by the dividing of India; Books and Authors". The Seattle Times. (subscription required)
Review: "Literary Fiction". Daily Mail. (subscription required)
Review: "A New Wave". The Virginian-Pilot. (subscription required)
Review: "3 books about restless Indians". The Washington Post. (subscription required)
Review: "Amit Majmudar puts the 1947 'Partitions' on a human scale: New in Paperback". The Plain Dealer.
"Indian American Novelist Amit Majmudar Named Ohio’s First Poet Laureate". India West.
"Ohio’s first official poet says writing isn’t work". The Columbus Dispatch.
"To Take Out Trump, Hillary Clinton Must First Dispense With Her Inner Politician". Time.
Also, while a primary source, Smithsonian Magazine has published some of his works: ""Pattern and Snarl" – A New Poem by Amit Majmudar".

– The subject is clearly notable per Wikipedia's standards. Most of the sources above were found by using links in the Find sources template above. It makes no sense for this article to be deleted per a lack of source searching that includes the viewing and actual reading of the sources that are available about the subject and his works. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE as evidence by references provided by Northamerica1000 above. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here are some more reviews further showing that WP:ANYBIO is also met: The Abundance - "The narrative is slow, but sumptuous with recipes and reflection. Mr Majmudar, who is also a poet, imbues his prose with phrases and metaphors that linger with the warmth of spices." - The Economist [13], indeed based on the reviews (by Booklist, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Good Housekeeping, Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly) listed at amazon here [14] a separate book article could be created, Partitions - "Majmudar writes with the incisive prose of a poet and the unflinching eye of a scientist" and "The book’s flaw — if it’s a flaw — is that we’re so close to our subjects at every moment that we lose sight of the river they’re swept away by" - Hyphen magazine [15], and some more by (oh, oh) those trade magazines kirkus "In his magnificent first novel" and "Written with piercing beauty, alive with moral passion and sorrowful insight—a rueful masterpiece." - [16]; and pw "Poet Majmudar's unconvincing debut novel" - and "Tedious though not clumsy, ... but even the dark ending can't shake the notion that the whole endeavor feels like a semisanitized and oversensationalized theme park ride." - [17], and pw reviewing Dothead: Poems, "Aided by his unforgiving eye and a seemingly effortless ability to electrify his images, he composes a portrait of humankind that exposes its overreliance on the persuasive strength of fear." and "But throughout Majmudar keeps focused on one task: exposing what he views as the hollow American claims to being a “melting pot,” as only those who appease the fickle identity of an American are guaranteed their own freedom." - [18]. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Melen[edit]

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

This article is created by an SPA whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to highlight Mr. Melen's business achievements. The sourcing is a problem, with a glut of primary source citations. At the very least, a redirect to the (barely) acceptable T35 Hosting article makes sense. A standalone article on Mr. Melen, however, smells of WP:COI. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 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 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not need this article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 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. joe decker ^talk 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Smith[edit]

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

Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria or the WP:GNG. Additionally, the main contributors for this article may have a WP:COI in the subject, considering the tone and no contributions to any other articles. (This driver should not be confused with Bradley Smith (motorcyclist), another British motorsport figure.) QueenCake (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: The page history for this article is very muddled, and originally this page was an article for Brad Smith (footballer, born 1979), which appears to have been created in parallel to that second article. This page was changed to a disambiguation page in 2006, where it remained until the current page about the driver was created in 2014. Content may have been cut and pasted between the two articles for the Aussie rules player, if so this will require fixing regardless of the outcome. QueenCake (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 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 02:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has raced in the 24 Hours of Daytona - see [19]. That would meet both criterion 1 and 3 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. The history may be muddled and the article may need improvement, but the SNG is met. So unless shown otherwise, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason that didn't show up first time round. If that was in a professional class - we generally don't include amateur-rated drivers unless they meet other criteria - that would be a keep. It will need adding to the article though, as there is no indication of notability currently. QueenCake (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading WeatherTech SportsCar Championship#Class structure right, it is in their top, flagship class so I would say that is a professional division.RonSigPi (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to keep this then, though the article remains in poor shape, which may be reason enough for some to delete. QueenCake (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at best for now even if reluctant as the article certainly needs better work but the 24 Hours of Daytona may at least be minimal to imagine for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 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. Sandstein 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeth Varghese[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable Person. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:27, 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 02:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First AFD was delete consensus back in 2008, but article was rewritten 8 years later with sources. Still it might not be enough. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better and the article has no convincing improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 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 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 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 delete per the snowball clause. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Ray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Being a secretary/treasurer and an organizer is not the same as having produced an important body of regularly-cited work. Also fails WP:GNG - most of the sources currently in the article fail WP:RS and/or do not cover the subject in significant detail. The only reliable sources I could find that cover the subject are along these lines [20], which makes this a textbook BLP1E. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So there's no mystery about it, I'm assuming that this deletion is in response to this Wikipediocracy post. (I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge of who is/is not important in poetry to express an opinion either way on this AFD, but just thought I should mention this.) Blythwood (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone is clear: while the Wikipediocracy blog post brought the existence of this article to my attention, the decision to submit it to AfD, and the rationale I've provided above (which is based in policy), are entirely my own. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 12:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a poet, this person is simply not notable. The books seem, for the most part, to have been self-published or published by very small presses. No secondary sources provide any evidence of notability. As for the GNG and any articles that pop up from newspapers, they are BLP1E material. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My awareness of this subject was raised by the Wikipediocracy article. I wasn't sure at a glance whether this met GNG or not but assumed that somebody would bring this to AfD. So let's take it from the top with an open mind... I would consider one source showing in the piece to count towards GNG — the James Horner interview. It also bears note that Ray is the founder of HMS press (per that interview), so all publications with the ~~publisher spam barcode number~~ 'ISBN number starting "0-9919957" (at least) are self-publications. That's 10 out of 18... Searching for more sources towards GNG now.... Carrite (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A second source towards GNG would be "London Poet Sentenced 23 Months for Child Porn." There is no mention of this newsworthy event in the sanitized biography as it sits, I note. Carrite (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there are only 42 Google hits showing for "Wayne Scott Ray," most of which deal with either the child pornography charges or are Wikipedia/Commons pages and mirrors. Toss out the false matches and publisher promotional fluff mentions and it's pretty clear that this is a GNG failure outside of the dubious BLP-1E honor associated with the subject's legal difficulties. Even expanding the search results by including duplicates and mirrors runs the total G-hits up to a paltry 70. A very small footprint and nothing whatsoever counting to GNG outside of some apparently self-written fluff for the Ontario Poetry Society. Carrite (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my investigation of notability above. Carrite (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that addresses WP:BIO notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though potentially "canvassed" since I know about this article from WPO Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Carrite's reasoning - Alison ^❤ 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Carrite and Drmies. INeverCry 01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carriet, et. al. Purely promotional, not notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG (and yes, I am aware of the hoo-ha over this on another website). BTW, would anyone care to comment here, which also involves Wayne Ray.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. The file's copyright seems dubious. I've opened a deletion request on Commons that may affect numerous WayneRay uploads: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScoutsYorkminster.jpg. INeverCry 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peter Damian (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Blythwood (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this is based entirely on primary sources and a blog, with no indication shown of reliable source coverage — so I ran a ProQuest search, and found nothing by which the sourcing could be improved at all. The hits that did exist pertained entirely to a former mayor of North Battleford, Saskatchewan and/or an American medical professor, with literally just one hit for this Wayne Ray and even then not in a context that could confer notability — it simply mentions his name in conjunction with a military history website. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be the subject of RS coverage which verifies an WP:NAUTHOR pass, but nothing like that is claimed or sourced here. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published sources are okay to a limited extent by a person in the article about that person even though ideally we should rely predominantly on secondary sources independent of the article subject. But for determining notability per notability standards on Wikipedia, once we exclude the primary sources, there is not enough significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the article subject, so the article should be deleted. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only real source of notability is a BLP1E violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not totally convinced that he can't be argued up to borderline notability, but -- all things considered, it would be better, and a kindness to the subject, to delete the article... Herostratus (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on my own reading of the article and checking on, and for sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE. I have no idea what the kerfuffle is at Wikipediocracy, I've never been there and I'm not likely to go there to find out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish sufficient notability under WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Snow ^{let's rap} 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscan University Rugby[edit]

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

Non notable amateur rugby team, playing college level rugby in a country where rugby has a much higher (professional) standard Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:26, 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 01:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any WP:RS of this college-level team in a minority sport. Seems highly unlikely that there are any. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 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 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find enough to show the notability of this team either. Best (and almost the only) thing I found was http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/11706974-95/new-england-college-rugby-team-looks-to-finish-job-with-a-national-championship and that does not seem sufficient. Meters (talk) 05:48, 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 Draftify. joe decker ^talk 15:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzham[edit]

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

A quick google search indicates that there may well be a Mollywood film of this name, written and directed by Jeethu Joseph and starring Prithviraj with a release date of 2 September 2016, just as the article says.

The issue here is that there are no reliable sources that verify this as of 7 March 2016.

Always happy to be proven wrong, and no prejudice at all to the article being recreated when reliable sources are found. Shirt58 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:07, 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 01:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there are reliable sources indicating filming or other notability, I can't see them. Delete per WP:NFF, can of course be recreated if things move on. — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 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 01:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "Uzham" "Oozham" "Jeethu Joseph" "Prithviraj Sukumaran" "Sreejith Ravi"

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

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

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

Userfy as the film has is scheduled to soon, but has not yet begun filming. And to Shirt58 & Amakuru... under the proper title of Oozham, this production almost but not quite yet meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). In my own WP:BEFORE, I looked and found plenty of coverage. [21] I figure we can safely return this to article space in about two or three weeks, and I so strongly suggest a move to this more sourcable title. Either send to WP:DRAFTSPACE or userfy I'll take it). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead as mentioned because this is still simply not better convincing of keeping for now at best thus better improvements are needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Schmidt. The article is more likely to be noticed and improved in draft namespace, and the creator can work on it there too. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 01:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables[edit]

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

Overly specific subject, unsurprisingly an orphan. If at all, content belongs in probit model, where most of it already is. bender235 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Will return to discuss more, but briefly this is important and quite different in purpose, implementation, applications, theory than simple probit model. Can't be merged there. And why focus on probit aspect; panel data analysis would be arguably more appropriate merge target. It doesn't belong in either though. do ncr am 08:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may or may not be important, but we cannot overload Wikipedia with articles for all these highly technical corner cases. After all, this is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a Handbook for Econometrics with Binary Response Variables. --bender235 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently wrong with very specific or highly technical articles, but I can't seem to find significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. When I search for "Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables" (in quotation marks) in Google Scholar and Google Books, I get a grand total of zero hits. A search without quotation marks reveals a few sources that may be useful, but I can't tell if this topic has been the primary subject of any scholarly articles. I will admit, however, I haven't read through the sources cited in this article. Therefore, I am tentatively going to vote in favor of some form of merger, though I am open to being convinced otherwise. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no problem with articles on specialized topics, but this article suffers from an overly explicit title. Something like Dynamic probit model would probably be a more useful basis for an article. The Wooldridge estimator for this problem is real and seems adequately referenced. The main problem with the article is that it is unbalanced; Orme and Heckman estimators should also be treated. --Mark viking (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 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 00:38, 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 at best for now as this AfD is not going to get any better likely and I would've likely voted Keep myself if it was best. At best, this could be improved if needed and nominated later of course if needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rosenthal[edit]

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

Not individually notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

a) All Olympic sports at WP:NSPORT indicate that all athletes at the world championships are notable. As aquatics doesn't have notabiility guideliness, but the fact that aquatics sports are one of the main sports in the world and part and having one of the biggest world championships, this would account also for water polo.

b) Found several secondary sources and added a few of them to the article.

c) One of the prominent players for the national team, scoring on average 2 goals per match.

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He wasn't in an Olympic team. He was in a team in a different championship that finished 9th. I don't understand why you feel the Olympics are relevant? Philafrenzy (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Olympic sports are worldwide high class sports and have so a certain standard of notability. I want to make the distinction from other team sports that are much less notable like korfball, netball, rollball etc. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might make his team notable, but doesn't seem to help him. He apparently appeared once in a championship team that came ninth. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With my point a) I mean being part of the USA national team together with competing at the world championships is notbale. It's imposible for a nobody to do that. So it is with all the major sports. Breanne Nalder is notable for competing at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships – Women's team time trial and finished last, John Chifuniro finished last in the qualification round of the 2015 World Archery Championships – Men's Individual Recurve. I can give you 100s of more examples. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also, being 9th of the world in a major sport sounds notable to me... Besides of that, the article only mentions 1 championship. But he has competed in many more matches for the national team. Just a question, where did you find he didn't compete at other championships? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, to show that you're not a nobody when you're invited for the national team I did some research. See the expanded article. Did you actually Google him before nominating? He became many time national champion with his club, he is an outstanding players of the team and received several awards. And to come back to the national team, he also played with the national team in the super final of the 2013 FINA Men's Water Polo World League. I didn't look further, but probably there will be much more notable facts to tell about him. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By all means put it all in then before people vote. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:31, 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 00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPORT, but does need cleanup. Dschslava (talk) 17:56, 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) 15:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Wynne[edit]

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

Very limited to no notability. This is an autobiography by the artist themselves, and is purely promotional. Editor has created several different draft versions, which they attempted to put through AfC, but gave up after a single denial each time. I would normally say that if notability could be established, than this might be worth saving, but if you read the comment left on this article's talk page, and take it in light of the message left on my talk page (Request on 09:00:14, 21 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gwenwynne), it appears this person is more interested in using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX, and for self-promotion. She currently has two drafts pending in AfC. If she is truly willing to work on the article, delete this one, and let one of the drafts go through the AfC process. Although, my searches turned up virtually nothing about them (one brief mention in a Huffpo blog). Without being able to verify the veracity of the citations in the article, and the promotional nature of it, I think that this article should be at least merged with either of the two drafts, and let an uninvolved editor take it over. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I have offered to help this editor get an article ready, through the draft process, if they are willing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: the backstory and presence of drafts is not relevant to this deletion discussion; in the future I suggest trying to be more terse and framing the nomination in the context of deletion policy. That said, the concern I raised when I proposed this article for deletion remains; the subject does not appear to meet the criteria listed at WP:BASIC. The sources so far presented mention the theatre troupe she co-founded and was the artistic director of, awards that actors in the films and plays won, etc but they have very little to say about the actual subject of the article. I have not been able to find anything better. So, delete. VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically self-promotional, and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If she is notable then someone else can create an article about her, or take it over as has been suggested. This is Paul (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Modest credits on imdb, no other serious coverage. Since the references are all off-line, I'm not in a position to see if they really back up her claim to notability, but what I could find on-line does not. ubiquity (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for any applicable notability, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only found one Huffington Post link which mentions her name in passing. Considering the lack of sources, I am not convinced that the article subject is notable enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Gaynor[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2009 (and created by a now banned sockpuppet). Forget about WP:NACTOR (subject is a child actor that had at most a few recurring roles) – there's no way this will pass WP:GNG (I found one passing (speculative!) reference in Entertainment Weekly from 2014 and that was about it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost no coverage outside of imdb, so he doesn't really meet WP:GNG. WP:BIO requires 'significant roles in multiple notable films [or] television shows... a large fan base or a significant "cult" following' or 'unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment', so I don't think he passes that either. Press releases from Young Artists Awards document that he was nominated, and sometimes won, but the award was for "Guest Starring Young Actor" (i.e., not lead or supporting), and I would be hard-pressed to identify any of his competition for this award, leading me to believe that the award is not notable, as required by WP:NAWARD. So unless someone can dig up decent sources, I'm inclined to kill it. ubiquity (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've started questioning the salvageability of these articles even with Young Artist Award because aside from that, they're still questionably better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 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.

[1] ttp://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-heidi-cruz-20160131-story.html

[2] ttp://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-again-battles-globalist-charge-against-wife/

[3] ttp://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/28/Heidi-Cruz-Not-Ted-Leading-Final-Push-in-Texas/

[4] ttp://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/10/a-pit-of-vipers-also-his-wife-040327

[5] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=political+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[6] "Donald, you're a sniveling coward. Leave Heidi the hell alone".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]