Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 March 10 March >

Purge server cache

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

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

WWE Raw 2015 Survivor Series match[edit]

WWE Raw 2015 Survivor Series match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not noteworthy enough to have it's own article. CrashUnderride 23:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - An individual match on a Raw show? Not notable, hardly a blip on the screen.  MPJ-US  00:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tabercil (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "The match would go on to become one of the most famous professional wrestling matches of all-time" -- At least it made me laugh.LM2000 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not important enough for its own article. Even the episode wasn't important enough. Few matches or wrestling TV episodes get their own article. But at least "Jimmy Uso executed Xavier Woods with a superkick" is gold. starship.paint ~ KO 02:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This match happened. This article is ludicrous, bordering on a hoax. End the joke, it's not funny, and is not helping to build an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. -so clear this isn't important enough for its own article. What a ridiculous (albeit hilarious) article. Amccann421 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Nikki♥311 05:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into March 11, 2016 Superstars tag team match. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny, but let's keep the joking to a minimum, please. oknazevad (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was the minimum. Seriously though, it works the same as deleting. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete why there may be some rare exceptions where a match that aired on Raw could be notable enough for an article this clearly not one of them.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sinag Publications[edit]

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

A couple of days ago, I PROD'ded this, but the tag was removed. I'm now listing this at AfD, because this article concerns a non-notable topic that only lists primary sources. Hence, notability is not demonstrated and this article should go. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 23:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Pending location of more source material. I think it is significant that this student publication has existed (albeit with lapses) since 1968 and has been suppressed by a military regime, been satirized and still is ticking. I agree the primary source problem is a problem, but it is possible that the language barrier is the issue... if non-self-referencing sources cannot be found, I will not object to AfD, but I suspect that the problem is more one of difficulties finding coverage of student news papers in the third world than the impact of the publication where it exists. Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A student publication, with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, unsurprisingly, as most student magazines and newspapers don't. Having existed for several decades, and still "ticking" despite suppression by a military regime may be considered to be noble achievements, but they have nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability requirements. Arguments for keeping based on speculation that sources may exist ("it is possible..." and "I suspect that...") should carry no weight at all when this discussion is assessed for consensus: we require verifiable evidence that sources exist: see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you pinged the lead contributors; perhaps they can find Filipino language sources. I also think that if it is deleted, perhaps a merge of some content into the article on the University itself might be appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 01:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've come across some mentions, [1], [2], [3], but not very much detail is given. --Soman (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This was clearly heading for deletion anyway, but there is no need to wait any longer, as it turns out the article was created by a blcok-evading sockpuppeteer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moju Chowdhury[edit]

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

Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications, failing relevant guidelines for notability. Unsourced biographical article with negative implications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, seems like a personal attack. I do not know the man or anything about him. So perhaps with a rewrite the article could stand. As some people's struggle with drugs/alcohol is notable in the choices they make or things they do. However as it currently stands I believe it should either be deleted or moved into draft space for a rewrite. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 22:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - "he's was a Business person , professionals and he spends most of time in Moju Chowdhury Hat this place is his own firstly he founded in 1965, but he was a Alcohol addicted to Drink, is that he can't make this place for populated with work and Fields." Huh? This is total nonsense. JSFarman (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the subject were still living, this would be speedy deletion territory. Since becoming aware last week of the author's edits at Moju Chowdhury Hat, I've been concerned that there may be a problem of competence. Any suggestions on how to constructively address that are welcome. Worldbruce (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no evidence this person exists. For all we know this is a complete hoax article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ninety9Lives[edit]

Ninety9Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, couldn't find any independent sources through a simple Google search. GABHello! 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The version I speedied consisted of "Ninety9Lives is a Music Group on YouTube." This isn't quite so blatant, but I'm still not seeing an assertion of importance - the article describes this company as, essentially, a social media consultancy, not a record label as such. Still looks like an A7 to me. (The author of the current incarnation's already copied this version over the draft at Draft:Ninety9Lives.) —Cryptic 22:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there are a lot of Google results, they're all MP3 download websites or other websites which can't be used as a reliable source. Elaenia (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No independent references included, none found, no assertion of notability. I would have tagged it for an A7 speedy. --Finngall talk 05:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No claim of notability, and arguably no credible claim of signifiance. I'd even opt for a WP:A7 speedy deletion. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Hurricane Katrina disaster relief#Other organizations. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast Relief Fund[edit]

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

Insubstantial and suppositious. Unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unable to find sources to substantiate any claims of notability. However, it appears it's not an organization, but rather a fund started and managed by a religious organization in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Outside of press releases, there's not been any mentions of the fund. There are a few funds with similar names but they're not the one in question. Elaenia (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, probably to Hurricane Katrina disaster relief#Other organizations, or perhaps not to the specific section if someone wants to object that it's a fund but not an organization per se. I'll add mention of this fund to the section, now, anyhow. It would be hard to call this editing a "merger" as there is no sourced content at all to merge. The fact of a $100,000 donation by a band seems significant, by the way. --doncram 01:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hurricane Katrina disaster relief#Other organizations, certainly don't delete. A quick glance (I did not any of these articles straight through to the end) at the 71 articles listed in a proquest search [4] on the name shows that several hundred thousand dollars - and perhaps more - was channeled through fund, raised nationwide. It apparently served as an address to fund money raised in local fundraisers in towns literally form sea (California coast towns) to shining sea (Newburyport, Massachusetts). It would be easy enough to source a decent section, probably even an article, but Hurricane Katrina disaster relief seems like a better repository for this Fund. And, God bless the people who rose to the challenge of helping New Orleans in the wake of this disaster.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation tax[edit]

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

Reason

Content Forking/Redundant: This page has been around for over a decade, and no one has explained why this warrants it's own page. Imagine if in addition to the Wikipedia entry on "Depreciation," we also had a separate page called "Depreciation Tax" which basically said the exact same thing. Everyone has already acknowledged that the "Inflation Tax" isn't a tax in the formal sense, and any informal usage can be covered under regular "inflation."

Lack of Reliable Sources/Original Theories/Advertisement: Literally the only working citation on this page is book listing by Pete Comely, which Comely himself submitted. The book is self-published with zero reviews online. Comely has a degree in psychology (not economics) and has only 200 followers on twitter.

Lack of Notability: "Inflation Tax" tends to be more of an epithet than an academic concept, similar to "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party."

NPOV: The article presents a purely one-sided perspective on inflation, where as mainstream economics presents a far more balanced and nuanced perspective on both the pros and cons. Part of the problem is that since "Inflation tax" is used mainly as an epithet. The people who use the phrase in the first place tend to already perceive inflation in a purely negative light.

Many of these issues have been brought up in discussion over the years without being addressed. RonLawl (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User was unable to submit due to the edit filter; I have submitted for him. See this user talk page message for verification. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. For several reasons:
  • For one I regard any AFD initiation on behalf of a non-logged-in editor should not be allowed. Someone logged-in needs to be accountable for the quality of the AFD, but typically the true nominator (the person actually posting the AFD) disavows all responsibility and is in effect a dupe of the non-logged in editor. Why should the non-logged in person not have an account? Perhaps they have been banned from Wikipedia? I hope that the true nominator C.Fred will explain any extenuating circumstances if they exist, and explain bizarre aspects of the nomination. And relatedly I believe all AFD nominators should be held accountable in some way such as limiting their rights to open AFDs, if their AFD quality record is poor.
    • C. Fred, what on earth is meant by the article being a content fork, yet having existed for a decade?
    • C. Fred, where is there any support that the term "inflation tax" is used as an epithet? The article does not support that?
    • C. Fred, do you know if "RonLaw" is a banned editor? And what is their relation to Pete Comely whom they seem to target?
  • The article seems fine; its introduction is very clear and it makes the term make sense. Per the working paper found by Mark viking there exists substantial economics modeling debate and recommendations relating to this concept.
  • In this edit I removed the promotional claim about Pete Comley's book and replaced it by what I think is an appropriate usage. __doncram 01:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept "inflation tax" is well-established, and that alone is sufficient grounds to retain the article.-- danntm T C 04:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as this seems clear to where any other votes may not change the current, closing for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Android N[edit]

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

Upcoming software; now is not the time to talk about it as if it had already been released. Georgia guy (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read the references? It has been released. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one reference to save you time. http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11183890/android-n-developer-preview-split-screen-google-surprise Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been released, its full name would have been known. Marshmallow's full name is known. Georgia guy (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A name does not indicate whether it was released or not. Once again read the reference. Title says "available today". Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. It has to have a final name upon its release. Georgia guy (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Argumentative with no source for opinion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Windows 7 was once known by the codename Windows Blackcomb. But the final name, Windows 7, was known before it came out. Same with every other version of computer software that I've heard of. Georgia guy (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the reference? Do you believe the many references? Yes this release is different than others with respect to code name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the reference, I got that it's a preview. Georgia guy (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Premature discussion. Android L and Android M had pages created upon their unveiling/beta, but were at a better initial state. With changes, the N article can be made more informative. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the time of their release, their names became Lollipop and Marshmallow. We call those versions by their official names, not by abbreviations. But we don't know the final name of this release. Georgia guy (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we call them by their official names, not by abbreviations, when official name is announced. That doesn't change the fact the software has been released with a code name, letter abbreviation as a temporary name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But you're saying that it has been released now, which means that its code name has to be out-of-date, and that "Android N", if it's still the name used, must be the final name even if it matches the code name. Georgia guy (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As of last time, we decided to only refer to the letter in quotation marks and explicitly call it a "working title" in the lead. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ViperSnake151, you ignored one part of my comment. Daniel.Cardenas says that the version is out now. Georgia guy (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a beta is out now. The stable, final, general release is expected Summer 2016, according to Google. We did an article for Windows 10 as soon as it was unveiled too, and it was updated as new beta builds/announcements were made. Regarding codenames; Google started doing the "let's not announce the actual reveal name until it's officially out" thing since Lollipop (which is also when they started doing these developer preview builds). The article will be re-named to reflect the official release name (which we know will be a dessert starting with the letter N; Nouget? Nanaimo?) once it is officially confirmed by Google. Although the release names are typically referred to as "codenames", since Lollipop this is now a misnomer because the codename for each major Android release is now just the letter ("L") per the preview build practice. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rename if/when the name changes (per WP:COMMONNAME, especially the section about name changes even if it is meant to apply to people). It seems to me the delete argument above are that "Android N" will likely not be the final name of this product; however, how does that preclude inclusion?
I could see a claim to merge to Android (operating system) under WP:NPRODUCT but I see plenty of sourcing already. Tigraan (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rename to Android Nutella or whatever the name is once it reveals in May at I/O. It has lots of media coverage. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is out even if not in its final version and there are numerous good sources and references published. Would you not want an article on an upcoming Superbowl just because it hasn't been played yet? --Pmsyyz (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I vote that such an article would be okay as long as the article isn't pretending that the Super Bowl isn't upcoming. Georgia guy (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The development preview has been released for several devices. Stable release scheduled for the summer. FlickrWarrior (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It : This article is part of a sequence of the history of the operating system. Eyreland (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is one of those rambling AfDs that ends up being difficult to follow. The one thing that's clear is that there's no consensus to delete. There is some thought that this should be renamed, but I see no clear consensus to do that. If anybody wants to pursue the rename, please continue that discussion on the article's talk page; no admin interaction is required for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb of Jesse and Ruth[edit]

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

POV-Fork of Tel Rumeida Huldra (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:SIZE which stipulates article size to be 30 kB to 50 kB. The Tel Rumeida article is already over 43 kB. The WP:TAGBOMB job on this articl is bad form, seldom a good faith action and not appreciated. --Oakshade (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly reasonable to have stand-alone article, with link from tel Rumedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are almost no secondary sources, the information put there off the webpage of a settler group in Hebron which is not WP:RS. As it stands, the information is far poorer than on the page it was forked off from, consisting only of a list of several visitors who stopped to visit over several centuries. I.e. it's a list of visitors (not documented in reliable sources) and empty of serious content.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken aback by your comment, because sourcing on page looks acceptable. Hoary travelers' reports can and do support notability, as do articles in major newspapers like the Jerusalem Post. I admit that I had never heard of this place, so I took your word on the poor sourcing and checked myself with a quick look at JSTOR, under "Tomb of Ruth" just to check an alt. phrasing. Found: (“The Hebron Protocol”. 1997. “The Hebron Protocol”. Journal of Palestine Studies 26 (3). [University of California Press, Institute for Palestine Studies]: 131–45. doi:10.2307/2538174.)also (“ISRAEL-PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: PROTOCOL CONCERNING THE REDEPLOYMENT IN HEBRON AND NOTE FOR THE RECORD”. “ISRAEL-PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: PROTOCOL CONCERNING THE REDEPLOYMENT IN HEBRON AND NOTE FOR THE RECORD”. International Legal Materials 36.3 (1997): 650–666.)) called "Tomb of Ruth and Yishai" in these docs, which should be added to the page. Frankly, my dear, I really don't give a damn who started the article. Lots of articles on notable topics are stated by people with POV motives. Although phrasing sometimes has to be changed for POV. In this case, wirting is NPOV. But The quesiton here is whether the topic is notable. In this case, it undeniably is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about notability. The section at Tel Rumeida exhaustively covered what sources are available for the tomb's history, structure, politics. It has 18 RS secondary sources: this fork has 6 sources that pass RS, was created to list Jewish travelers who visited it. That is the only addition, several snippets from primary sources saying:'I've been there'. Ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems to be about WP:OWN on the part of Nom (User Huldra) and Nishdai. See here: [5]. But it is entirely usual to have articles about pilgrimage sites, and this one, as you say, is patently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It began as a POVFORK sourced from a settler website that fails WP:RS. Compare the sourcing and the (lack of) detail (other that a few notes re pilgrims) here to what the Tel Rumeida section has. The latter is detailed, and has 18 sources, this 6, and nothing was gained thereby. Nothing to do with WP:OWN, but with encyclopedic standards. Of course, if we do come up with some really good quality material on the history and archaeology of this tomb, one could expand that TR section into a fully independent article. I've searched extensively but cannot find anything other than what we already have. The only thing that could be expanded is mentioning that it is known not to be the tomb of either Jesse or Ruth, both mythical figures. But I don't care to do that. Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Its composition was fraudulent, using an unreliable website.[reply]

  • It has now only 4 RS-adequate sources.
  • All of the information it contains that can be sourced is available in the relevant section at Tel Rumeida, with a far more abundant scholarly apparatus of sourcing than what we have here.
  • In 10 days no one has been able to come up with any material to repair it, and demonstrate that the 15 citation needed tags can be replaced with proper references.
  • It is a POVFORK, made in defiance of WP:NPOV, since it suppresses, apart from my corrective edit, all material relevant to its Arabic background.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, even the most rudimentary search turns up more [6], [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. Places are usually notable. 2. There is no policy or guideline that says an article must have many sources, and those present are enough. 3. The size argument is a good one. 4. If this isn't about notability, as Nishidani says, then there is no room for a deletion discussion. 5. Even mythical figures (a term I disagree with and find quite disrespectful in this regards) have graves. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historic structures and sites are perfectly worthy of having their own articles. Not a content fork in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram of Deir Al-Arba'in in Hebron
  • Rename The reason for the lack of WP:RS is because the name is wrong. This structure is known as the Deir Al-Arba'in. As this diagram shows well [now added on right], these two tombs are just names given to two components of the wider structure. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Here is a source by this name identifying the building as the site of the Biblical episode / location where 40 witnesses watch as Abraham purchases the Cave of Machpelah. Not at all unusual for old structures to acquire multiple origin stories (See: Tomb of Absalom). Article needs expansion, improvement, but we knew that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no lack of WP:RS. Plus: In any event, this is an English encyclopedia, the name of the Tomb will be in English, with alt. names in other languages added if appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no lack of WP:RS, why can't anyone find more than 6 here, whereas the section at Tel Rumeida has 18?Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nish, sweetheart, read comments above before commenting, I have linked ot a number of sources beyond those already in article. Many more exist: [8]; this one: [9] has real,, old-timey charm..E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources that are not in the Tel Rumeida section, and add them to the measily 6 in this article, by all means let me know. I'm amazed that those approving the retention of this article appear to not compare the detailed description in the Tel Rumeida article with the flimsy sketch here. Perhaps you should prove you have new information by writing up this stub, rather than boasting that it could be improved, with improvements that are not in the Tel Rumeida mother section. We have nothing new here, except a skeleton article that contains nothing the other article lacks, and which systematically ignores the Muslim history, which the mother section, per WP:NPOV managed to include. It began as a POVFORK to limit description to the cult of the Tomb for settlers in Hebron, and has remained so.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question at issue on this page is whether this topic has sufficient notability to sustain an independent article, which would be linked from the long article about the Tel. Certainly it can and should be improved. You have said above that the subject is notable. Time to close this ad keep and move on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the many articles you have created that have been up for deletion, during the AfD process you have worked vigorously to expand the content of the actual article. Uniquely, despite repeated requests to do so and show you have new stuff here, you just sit on this talk page and promise it can be improved. So it remains with 6 sources, the other having over 20. I think that constitutes evidence your suggestions it can be improved are hot air.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nish's assertion is nasty and untrue.
I did not create this article.
I create many articles, very few have been deleted.
I sometimes rewrite or source articles I find here.
More often I just show the sources at the AFD discussion.
All of the statements I have just made are verifiable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the statements I have just made are verifiable.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that I created this article is verifiably untrue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. But you are failing to read. I stated that your practice in articles you created that are up for deletion is to improve the articles by working intensely to find and add sources. Uniquely, in this AfD, you are not doing what you do with your own articles invariably. You made an inference. If you can show that the article is not a POVFORK by actually editing in fresh material not in the other article, you may have a point. All we have here is promises, and an article that has all the appearance of remaining a stub, because it cannot say anything that the other main article has not said.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC) ][reply]
Your argument is that if an editor sometimes works to improve an article that he wrote when it is brought to AFD, at all other AFDs where that editor gives his opinion that the article is notable, and searches out and brings sources to the AFD, but does not invest the enormous amount of time required to "working intensely to find and add sources" and improve the page - that editor must be lying when he states that the article has sufficient sourcing to support notaiblity? Maybe you want to walk that accusation back.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We solve problems here. You say that this article can be better sourced than it is. I wrote the mother article, of which this is a trimmed down snippet. I've asked you to show, by edits, how it can be improved, and you keep making assurances. The article from which this is derived has 27 mostly scholarly sources: this has 6 (actually 5) sources, almost none page linked and 15 citation needed tags. In 9 days of discussion nothing has been done to show that the structural defects are remediable. All we have is promises it can be fixed. I can't find RS to resolve the failed sourcing tags. So, prove that you are not just idly boasting that it can be fixed. It's an unbelievable sourcing mess, systematically elides the Islamic and Christian traditions regarding the tomb, mentions some Jewish visits per WP:OR, when none of these defects are on the far more comprehensive Tel Rumeida page treatment. It's a sham and a scam.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is (apparently/perhaps) not about that compound, but about the tombs, and the structure is only secondary to them. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. As the diagram above shows, the purported tombs are no more than small alcoves within the overall structure. This article is written to describe the "structure" as a whole. The fact that the title is "Tomb" in the singular instead of "Tombs" plural confirms this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A selection of English language scholarly sources calling the structure "Deir el Arbain" are below:
The Present Archaeological Outlook in Palestine, John P. Peters, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 1/2 (1921), page 10
Survey of Western Palestine, volume 3, page 327
Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1898, page 234
The Golden Horn, 1851, Charles Monk, page 148
The Leo Boer Archives containing a 1953 photograph (6.15)
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (published [http://www.internationalstandardbible.com in 1939)
Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume 3, page 262
Ḥadashot arkheʼologiyot, Volume 114
Baedeker's travel guide, page 114
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume 11, 1961, page 80
Sermons Preached Before the Prince of Wales During His Tour in the East in the Spring of 1862, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, 1863, page 167
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Nishidani, you already voted. I've struck your double !vote heading.--Oakshade (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to editors.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Richardson Jr.[edit]

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

I am nominating this article per this discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. The subject of this article has stated a strong desire to have it deleted [10]. He did not create the article. The only coverage of him in reliable independent sources, concerns his street performances in New York City in 2012/2013. The four references in the article are all about what is basically one event, each covered from a slightly different angle. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO in all other respects. Thus the notability is very marginal. The relevant guidelines here are WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BLP1E. Note that from the outset of the article, the subject has been repeatedly blanking or vandalising it and will probably continue to do so throughout this AfD. This is a permalink to the stable version. Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The New York Times article is part of the newspaper's "Character Study" series, which it describes as a "weekly column about the people who make New York City distinctive." Based on the description of the column and the types of articles in "Character Study", the NYT is going out to interview regular residents of New York. There's no requirement to be well-known or otherwise notable to have a "Character Study" article written, and in fact it seems only "regular" non-notable residents are ever interviewed. Outside of the few references, I can't find anything to establish notability and it would appear deleting the page would be the best course of action. Elaenia (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Elaenia, that's really useful to know. The NYT article seems to have sparked off the rest of the coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Let me start, however, w/ Keep arguments: I disagree with Elaenia's characterization of the Character Study series as being about "regular non-notable" people and thus not counting as a RS mention; my reading of the series is that it features people that the NYT feels are "distinctive" and thus worthy of coverage even though they've not been covered yet -- they remind me of the subjects for the obituaries that they often run (inventor of kitty litter, etc.) but on living people: trying to establish notability in other fields. I also don't think that where the other sources got the idea to cover him is important (or knowable) -- if lots of people start covering a person even because of a mistake (oops; she didn't actually create Facebook -- but hey! she's super amazing in another field, let's write about her) then it's still coverage. Judgment: Is all of this enough for passing GNG or MUSICBIO? I believe it's just barely enough, and as AfD does (over time) establish precedent, I'd use this article to establish Keep. But it's certainly not a slam dunk keep, and in light of the subject's request not to have an article and the difficulty in keeping this article in decent shape, I think it's in the gray area where deletion is allowed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In WP:MUSICBIO, only item #1 holds for the article, this is to weak in comparison to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. --Cyfal (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think enough non-trivial coverage is there to satisfy WP:GNG and a reasonable keep argument could be made. However, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should be considered and for that reason we should delete this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE given that notability is tenuous at best and per Elaenia's well-reasoned explanation above.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you all have misunderstood. The New York Times article was made possible because of fame already attained in December 2011 playing Taiwanese music in the subway with 200,000 views in 5 days. In order to search for that you need to be able to read and type Chinese. I can. But Im sure none of you can. All of this is before the New York Times. One in English though incomplete:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1920354
Taiwan yahoo: May 14, 2012 https://tw.news.yahoo.com/紐約台灣傳統週-美樂手奏國歌-011709374.html
Dec 21,2011 https://tw.news.yahoo.com/驚-紐約地鐵-中華民國國歌飄揚-023249998.html
Thus, that fed the lies the author used to create that entire story which is 90% lies excluding personal information like my name. To make matters worse, the video from it plays over and over again on Jet Blue Airlines and American Airlines. Quotes in the video were copied and pasted to falsify information. I want to make it clear that unlike what you wrote in discussion, NONE of the other articles have ANY relation to the New York Times article at all. New York Times is big so all of you keep referring to that article. Forget that article. That article IS the problem. Besides making a fool out of me, unlike the other articles it makes me look like a pure street musician. This is not the case. None of the writers EVER saw the New York Times article. They reached out to me because I have a million views on youtube and youku playing Taiwanese music, heavy news coverage, Taiwan Yahoo, World Journal, coverage at a festival with 20,000 Taiwanese people, sponsor a Taiwanese saxophone and so on. Videos of me playing Jewish music are viral here as well as in Israel. That is the reason they wrote about me and that is the reason the tone is completely different from the New York Times article. But the New York Times is popular. People continuing going to it. It is just the character study section. That writer had no business writing a story about me. Im a professional. My band Brown Rice Family is part of the Carnegie Hall professional music team: I can be seen at 00:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDeN_rgc2QE
Im trying to sue the writer now. My bands however, ARE famous. And the people I play with range from Kelly Price, Gregory Porter, to Monsieur Perine from Colombia that just won a grammy 2015 nominated 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGL-eQAAxGs
If you all are stuck on this rather bland and cheesy character study thing by the New York Times and wont even consider discussing the other newspapers that have actual real stories and were purely written in response to internet fame, then deletion is the best course of action. I am a professional musician working here in New York and abroad. Constantly on tour playing at top venues and on the side for fun a few years ago I started playing some music outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mambojazz1 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mambojazz1, can you please clarify? Are you now saying that you do not want the article deleted? Or are you saying that you only want the article kept on the condition that all mention of the New York Times article, including a link to it, is removed? If you are now saying that you no longer want the article deleted, then I will be happy to withdraw the nomination, because that nomination hinges on your previous request for deletion. However, be aware that you will not be able to dictate the contents of the article if it is kept. The content would be decided by a civil discussion and consensus between the various editors at Talk:Isaiah Richardson Jr. That discussion might well take into account some of the points you are making here, including the use of the NYT article, but it will not be decided either by you shouting at us or by you repeatedly vandalising the article. So what's it to be? Voceditenore (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one is yelling. You cannot hear my voices. They are only words. Nothing has changed. Im only giving reasons why it needs to be deleted. The entire reason this page is here is because of the NYT article. I am 100% sure of that. That article is in the character study section instead of music. That section has articles about a man who walks around with 5 cats and an 86 year old man that runs everyday. The writer saw that searching my name only pulled up concert listings and recordings without any major articles IN ENGLISH anyway that were not about my groups. He used this to write his greatest article. Its all lies. And it does not warrant a wikipedia page. The problem is, I continue working and have various awards as my career grows and in the future I will have a wikipedia page. But it will not be based on "Global Anthems for the Saxophone". Completely insulting especially insulting as clarinet my main instrument not saxophone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mambojazz1 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that, Mambojazz1. We'll proceed with the discussion then. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I had also actually found this a few months ago and planned to nominate, this article is troubled because the user apparently claims the listed news sources were not accurate and such, and apparently attempted to restore a better article....but this is honestly best deleted because nothing is clearly comprehensible thus nothing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Barely musters notability and the subject is disputing the content. If that person becomes more notable or covered by RS in the future, we can remake the page with that info. Until then, delete it (not quite nuke it, but pave it over). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone made an edit on the page saying that the subject came to the attention of the press through street performances of Taiwanese and Jewish music. Yet someone STILL uses Taipei Times and the New York Times. Why the New York Times instead of The Jewish Week? It makes absolutely no sense. The NYT article goes on and on about Japan. It says things that have nothing at all to do with music like "his girlfriend is a Japanese saxophonist from Japan...as well as members of the band he plays in Brown Rice Family". Basically, rather intelligent people become unintelligent in regards to that NYT article. The NYT article paints the picture of a hustler who can play any country's music. ALL of the other articles portray a serious artist who studied the languages, studied the music formally (Chinese music and Jewish music), and still plays on the street when he is free eventhough he plays on Broadway, is on HBO's Boardwalk Empire and Vinyl http://m.imdb.com/name/nm7926559/filmotype/actor?ref_=m_nmfm_1,plays at Jazz At Lincoln Center http://nyevents.us/new-york-billy-strayhorn-centennial-celebration-dizzys/244237, does music projects with Carnegie Hall teaching music to incarcerated inner city youth http://www.carnegiehall.org/m/event.aspx?id=4295015541.... And the person who made the edit used it even if it makes no sense at all. The NYT article is half a page. Every other article is mostly 2 to 3 pages with my picture on the front cover. The NYT article says, "....each day at the steps of the Metropolitan Museum". Jewish Week says, "One day when I was in Germany, I left the band...." NYT says, "Nothing works like playing what people know". The China Post article BEFORE the New York Times on May 14, 2012 says, "Richardson, who studied mandarin Chinese in New York before visiting China for seven months and Taiwan for four months, said he started performing in the subway two years ago and usually plays Taiwanese music when no Taiwanese people are around.". Someone is obviously lying. Either the cheap character study section that is usually for normal people that are not artist or every other article ever written. I would be satisfied if the NYT could be blocked from Wikipedia. That article is like poison. It causes people to ignore facts. Beyond HBO, broadway, WNYC championship, Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Blue Note, BS TV Asahi, MTV, and other accolades I was just ON TOUR for christ sakes with a band that WON a 2015 Latin Grammy in October and was nominated last month for another grammy!!! But NYT covers it up!!!http://soundsandcolours.com/articles/colombia/monsieur-perine-perform-npr-tiny-desk-concert-announce-tour-31072/
Someone in the future will come by and make an edit that puts the New York Times article back in even if it doesnt logically make sense. This is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mambojazz1 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  10:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of South Africa (1928–1994)[edit]

Flag of South Africa (1928–1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is redundant to Flag of South Africa - any new content can be easily covered there, may be a Content fork, as no splits have been discussed at Talk:Flag of South Africa in several years,if at all. BilCat (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, clearly a relevant topic and the flag issue has a political dynamic of its own (compare with Confederate flag). --Soman (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I chose deletion rather than a merge discussion in this case as there seems to be a fad to create undiscussed CFORKS of this flag. Flag of Union of South Africa was created last month by another user, although that version was short and completely unsourced. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a start this page, covers the article of the flag of the Union of South Africa similar to the way we have Flag of the Orange Free State. It also focusses on its use post-1994 and its rebirth as a symbol of white supremacy (not pleasant I know) in a way that the current SA flag article does not. Per WP:NOPAGE it states that if content would make an article unwieldy then it is better to be separated. As the current SA flag page info can be covered in the old SA flag page better especially given the current SA flag page has unsourced info, it would actually be better to put the current flag info into the old flag page. Not to mention it would give WP:UNDUE to the old flag if the info in it was included in an article about the current flag. Also the Content Fork guideline specifically only applies if it is a way to avoid NPOV. I know this is a controversial issue but I have tried my best to make it as neutral as I can without endorsing either the nationalism symbol or apartheid symbol positions, therefore the guideline is being used incorrectly here as I had no idea that there had been previous issues. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you say that there is a fad of creating NPOV CFORKS of SA flags, then retention of this page would cut off any further NPOV forks being created as the sourced and neutral information would already be in this article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I don't doubt that you created the article in good faith, hence my use of "may" in reference to CFORK. However, I'm not sure why you felt you didn't need to discuss creating the article beforehand, probably at Talk:Flag of South Africa, given that it is a controversial issue, and that article is relatively short, with room for expansion. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So an article with 1,550 words (only 200 less than Flag of South Africa) is relatively short? The reason why I didn't was because I was making it to include information that is not covered in the summary of FOSA (ie. the OBB name, the white supremacist rebirth, the Cape Town Castle etc.) not to mention that most of the info in the FOSA page about OBB is unsourced and I thought it uncontroversial to write up a sourced history of it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1750 words is "relatively" short. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into a new Flags of South Africa. The content is worthwhile, but it's silly to have two articles for one subject, especially when the combined content isn't that large. - theWOLFchild 20:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just sayin'... - theWOLFchild 20:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact the American flag has 300 years of history while the OBB has around 88 and the FOSA only 22. Of course there'll be more info to go in. More interesting the is fact that the OBB has a similar level of content size in comparison to FOSA, which suggests it makes more sense to keep this article and merge the FOSA info about OBB into the OBB article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it would then be out of keeping with the commonly accepted MOS for national flag articles. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind pointing us to the exact section of MOSFLAGS that you're referring to? Thanks - theWOLFchild 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to MOSFLAGS, I was referring to the unwritten MOS of flag names. ie. Flag of the United Kingdom (not Union Jack), Flag of the United States (not the Star Spangled Banner), Flag of Canada (not Maple Leaf Flag), Flag of France (not Le Tricolore), Flag of Japan (not Nisshōki or Hinomaru). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the "unwritten" MOS... - theWOLFchild 22:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, once South Africa has 300 years worth of flag history, then we can split into two articles like the US flag. Oh, wait... - theWOLFchild 21:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aside of the fact we already have Flag of the Orange Free State, Flag of Transvaal etc? We have separate articles for the separate states that comprised SA at different times, this article is no different. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those other 2 pages are basically stubs, they're quite small. - theWOLFchild 22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a list of South African flags. Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The OBB has a post 1994 section , it may be confusing to have thr 1994 flag in the same article.Wayne Jayes (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Flag of South Africa - The common practice has been to cover historical flags in the main Flag of X article, where it exists. (The usual exception is when there is no single successor state, as with Flag of the Soviet Union, and even that has been disputed. At any rate, the Union of South Africa is not such a case, as it has a clear successor in the Republic of South Africa.) We can do away with confusion by renaming the "post 1994" section to "subsequent use" or similar. Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should we get rid of Flag of Great Britain by the same rationale then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see a case for a merge, yes, although I suppose others might argue that the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom are distinct enough entities to warrant separate articles. Ibadibam (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable comment although, the question of the Union moving from a constitutional monarchy with white and limited non-white voting franchise and equal status for British and Afrikaner symbols into the presidential republic with a whites only franchise and predominant Afrikaner symbols. Is that distinct? I'd say that it was. There is also the additional possibility moving from that apartheid state into the current state, though I would not consider that as distinct as the move from Union to Republic which I'd say was on par with England becoming the Commonwealth of England and back. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument would be that the United Kingdom succeeded two states: the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. The new flag combined elements from the flags of both predecessors, in much the same way that the 1928 South African flag did. The gray area in the case of the UK is that it wasn't particularly a union of equals, which might frankly be called an annexation, in which case Great Britain and the United Kingdom—along with their flags—should be considered two periods of the same state. In South Africa, the 1994 constitution was a major change in the makeup of the state, but whether the borders and composition of the country itself changed probably depends on whether you view the Bantustans as genuinely independent sovereign states or as semi-autonomous regions created as a legal mechanism in support of the Apartheid scheme. Given that the common interpretation is the latter, its more accurate to call 1994 the change of an era in one country, rather than the change from one country to a new, territorially distinct country. Ibadibam (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a lot of WP:OTHER going on here, but I'd like to drill back down to basics: --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic of the previous flag is independently notable. It has a strong political flavour and has been discussed at length before, during and after its life as an official national symbol, and into its zombie existence as a rallying point for reactionaries (similar to role played by the Vierkleur). It easily passes the GNG.
    • There is enough content to justify a main article, to be referenced from a section of the general article about the South African flag.
    • It isn't a content fork. A content fork is when you create a new article about the same subject to give it a different spin. This is a main article about a subtopic.
  • Keep: for the same reasons Slashme mentions as well as because it seems large enough to warrant its own section article. Merging it with the South African flag article would run the risk of making that article too large, thereby possibly being counter to WP:TOOLONG.--Discott (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not in question here, so may I suggest closing this, and somebody starting a merge discussion? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree. There is no need to do that. If people felt it would be worthwhile to merge it, then consensus would have been made here as stating merge is an option in these discussions. However consensus here appears to be to keep it with agreement that a merge is not a good idea so there is no need to put the article in double-jeopardy as it is said that it should not be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedied per G4 by Bbb23 Favonian (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr sreehari hypnotist[edit]

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

Astounding claims with shaky sources. I cannot independently verify, from reputable sources, that this person created a world record for the largest number of people hypnotized. The article speaks of him as worthy of a Nobel Prize without even beginning to suggest the required background. The putative nominating body, "Global Medical Association", was the subject of an article which was speedily deleted as a hoax in 2014. Much of the article is an essay about how hard it is to be an anesthetist; remove that, and what's left is simply not credible. ubiquity (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sreehari is by no means the first doctor ever to use hypnosis in place of conventional anesthesia. Claims that he is entered in the Guinness Book of Records are neither verifiable nor are they relevant: it has long been established that inclusion in the GBoR is not, per se, an indication of notability. Claims that Sreehari has been nominated for a Nobel Prize may or may not be true. Presumably any individual or organization can write to the Nobel committee and nominate any person they choose. The fact that this nomination comes from an organization as sketchy as the "Global Medical Association" (an organization of such limited scope that the only news on their website is this nominating letter!) gives reason to believe that the Nobel committee will give this nomination little consideration. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: could this then be speedied since there is no credible claim of significance? ubiquity (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2016 (UT
  • Keep His name was entered in to Indias book of world records,also Hindu news paper and other news papers says his name entered in to guinness book of world records.Global medical association nominated his name for Nobel prize,It is an association from United states of America. ,which was nominated an indian doctor means we have to consider the greatness.At a time he was hypnotized 250 members,i think it is very great. the article is eligible for Wikipedia. (Varalakshmi100 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)) — Varalakshmi100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • There is no evidence that an American professional organization called Global Medical Association exists beyond that web page. Anyone can create a web page, and post what they want on it. It's not very good evidence of notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I opened the "Indias world records web page" ,i can say with confirmation that it is a world record.He is a physician and also hypnotist. Hypno anesthesia is a good topic.Primary and secondary sources were covered, Even if Nobel prize source may not be considered , he is a notable person ,he was creatred a world record in medicine ---subject Hypno anesthesia

(Qazsxde (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)) — Qazsxde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment As entry in the Guinness Book of Records is not, per se, a sign of notability, even less so is entry in the Indian book of records (presumably, this refers to the Limca Book of Records) because that book's criteria are even looser than Guinness'. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any article mentioning Dr Sreehari/Srihari and hypnotism is eligible for CSD G5 and should be zapped ASAP, since the only one who creates such articles is he himself, and he's both indefinitely blocked and community banned. Thomas.W talk 21:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know for next time (Global Medical too). Too bad there will probably be a next time. ubiquity (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (G4/5) and SALT the earth. The only way this guy will stop is if every tangentially-plausible title is salted or blacklisted. Since pre-emptively doing this is impractical and the title blacklist carries the risk of collateral damage, it's best to salt the title of every article made by Nsmutte as he uses them. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, time to pass the salt-shaker. GABHello! 21:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas.W (talk · contribs) and others have already blanked the page and tagged it for speedy deletion, so that shouldn't take too long. I don't know how we can salt it when Srihari is such a common name and there are so many possible variations, just for example: [Dr|Doctor] [Y[ellapu]] Sr[i|ee]har[i|ee] [(][hypnotist|[hypno]an[a]esthetist][)] — 360 combinations right there, not even considering case. ubiquity (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a legitimate need to have an article salted by Nsmutte's antics unsalted for an unrelated article, then they can create a draft about said person and, if accepted, an admin can move the draft to the salted title. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adimulapu Suresh[edit]

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

This article is about a politician who doesn't actually appear to be notable. A Google search showed mostly trivial coverage or primary sources. Article is currently a stub, and it doesn't look like it can be expanded. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a state legislator he easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. --Soman (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - member of a state legislature. Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Vipinhari || talk 07:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable MLA. State legislators pass WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT part 3. Obviously meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. AusLondonder (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does need referencing improvement, but if a person is properly verifiable as holding an office that satisfies WP:NPOL — which a seat in the state legislature most assuredly does — then we just flag the article for the necessary improvements and do not delete it outright. The only way an article like this could be deleted is if there were reason to believe it was an outright WP:HOAX — which it demonstrably isn't, because the legislature's website does confirm his membership (although it does raise a question about the correct spelling of his name, since he's listed there as "Audimulapu" rather than "Adimulapu" — but that's not a deletion reason either.) Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X I withdraw my nomination . -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Layh[edit]

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

Sources and Google search do not establish notability. —swpbT 16:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 16:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 16:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arms and Sleepers[edit]

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

Band doesn't appear to meet notability standards. All but one of the sources cited in the current version of the page go to dead links, and I can't find any substantial media coverage of the band elsewhere (this is presumably because they haven't put out a physical release with a proper record label since 2007). Page has been flagged for notability and multiple issues since May 2015. Smells like content (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing significant coverage in e.g. XLR8R ([11]), NPR ([12]), Sputnikmusic staff review ([13]), Tiny Mix Tapes ([14]), Under the Gun ([15]), Earmilk ([16]), QRO ([17]), Ransom Note ([18]). Sufficient US and UK press to hurdle WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, not sure how I missed those. Completely agree that this level of coverage means the page should be kept. Smells like content (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting Speedy Close as nominator is withdrawing. Chubbles (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave B[edit]

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

Promotional page, fails general notability Kavdiamanju (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: all but one of the references are useless for establishing notability. That leaves the short review on HotNewHipHop. I am not familiar enough with HotNewHipHop to know whether this even begins to establish notability, but even if it is, one short review does not provide depth of coverage. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find sufficient sources as mentioned above. Elaenia (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of the listed coverage is convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaolin Showdown vs Avatar[edit]

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

Although this is a popular topic among the fandom, there is no indication (other than this wikia page, of which the current article is a verbatim copy) that such a game is actually in development for June 2016 release. The fact that the development section talks about a different game (Tekken X Street Fighter) that was announced on March 19, 2016 (that's some fantastic crystal balling there!) in some rather indecipherable broken English doesn't help the credibility of this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Nordic Dragon 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not TOOSOON, but definitely corporately impossible. Zero chance that the dead-and-buried Xiaolin from Warner would ever crossover with Nick's Airbender (the art styles are wholly incompatible for crossover too). This is a failed hoax. Nate • (chatter) 15:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, pure speculation (most likely a hoax), no references at all or indication of development or even existence. Seems like nothing but a fan's mashup of two different series. -Liancetalk/contribs 18:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two Time Warner studios need to use Kickstarter to fund a game? Most likely a hoax. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete unless the 2016 San Diego Comic-Con is a different event than Comic-Con San Diego the announcement of the game at the event is impossible since it opens on July 20th.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Avatar is still a well known franchise meaning that someone outside a Wiki would have covered this by now. At the very least an Avatar fansite would have noticed this,--67.68.210.65 (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and unreferenced, attempted to find the supposed Kickstarter page with a Google search; came up with nothing. As per above arguments, this is definitely a hoax (see WP:HOAX). TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can always recreate the article if this actually exists, but this is probably a hoax. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon at best, none of this suggests an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article has been very substantially rewritten during the AfD, and if notability remains contested it would be better to start the discussion from scratch.  Sandstein  11:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Stone[edit]

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

Speedied for appearing to be a repost of a previously-deleted article, but declined as "not a repost and has a lot of different references". Biography still fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources - just two of Stone's own books. McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to satisfy criterion #3 of WP:AUTHOR based on his writings and coining of the Polarity Therapy theory. Other sources that discuss Stone (that are not primary) include [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], so appears to satisfy GNG too. I think any other issues can be addressed by editing and improvement. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources listed above by Kindzmarauli appear to be primarily vanity/esoteric press books, some of which were actually written or co-written by Stone himself. Only one appears to be of any significance itself (and then only because it was published by Elsevier). In fact, the publisher North Atlantic Books, a publisher with no notable non-fiction books shows up more than once, as does MWI Publishing, a pre-press service firm that doesn't actually publish, but prepares manuscripts for self-publishing. The websites are all relatively minor sites, and the news links to minor news outlets. There's no coverage in any major news, scholarly or medical sources. No offense intended, but if this were our standard for notability, we'd consider Ashida Kim to be the most notable martial artist of all time. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree regarding the sources, and Polarity Therapy, whether or not someone subscribes to it, is notable. People saying there are no reliable sources simply haven't taken the time to look... a 5-second Google search turned up a page on Polarity Therapy at the University of New Hampsire's website, which discusses Stone and even provides a bibliography of additional sources [28]. An additional reference, a mainstream published book [29], has been added to the article. The Ashida Kim comment is a red herring and totally irrelevant to this discussion. Finally, he clearly satisfies the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree about the sources how? That one was written by the subject? You can disagree, but that's a statement of fact, so you'd be wrong. That at least one of them was self-published? Ditto. That the news outlets are minor? Again, ditto.
Finding one mainstream published book which mentions the subject doesn't establish notability. Per WP:GNG, it must receive "significant" coverage in reliable, independent sources. One mention isn't significant. And your insistence that he meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR ignores the fact that he fails the criteria at WP:BASIC, which states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added). Even setting aside my concerns about the publication of those books, none of them meet that criteria. They were (with the exception of your mainstream source and the websites) all books advocating alternative medicine, and the list you provided contained fewer authors than books. Even the UNH link actually advocates for the subject. Finally, just because the 'therapy' is notable doesn't make it's creator notable. If the only thing he's notable for is creating this, then he doesn't need his own page, just some info on the Polarity therapy page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've ignored everything I've said. There are many reliable sources out there, you just don't feel like looking at them because it would mean you couldn't get this deleted. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kindzmarauli, MjolnirPants addressed the sources you brought. Sources need to be independent and of high quality. These sources you brought are neither. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have directly addressed everything you said. That is the polar opposite of ignoring it. And the onus is not on me to prove you right when we disagree. If there are good sources, you should go find them and present them here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been mentioned above in a couple different places, you just don't want to see them. That reliable sources exist is enough to establish notability, whether or not they have been added to the article. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me re-state, because you don't seem to be listening (hypocrite, much?). You must make your case here, not simply repeat yourself that there are links elsewhere. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is none so blind as he who will not see. I will helpfully copy and paste it here from just 6 posts above: a 5-second Google search turned up a page on Polarity Therapy at the University of New Hampsire's website, which discusses Stone and even provides a bibliography of additional sources [30]. An additional reference, a mainstream published book [31], has been added to the article. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First off: Tone it the hell down. You are getting very rude and that will not fly on wikipedia. Second As I have said once before, I have addressed this already. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:TNT. would need to be completely rewritten to make this an acceptable WP article. The alternative here would to userify this or move it to draft space so it can be worked over in accordance with the policies and guidelines, and put through WP:AFC before going live. This was created directly by an editor with a COI who is an advocate, per this statement and the resulting bias in content and sourcing is clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC) (withdrawing claim of COI and restating accurately, with apologies again Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)) (strike, see new !vote below Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Accusation of COI is not established or explained. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that you cannot see it. It is transparent to me. I have asked the user on their talk page to disclose their connections, and we are all waiting for them to answer there. we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you had done that first before making the assumptions of bad faith. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by Polaritytherapie, an SPA with a current COIN case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be lovely if you would PROVE the COI instead of repeatedly stating it with no evidence, hoping it will make it so. This entire episode is the kind of fiasco that happens on WP all too often. WP:BITE, assumptions of bad faith, making claims of other editors with no proof (a username does not automatically mean a COI). Pathetic. That the article should be deleted has not been even vaguely established. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more lovely if you would behave with some decorum instead of ranting about what's wrong with WP and calling other editors "pathetic". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but allow recreation using suitable sources if someone is willing to take that on. First, the article is based on non-RS so it would need to be re-built from the ground up, assuming that significant sources could be found. There is a chapter on polarity therapy in the Novey book that has at least a few sentences on Stone. Although I can't see more than a snippet, the index shows that he is mentioned on only one page. here. The therapy is given a page in the UNH health services website with two short paragraphs on Stone. We need to remember that it's not just the existence of sources, but that those sources must provide the information that makes up the article. From what I have seen, these two sources would result in a very short article on Stone. That may be preferable to the one that exists today, but it would be so different that the current one would need to be entirely replaced. Other than these two, no other sources on the current article are what I would deem to be reliable. I did search in JSTOR and found some mentions of Polarity Therapy but nothing on Stone. PubMed had some mentions of polarity therapy but nothing that I could find on Stone. Just to say that those avenues have been covered. LaMona (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references above and in the article are either from a connected organization which advocates for "energy medicine" without an evidence based approach or are merely passing mentions of Stone. While those books do mention stone, it appears he's only mentioned in passing on a single page or two. I'd hardly consider a fringe organization advocating for a non-evidence/scientific approach to "medicine" to be a reliable source for establishing the notability of someone who is considered by said organizations to be the founder of the "science." There's no further coverage in mainstream news or other reliable sources. Disclosure by article creator on his connection, although it's currently unclear what his connection actually is. Elaenia (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passing mentions do not qualify as "significant coverage" per GNG, and the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR either. The vast majority of sources in the article, as has been stated above, are largely "in universe" fringe sources that cannot be used to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, though may merit a brief mention in our energy medicine article. Alexbrn (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. I can't add anything that hasn't already been written above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment OK so he's the founder of a quack therapy. Being a quack therapy doesn't make it non-notable, nor does it make the person who founded it non-notable. In fact, it's obviously notable since scientists actually take the trouble to disprove its claimed benefits, scientific basis etc., people write PhDs on it at real universitites, mainstream gerontologists and oncological nursing specialists evaluate its use in palliative care, and it has entries in encyclopedias of alternative medicine published by mainstream publishers, as does he. There is an entry, for example, on him in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine (online copy here). If this were some obscure 19th century opera composer, no one would be arguing delete on the basis that an entry in a reference book by a publisher like Gale or this one published by Elsevier "just don't count", or because his music was lousy, or those who liked it were deeply misguided. There is enough in independent sources to write a brief factual encyclopedia entry with an authority control at the bottom. Obviously, the current one is wildly unsuitable. But is the real insistence on deleting this topic because most of you are afraid that once there's a brief article on him, that COI editors will constantly try to inappropriately expand it and use it as a coat rack for New Age nonsense? That's a valid fear, but I'm not sure it's a valid reason to delete. I also have to say that tone here, on both sides is quite unedifying. COI isn't a reason to delete. Putatively false accusations of COI aren't a reason to keep. Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no-one has suggested that this article be deleted because the thing this guy created is BS. In addition, no-one has suggested that the brief mentions this guy has gotten in reliable sources 'doesn't count'. It has been stated time and time again, by virtually everyone who has voted to delete: The mainstream coverage we've seen is not enough. Brief mentions, even if there's more than one doesn't establish notability. I could dig through my closet and find a national magazine article that mentions me, and clippings from a dozen reliable newspapers which all mention me. Do I then deserve my own WP article? No. There is a reason that WP:GNG says that notability requires significant coverage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing the Gale Encyclopedia article. That is the most comprehensive coverage of him I've seen yet. Other than a name mention, I can't find him in the book you list that follows that. It's possible those pages were blanked. The therapy itself already has an article, so the fact that it is written about isn't being questioned. The question is whether there is enough info on Stone himself to support an article. As you know, we need multiple significant sources. I have to go back and review what we have now, but for sure it isn't the article that currently exists, so I'm still seeing TNT as the only option. LaMona (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider a 280 word article on Stone (separate from his theory) in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine to be a passing mention. I consider that significant coverage. For most other people in other areas that alone would be enough for editors to "keep", as a similar length of article (or even shorter) in the equally specialised Grove Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians would be for a composer. That's leaving aside the Elsevier entry and this one published by Mosby, or this one from the German scientific publisher Verlag Neuer Merkur. It indicates that he is notable within his field. In my ten years on Wikipedia and participation in over 150 AFDs, I find this one quite unique. I'm sorry, but in my view, the field he is in and the editor who created the article are strongly influencing both people's evaluation of the sources and their refusal to look beyond the poor ones currently in the article. This is the first time I've ever been to an AfD in this area. It was quite an eye-opener, and one I will not repeat. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may have more access than I do, but the Mosby imprint book appears to be no more than a single mention on a single page. The German source could support his discovery of the method. I would still be inclined to put this kind of information into the article on Polarity Therapy because it is more about the therapy than the person himself. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, what pages Google books shows varies with geographical location. I'm in the UK. Anyhow, the second link in my first comment is to the book published by Elsevier Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis, pp. 49-50 with a section entitled "Andrew Taylor Still, the Palmers, William G. Sutherland, and Randolph Stone" in Chapter 4 "The Origins of Energy Medicine" and also includes photographs of Stone and the others. And no, we don't have an article on polarity therapy. Polarity therapy redirects to Energy medicine. As for the Mosby book, yes, it's a single page in the book, but even from the snippet view I get on Google, you can see that it's more than a passing mention on that page, it's about him and his views and gives biographical details. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS The relevant pages the book published by Mosby are also available here. It's the first section—"Origins and history"—of the chapter on Polarity therapy with two paragraphs (approximately 200 words) on him. It's page 423 (p. 3 of the pdf). Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason why people are discounting "The Origins of Energy Medicine" and other books is that it's fairly difficult for people to consider a book supporting a quack method as a reliable source of anything. I personally can't find anything that doesn't seem to fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE or Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Medical_claims. I'd imagine the fringe community would support its own members and it appears he's at least partially known within the fringe medical community, but in terms of significant coverage from those outside - it appears there isn't enough. I think it's worth mentioning (last time I checked yesterday) Stone was briefly mentioned on the energy therapy article as the founder of polarity therapy, which seems suitable given the number and quality of sources instead of an entire article. Elaenia (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing a biography here, not a scientific theory, or a therapy. Applying medical sourcing standards to it is wildly inappropriate. A notable therapy/theory can still be bunk. This one is notable within the field of alternative medicine. In just about any other subject on Wikipedia, except alternative medicine, the founder of a notable theory/therapy would also be considered notable. None of the sources I've cited here are written or published by the polarity folk. They are in reference works about alternative medicine in general by large mainstream publishers. But this just proves my point. The view in this discussion is that alternative medicine is bunk and therefore any source which writes about it, even ones from mainstream publishers, are automatically bunk too, and therefore cannot be used to source a simple, brief biography. Well, no. Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument by Voceditnoire is the most compelling here and I completely agree that unrealistic (and inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia) standards are being applied to this article. It was apparently begun by someone with a possible conflict of interest, but this isn't an automatic rationale for deletion, paticularly if the topic is notable. Voceditnoire goes on to establish that there are at least three very good, mainstream references out there that cover Stone in detail. Since we've now established this, it's difficult for me to see how we can delete it based on a lack of reliable sources. If "in field" works published by mainstream publishers aren't reliable, then what is in any specific field? It does look to me like a novel interpretation of the reliable sources guideline, and I agree with Voceditnoire that there seems to be a tendency to want to delete because it's about a pseudoscience. Promotional wording can be edited out or revised to make it neutral. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all the effort those who want to keep the article have gone through, they've managed to uncover two paragraphs and two brief mentions in RSs (also, that German book is unavailable anywhere but on google, apparently). As I've said above, I can find at least twice that much verbage on myself. WP:GNG says that to be considered notable, it must have "...significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject..."(emphasis in original). I'm sorry, but I just can't see how this much text can be considered "significant".
Another thing that keeps getting glossed over is the issue of sourcing the article. We have three sources, two of which can be used only to support the claim that he invented Polarity Therapy. The third can be used to verify that he had some degrees, that he worked as a clinician and that he was influenced by Indian medicine and mysticism. That's it. How can we build an article out of that? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MjolnirPants, a perfectly valid, neutrally worded, two-paragraph, properly referenced encyclopedic entry on this person can be built given the independent sources I've provided from mainstream publishers—his real name, what he is primarily known for, dates of birth and death, places of birth and death, what he studied, under whom, who and what he was influenced by, where he carried out most of his career, the last years of his life, a brief description of his publications. According to the Gale encyclopedia, "his writing, The Physical Anatomy of Man, became the foundation for all healing arts in the United States". Is the requirement now that there has to be enough to write an article of an arbitrary but unstated length? I've never seen that used as an argument for deletion before, especially when there is enough for a two paragraph article and where an authority control can be added at the bottom of the article. As for the German book, how can you say it's "unavailable anywhere but on google, apparently"? Observe WorldCat. It was originally published in Hungarian and has since been republished in German, English, Spanish, and Dutch. The author died in 1951. Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll copy paste Voceditnoire's comment (and information) from above, as I find it telling: I don't consider a 280 word article on Stone (separate from his theory) in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine to be a passing mention. The Elsevier Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis seems to be a couple of pages from what I read above. The Mosby book [32], and Verlag Neuer Merkur [33] make four reliable, mainstream published sources covering Stone. I'm confused as to how these are not "independent of the subject" or are "insignificant". Furthermore, we are not discussing your notability, but that of Stone, so that comment seems unhelpful here. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Elsevier Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis seems to be a couple of pages from what I read above. No, it is a single quote and a passing mention, which simply mentions that he created Polarity Therapy, was an osteopath and repeats the quote.
I'm confused as to how these are not "independent of the subject" or are "insignificant". No-one has suggested they weren't independent. They are insignificant because they are not sufficient to build an article upon. Several other sources (including one written by the subject) were said not to be independent.
Furthermore, we are not discussing your notability, but that of Stone, so that comment seems unhelpful here. I'm not sure if you're aware of the fact that you just suggested that you were incapable of understanding a basic comparison. I assume you did not consider that implication, and instead went straight for the rhetorical device of simply dismissing something that you don't care to address. In case I am wrong and you really did miss the point, allow me to expound. I do not, and I would not expect anyone here to consider me notable enough for a wikipedia article. However, (repeating myself from above), I could produce a national magazine which mentions me (5 or 6 paragraphs in total in an article that runs about 20 pages), as well as several dozen local (but still RS) newspapers with short articles which are either about me or events I participated in and was named in. By any reasonable standard, an individual who may be notable within a specific movement, but who has warranted less mainstream attention than I would not be considered to pass WP:GNG. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your rhetorical device (and following extensive digression, including subtle personal attacks) is just that: a lengthy digression that is irrelevant to the notability of the subject of this article and I won't respond to it further. You say one source is a passing mention. Instead of rambling on about your own perceived lack of notability, could you please respond as to how you feel the other three sources are insignificant? Please try to be succinct this time, as you will need to explain why ALL FOUR of the references Voceditnoire provided are insignificant. Not one, but all four. You say one is a passing mention. Three to go. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is not a personal attack to point out an unflattering implication of your arguments. You made the argument. You made the implication. I pointed it out, and then stated quite plainly that I did not believe the implication. If anything, I paid you a mild compliment. I only went on to explain further because I didn't want to rest too much weight upon the assumption that you were being intentionally dishonest.
Second, if you still don't understand the point, then I'm afraid I'm not able to elucidate it any clearer.
Third, if someone accuses you of using a rhetorical device, and you immediately respond by accusing them of using a rhetorical device without acknowledging their accusation, you are painting a picture of an argument that exists only to win, not one formulated to be correct.
Finally, I already have explained what made those mentions insignificant. I did so at least once before you first posted here. I did so twice directly to you, including my most recent comment. I will do so again: We cannot glean enough information from them to build an article, and we cannot use RS's to establish notability, then use non-RS's to build the article. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I'm afraid I don't know how to make it any clearer. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could write a perfectly acceptable article about Stone with the sources available. What you're describing (and conflating) are two distinct issues: WP:N and sourcing content. Notability is established via multiple- reliable, third-party sources; I assume you accept that the four (or three, if you want to be picky) mainstream sources provided are reliable. 280 words in one is not a passing mention, I do not believe the other two to be passing mentions, and there's another source with a long section on Stone: Mindessence - The Polarity of Life and Death, which is perfectly reliable for covering on-topic facts about Stone and establishing his Notability. Notability is established, so already, the votes to delete based on lack of notability are incorrect (though you don't seem to be arguing that). With the content provided by our reliable, third-party sources, we can write a brief article that can be further expanded using primary sources, which are perfectly acceptable for verifying uncontroversial facts and for simply stating what the subject themself stated, per WP:PRIMARY. This is how difficult topical articles are written by those who take the time to do their research and you cannot discount sources simply because they're written or published by those with whom you disagree: they are reliable insofar as this topic is considered. So, Notability is established and I've said I could write an article with the reliable sources I have, according to Wikipedia Guidelines. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Master - the "speedy delete" criteria are included in the criteria for deletion in AfDs. G10 includes articles "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I have not denied that one could (maybe even you could) maybe create a decent WP article about this person. But this article - the article we are discussing - would need to be fundamentally rewitten, which is why my !vote was WP:TNT. I hope that at least makes sense to you, even if you don't agree. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If G10 applied, it would have been tagged and speedied. WP:TNT is an essay, and though I read through the AFD mainpage, I didn't see where the speedy deletion criteria were offered as AFD "delete vote" criteria, rather the steps say you're supposed to check FIRST if speedy or PROD should be done before sending something to AFD. In any case, the article doesn't need to be deleted and rewritten from scratch as there's nothing especially controversial nor promotional in the existing article. It's a fairly bland biography as it stands, and needs some editing and rearranging. And the man has been dead over 30 years, so I'm not sure how he could be promoted nor to what end. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 21:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing from what didn't happen is invalid. And you are missing the point, which is that as you noted maybe somebody could write a valid article from the existing sources. That hypothetical article, is not the article we are discussing. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion rationale is invalid and bizarre. The article does not need to be rewritten, as I said, and circular logic will only make you dizzy. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the closing admin decides to delete this, please userfy it for me beforehand. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Speedy keep WP:SK#1  After looking at what are nominally delete arguments, there is consensus that the topic already exists in the encyclopedia.  As per our policies and guidelines, (see WP:Insignificance for specific quotes from our policies and guidelines), an argument for deletion that claims that a topic is not notable, is irrelevant when the topic is covered elsewhere within encyclopedia.  Therefore, no valid arguments for deletion have been set forth.  There may also an indirectly articulated argument that the article could be deleted as failing WP:V, and it is typical in such an AfD to see arguments to a faith-based belief in the TruthTM of science, but it is not part of our policy to limit this encyclopedia to such a walled garden.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend you read WP:SK#1, WP:Insignificance and WP:V because they pretty much all say the exact opposite of what you've cited them for. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per voceditenore. The fact that the subject has an entry in a published encyclopedia by authorities in alternative medicine indicates that it is notable enough for an entry in this encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to make this clear, Polaritytherapie has disclosed that they are an advocate for polarity therapy, here and I do believe that they have no COI. I have apologized and said what I should have said, had i waited for a response to my inquiry, here. My apologies, again. The article is indeed the product of advocacy, which is distinct from COI, which is a subset of advocacy. The advocacy does show, and !vote above is unchanged. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING in that statement that says they are here to advocate for polarity therapy. What the statement does do is explain how this new editor was driven from Wikipedia by being bitten and hounded instead of being helped. Will the closing admin please read the statement for themself instead of accepting Jytdog's "interpretation"? Thank you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can shout all you want. It is what it is. Why the editor was here is not really important except that they were here for advocacy (be it COI or simply huge fan of the procedure) - the resulting promotional and poorly sourced (not NPOV) content is what matters. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shouting. There is no promotional content in the article. None. Zero. Nada. It's a bland biography about a man dead for 30+ years. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, when folks write in all caps and not in a wikilink to a shortcut, it is considered WP:SHOUTing. We disagree on whether there is promotional editing there or not. I work on that all the time, and to me it is obvious. Here is the article before independent editors started to work on it. It is full of unsourced content (which is what happens when people who are very familiar with the subject write about it), there are the fanboy quotes at the bottom, and the whole section Heritage that is a WP:COATRACK for polarity therapy itself. And the sources that are there, are not independent and are weak. This is product of someone very close to the subject who wants to tell other people How Great It Is. It is not an encyclopedia article. Like you and I have both said it may well be that someone could write an enyclopedia article that is neutral and well sourced. This is not it. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the content you list above as COATRACK or promotional has already been removed from the article. Deleting the rest makes zero sense. AfD is not for maintenance. The article as it stands, which is what we are discussing here, is fine. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough due to lack of significant coverage per WP:GNG. Most sources are largely non-independent sources that cannot be used to determine notability. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the three reliable sources posted above by Voceditnore which contain substantive content about the subject, which pretty much satisfies GNG to the letter. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Master, three things, as you are pretty new to WP. The first, is that closers generally ignore someone who peppers AfDs with comments sniping at other editors; this behavior harms your efforts to keep the article because it discredits you. Second, the three sources that Voceditenore cited are still not in the article; as I have mentioned to you a few times, it is the article that actually exists that is being !voted on here, If you want to swing !votes, improving the article will do more than anything else. (My vote remains !delete, TNT. That could change if someone actually rewrote it during this.) Third, about about the three sources; two of them seem I think most folks would accept Gale and the Clinician's Complete Reference to Complementary/alternative Medicine; The "Sprache der Zehen" source ("the language of toes?) does not seem super... reliable to me at least. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Closing admin, please note article is being rewritten from the ground up, a process that will be completed in rough outline today, but then probably take an additional few days or weeks of intermittent tweaking. The Clinician's Complete Reference to Complementary/Alternative Medicine was already referenced within the article. I added The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. The objectively verifiable reality is that this person is recognized as founding this method. Whether it is or is not a terribly effective method is really not the AfD issue. The sources are objectively adequate for notability, using either of the two natural language meanings of "significant" within the guideline. I do notice the suggested alternative option of including his bio within an article specifically about polarity therapy, an article that does not exist. I also notice the stated underlying motivation for excluding [34]: a concern that the source seems to advocate to some extent for the therapy. I suggest that this should be handled by bringing forward sources that evaluate the method's merits. I placed a major restructuring tag on the page. I am not going to spend more time on this page at present, as I would much prefer to work on the article. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Edited and addended: completed a first pass in conjunction with @Jytdog:, using some of the sources below from @Cunard:. More to follow another day. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Endacott, Michael (1996). The Encyclopedia of Alternative Health & Natural Remedies. United Kingdom: Carlton Publishing Group. p. 49. ISBN 1858682177. Retrieved 2016-03-20.

      The book notes:

      Polarity therapy was developed by Randolph Stone, D.O., DC, N.D. (1890-1981). As a young physician in the 1920s, he learned that the simple bodywork technique of chiropractic proved to be extremely valuable: chiropractic treatments were more effective, with patients experiencing deeper levels of awareness, profound relaxation and healing were achieved. Fascinated by these consistent results that had no explanation in terms of conventional anatomy, Randolph Stone began a lifelong search for understanding of the deeper causes of health and disease. His quest led to the Ayurvedis and Oriental idea of the Human Energy field, and to a thorough investigation of this revolutionary yet ancient approach to the healing arts.

      Dr Stone published his findings in the late 1940s. He chose the word “polarity” to describe the basic nature of the electromagnetic forcefield of the body. He taught that polarized energy currents precede physical form and are primary factors in wellbeing. He found that the Human Energy Field is affected by touch, by diet, by movement and sound, by attitudes, by relationships and by environmental factors. Polarity therapy sheds light on all these subjects; the scope of polarity practice can therefore be very broad, with implications for health professionals in many therapeutic disciplines.

      Dr. Stone treated patients and conducted research at his office in Chicago for over 50 years. When he retired in 1974, many of his students continued to develop the system, using his books and pamphlets as a basis for their work.

    2. Gillman, Claire (2016). The Healing Therapies Bible: Godsfield Bibles. London: Godsfield Press. p. 139. ISBN 1841814571. OCLC 936402032. Retrieved 2016-03-20.

      The book notes:

      Dr Randolph Stone (1890–1981) studied osteopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, naprapathy (a manipulation therapy for connective-tissue problems), and neuropathy (dysfunction of the nervous system), and gained degrees in all of them. He conducted a thorough investigation of energy in the healing arts over the course of his 60-year medical career. Having published his first work in 1948, by 1954 he had finished seven books of his published findings. In his medical practice in Chicago, he used his new energy approach on patients who presented with a wide range of different conditions, and they reported remarkable results.

      He started teaching in the early 1950s and eventually retired in 1973, aged 83. Many of Stone's students continued to research and apply his teachings after he had retired. In 1984 the American Polarity Therapy Association was launched by a core group of advanced practitioners, with the aim of supporting and continuing Stone's work.

    3. Beck, Mark F. (2012). Theory and Practice of Therapeutic Massage (5 ed.). Clifton Park, New York: Cengage Learning. p. 798. ISBN 1133010865. Retrieved 2016-03-20.

      The book notes:

      Polarity Therapy

      Polarity Therapy is an eclectic system of healing, created by Dr. Randolph Stone (1890–1981), that draws from a huge resource of knowledge. Stone was known to be a consummate explorer, and his prolific interrogation into the field of healing through energy brought him many admirers across a broad scope of professions. With a background in chiropractic, osteopathic, and naturopathic medicine, Stone began his developments in energy work with a firm foundation of the body's structure. His later explorations in the Eastern arts of energetics, including the Ayurvedic medicine of India, TCM, yoga, and reflexology, helped to create a form of bodywork that spans the range of different approaches from somatic to energetic.

      His multifaceted approach gelled into a synthesis of traditional theories and modern scientific research. He studied deeply into the intricate pathways of energy and how they flowed through and around the human body. His research covered so much territory that today it is difficult to define his work concretely. Two practitioners of polarity therapy can be so different that it might appear that their work comes from two different spheres. One treatment might approach the client with the greatest of subtleties and barely a touch, whereas another client's session might be bold and assertive, with vigorous strokse and hearty amounts of force applied.

    4. Dougans, Inge (2009). The New Reflexology: A Unique Blend of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Reflexology Practice for Better Health and Healing. New York: Da Capo Press. p. 32. ISBN 078673650X. Retrieved 2016-03-20.

      The book notes:

      Dr Randolph Stone, who died in 1981 in India at the age of 91, combined Eastern and Western understanding to develop Polarity Therapy. A qualified osteopath and chiropractor, he came to define techniques for balancing the energy flow in human beings through his knowledge of Eastern wisdom, his understanding of the inner structure of the universe and of the gunas, the three fundamental attributes of Ayurvedic medicine, described in Hindu literature. He developed, practised and taught Polarity Therapy in California and India with great success.

    5. Allison, Nancy (1999). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Body-mind Disciplines. New York: Taylor & Francis. pp. 126–127. ISBN 0823925463. Retrieved 2016-03-20.

      The book notes:

      The History of Polarity Therapy

      Polarity therapy was developed by Randolph Stone (1890–1981), an American who was initially trained as a chiropractor and later as an osteopathic physician and naturopath. During the 1920s Stone realized that modern Western medicine could not explain the health benefits resulting from chiropractic techniques of applying direct manual pressure to parts of the body. With chiropractic techniques as a basis, he embarked on a global study of medicine that entailed voluminous reading and campaigns of travel to observe healers at work preparing medications and treating patients. Attempts to gather knowledge into universal systems were common in the twenties.

      ...

      The final work of defining the system was carried out in Stone's private practice in Chicago and in a writing project that he started in 1948 and competed in 1970. Even staunch advocates of polarity therapy acknowledge that Health Building and Polarity Therapy, Stone's major treatises, are difficult reading and have numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities. This has left his teachings open to wide interpretation, which results in polarity therapists varying in their approach to treatment.

      Nonetheless, Stone is recognized as an important pioneer in holistic medicine. His principles and techniques have been a catalyst for research into non-Western medicine as well as an effective therapy in their own right. Polarity therapy is now available throughout the United States and is offered by polarity practitioners required to meet standards for practice established by the American Polarity Therapy Association in 1987.

      The Theory of Polarity Therapy

      Stone believed the body is animated by a three-dimensional field of pulsating energy called chi in Chinese tradition and prana in ayurvedic medicine. When the energy flows outward, it is considered positive and when it contracts backward, it is considered negative. There is no moral connotation to the distinction, but Stone followed ayuverdic teaching that maintains that complex, dynamic interplay of the positive and negative currents determine the particular character of every portion of the human organism. Further, he held that the polarized character of every portion of the human organism. Further, he held that the polarized energy pervades the cosmos, pulsating in patterns that can be correlated with the patterns it assumes in the human body. Like the ayurvedic masters, Stone approached the human being as a microcosm of the larger macrocosm, the universe. "As within, so without," was one of his favorite sayings.

    6. Wisneski, Leonard A.; Anderson, Lucy (2009). The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine, Second Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. p. 212. ISBN 1420082914. Retrieved 2016-03-20.

      The book notes:

      Polarity Therapy is another energy medicine modality that is akin to Reiki or other touch therapies. Polarity Therapy was developed by Dr. Randolph Stone (1890–1981), who held doctorates in osteopathy, chiropractic, and naturopathy. Stone first published his findings in 1947 in a book entitled Energy. He felt that the unseen but empirically known polarity that is manifested in magnetic attraction and repulsion was a reflection of the relationship underlying all physical phenomena, including health. Stone, who derived many of his theories from traditional Eastern religions and medicine, believed that when energy is blocked or unbalanced, disease and other stress-related conditions can occur. He felt that the human energy field could be corrected or brought back to health by several different modalities (e.g., touch, nutrition, exercise, communication), preferably in conjunction with one another. Polarity Therapy is at the core of the treatment. An experienced practitioner places his or her hands on a particular energetic pathway, enhancing the current flowing through the patient. The shift in energy can be experienced by both the therapist and the patient. Stone liked to say, "God geometrizes," meaning that many of the energy pathways in the body form geometric shapes. ...

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Randolph Stone to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- intgr [talk] 11:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Group[edit]

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

WP:PEACOCK article exclusively based on WP:PRIMARY sources. Sources available in the article do not satisfy WP:GNG for significant coverage in multiple independent sources (nor WP:ORG which basically boils down to GNG). -- intgr [talk] 10:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC) -- intgr [talk] 10:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: some further edits by User:Txqy1760 introduced sources that appear sufficient to establish notability. Though I'm still baffled by how few mainstream press articles there are about this organization, especially if you believe all the puffery that was written in the article about how important it is. -- intgr [talk] 11:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of European films nominated by the national European film academies and not recognised by the European Film Academy[edit]

List of European films nominated by the national European film academies and not recognised by the European Film Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related page because for the same reason:

List of European films nominated for the Academy Awards and not recognised by the European Film Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I hate putting film-related articles to the AfD sword, but I don't think having a list of things that were not recognised is defining or indeed, important to note. It starts a slippery slope of "films that won X but didn't win Y". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stone tool#Evolutionary development of technocomplexes.  Sandstein  10:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological industry[edit]

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

I cannot find any references for the use of this term outside a common language meaning of "historical, old industry". At best I can suggest redirecting this to Industrial history, or perhaps create some form of disambig between that term and Industrial archaeology. I found a few sources where this term is used to mean simply archaeology ([35]), or its commercial branch (Cristóbal Gnecco; Dorothy Lippert (10 November 2014). Ethics and Archaeological Praxis. Springer. pp. 79–. ISBN 978-1-4939-1646-7.); which while a bit cool (think Indiana Jones?) still needs sources. Hopefully an archaeology expert can comment on what can be done with this stub, but so far I am not seeing much besides redirecting/disambiguating this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stone tool#Evolutionary development of technocomplexes, where the concept is well-discussed. Archaeological industry is a term used in archaeology to describe the methods and artifacts of technological production in early societies. I've seen it used in association with the making of stone tools. Lithic technology is a related, but different term. This is a part of Archaeological culture, but the best discussion of archaeological industry on Wikipedia is in the section Stone tool#Evolutionary development of technocomplexes, far better than the current article. While there is in principle no problem with a standalone article on the topic--it looks quite notable--a redirect to the above section is the best option for our readers. --Mark viking (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mark viking: I'll also point out that while the term stone industry, which was a redirect there, is also used in similar context sometimes, it also refers to the economic sector of mining stone (I just created a stub on that under the former redirect). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, "industry" has a specific meaning to archaeologists in this context, and means something different to most other fields. We may need to disambiguate at some point. --Mark viking (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless and meaningless. Archaeologists study everything form Roman tin mines, to flaked-stone tools, and even 19th century factories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirecting -- The target is a much better account of the subject. When I saw the title I thought it was going to be about commercial archaeology in UK, excavati9ng archaeological remains in advance of their destruction by development. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is ambiguity along those lines, too. I think the sort of commercial archaeology you mention is called Rescue archaeology on wikipedia. --Mark viking (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Sanghavi[edit]

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

Non notable, mentioned only once as a pass by in a newspaper Shrikanthv (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Roman Catholic priests[edit]

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

I believe this fails WP:NLIST. It is unreferenced, it has the potential to be a gigantic list, and is totally replacable by a category, which I do not believe exist but which I suggest we should create after this AfD (Category:Former priests). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily passes WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles grouped by a shared, verifiable and highly significant biographical fact. WP:NLIST is accordingly unhelpful and irrelevant here, and the fact that the nominator thinks that a category should be created based on the same grouping undermines their complaint that it's somehow inappropriate as a list. The nomination is contra WP:NOTDUP ("totally replaceable by a category") and WP:NOTCLEANUP (the claim is that it's presently "unreferenced", not that it is unverifiable by any stretch), and the nominator should be reminded to follow WP:BEFORE, including by reviewing all relevant guidelines before nominating anything for deletion. postdlf (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is a matter for editing, but I think renaming it to List of laicized or excommunicated Roman Catholic priests would better highlight why this is significant information for this particular profession, and not just a trivial "people who gave up being musicians" type of list that we normally would not maintain separately. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most definitely meets WP:NLIST as the subject has been discussed as a group before.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with two comments above me. This is a list I have looked for before and I believe it is necessary. As said above, it certainly meets notability guidelines. Jgefd (talk) 17:33 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am withdrawing the nomination. Seems I misunderstood part of the policy about the lists and categories; I thought gigantic, unreferenced lists duplicating categories are not welcome; seems I was wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Plasma Resources[edit]

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

I see many refs here but not one that seems to show notability. A ministerial letter opposing blood plasma for cash, various press releases but nothing substantive. Looks more like an advertising piece. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   06:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I hate to say it, but it seems like it got some press coverage: [39], [40], [41]. It seems there's a controversy that makes it notable. I am all for killing spam company entries, but some of those refs were present in the article, and they are not easily confused with press release or a letter... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources provided by Piotr show independent coverage in reliable sources, so seems to satisfy WP:GNG.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This company has been the subject of everyday news for the past three years, so there are a lot of news references available. To strengthen this article, I have added two references one from Maclean's magazine and one from the Canadian Medical Association Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyla.soleymani (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice amount of source coverage among secondary references. — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayuran Mohan[edit]

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

Failed to meet EV as per WP:BLP, poor sources or and it seem user himself write about him. AntanO 05:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EraNetik[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Ueutyi (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the sources interviewing him, 4fame and Good Vibe SD, don't seem to be notable publications in themselves, and no other major reliable sources have apparently covered him in depth.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this is satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis Performing Arts Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable group lacking non-trivial support. References are only listings. reddogsix (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Keep and improve. In light of the below comment by Arxiloxos, keep and improve seems, quite clearly, to be the best option. Amccann421 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. There are literally thousands of references about this theatre complex at HighBeam, as well as multiple sources in the usual Google searches. From what I have read so far, it appears to me that the current article misses the thrust of why the subject is notable: the sources say that it is an important theatre venue in Arlington Heights, which began in 2000 as a for-profit entity but converted to non-profit in 2002 and has become an important, financially challenged, publicly subsidized cultural outlet for Arlington Heights and the surrounding area of metro Chicago. See, for example these Chicago Tribune articles [42] [43] and this from the Daily Herald [44]. I've also found a discussion of the architectural and urban planning significance of the complex in a U of Chicago Press book [45]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if it didn't meet WP:GNG (which I believe it does), based on the search results of Arxiloxos alone, further searching shows that it definitely passes WP:BASIC. My concern is that the coverage may all be WP:ROUTINE, but there is so much of it, I feel it passes. WP:CORPDEPTH might have been a concern, since all the coverage is local, but the regional coverage is extensive in such notable papers in Chicago as the Tribune, Herald, and Sun-Times, as well as getting brief mentions in national publications such as American Theatre. Onel5969 TT me 15:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arxiloxos. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ultraviolet communication in butterflies. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visual communication of butterflies[edit]

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

Most of the salvageable content here would fit into Lepidoptera, Animal communication or other articles although they are already covered to some extent. Shyamal (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with above; what little extra material there is in here could go into Lepidoptera#Communication, but even then it would require some suitable sourcing first - the actual non-duplicated material appears to be original research. Currently not worth an article.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ultraviolet communication in butterflies, where it is better discussed. Searching for ultraviolet butterflies gets over 8,000 hits in GScholar and the first page of hits shows that ultraviolet coloring as a means of communication and selection has many reliable sources. Hence there are in principle plenty of RS upon which to build and article on this topic. But this article is a poorly referenced stub and a better discussion of one type of visual communication is at Ultraviolet communication in butterflies. While I agree that Lepidoptera#Communication should be a good target, in practice visual communication is discussed there in one short paragraph with one supposed reference that doesn't discuss visual communication--in short, worse than the current article. I think readers would be better served by being redirected to Ultraviolet communication in butterflies. --Mark viking (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forsooth, 'tis well reasoned.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Tel Aviv knife attack[edit]

2016 Tel Aviv knife attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. There is no enduring notability and no reason why this attack deserves an article over the hundreds of random attacks that happen every day worldwide. Stephen 02:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Stephen, with the number of terrorist attacks in recent time that have started out as isolated events and later turned out to be part of coordinated attacks, I have to admit that I created the article out of a Wikipedian's automatic "Do we have an article about this?"-reaction when I heard about it on the news. Even though every attack is a tradgedy, I'm relieved that this event didn't turn into something even worse and I will not contest a deletion of the article. w.carter-Talk 05:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not just a NOTNEWS, the scope of the attack, the number of people injured, the fact that an America, and an American soldier to boot, and it happened while VP Biden was in town all makes it notable. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Proponent of deletion hasn't proven and can't prove at this time that this will not have long term effect. Advise to revisit at a later date.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Terrible argument. The nominator can't show that it wont have long term notability, you can't show that it will.--Savonneux (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Terrible comment. The nominator has to support his argument and he can't. I don't have to disprove an unsubstantiated argument. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not your typical terror attack in Israel. The ones in Jaffa are much less common. Additionally the number of people injured and the fact that it was an American killed while Biden was visiting has brought a lot more notability and media coverage to the attack. The article definitely needs expanding, but it is notable. - GalatzTalk 18:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:GNG; the gauge here is the extent and depth of news coverage, which has been massive, intense and international.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pr nom, Huldra (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a major notable terrorist attack. The fact that the lone casualty was an American retired military personnel does not increase the notability of the attack. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth, reported stories (not wire service) reports by journalists writing for major dailies in Germany, Spain, the U.S., Britain and other countries are what make it notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading though the comments here (and I know that this is WP:OSE) I can't help but comparing this to 2015 Ikea stabbing attack and Trollhättan school attack, both of which took place in my own back yard. Then again this attack was in a region where violent events are more common. Not casting a vote though since I'm not familiar with all the fine print on WP policy in these cases. w.carter-Talk 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No special rules apply, just WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, similar to 2014 Tours stabbing attack, University of California, Merced stabbing attack, Lions' Gate stabbings, 2014 Queens hatchet attack, 2015 Tel Aviv synagogue stabbing, 2016 Ohio machete attack, Death of Alexandra Mezher, Tapuah Junction stabbing (2013), Murder of Lee Rigby, 2013 La Défense attack, 2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This article needs expantion, I can try and help it. About notability? I think this incident is notable than other incidents in this current phase of violance. This incident is more relevent than the Panorama stabbing. The old attack is indeed notable because it was the first time in over a decade, when a Palestinian with a work permit (of those we have over 50,000 today) who used his entry right for an attack. The incident was followed by the suspention of 1,200 entry permits from Hebron and was in one of the deadliest days in the Israeli Palestinian conflict since the end of the Second Intifada, with another three victims of attacks in a seperate incident, including an American citizen and a Palestinian citizen. This incident is also notable, a number of 12 casualties in total is above the complete majority of the other incidents and the victims were of many nationalities. This incident is also the first significant incident since January, when the violance levels seemed to fall down, it is a turning point. The attack, which was perpetrated by a Palestinian illegal resident was followed by the government's decision to finally to fix fences in Jeruaslem, punish illegal residents aiders such as drivers and hosters, closing "inciting TV channels" and suspention of work and trade permits of Palestinians in a larger scale. The incident also occured during a visit of Joe Biden, which was pretty close to the incident. So this incident is notable, more than some incidents that has articles of their own, but this it need an article at all? I can't say. So I am neutral.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also today we were reported that 250 Palestinian illegal residents were arrested and also a security cabinet meeting is expected to make new policies. Source
  • Keep for now - I agree with Bolter21. This attack does qualify as notable, but could benefit from some significant expansion. Parsley Man (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now I tend to think an article about a violent killing spree in an area where violence is common, that is written within a day or two of the killings, is WP:TOOSOON since it's hard to tell in that amount of time if this violent incident truly has any significance in the midst of a plethora of violent incidents. However, there's enough casualties and international coverage in this case that editors should be given a chance to expand the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete We already have an article for the spate of attacks since sept/oct and every individual incident doesn't need a new page especially without abundantly clear repercussions (of which this is not changing what the others have failed to do ieither). Further the page creator admits it was created on-the-spot. If it grows theers nothing to stop its recreation.Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, for the immediate, Cabinet level, decision to complete the security barrier to prevent guys like this from stabbing people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking into account the time and place - Jaffa, where those attacks are rare and the "coincidence" of the attack to VP Baiden visit, who was about mile from it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the widespread coverage by reliable sources from several countries, I really dont understand the argument that it isnt notable. The nominator has also not provided any evidence to support his claim that the article has "no enduring notability" FlickrWarrior (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - widespread coverage. a personal opinion about non notability does not trump widespread coverage and great sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Paper Mario: Color Splash. Speedy WP:SNOW closure as an uncontroversial redirect ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper mario color splash[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Too early to know if this will be notable, or even come out. ubiquity (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Patel (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

A majority of the sources link to a personal commercial blog or a web article where the subject apparently is a contributor (e.g. Forbes); the article reads as a self promotional page - no other main articles link here according to "what links here"; the article fails muster in terms of notability or "what Wikipedia is not". It looks and feels like a CV/ marketing piece. Please discuss Jay(Talk) 02:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I found nothing better and none of this has any solidly convincing signs, some information and links but still not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional article about the founder of several very minor companies. The references are primarily notices about small investments in his firms. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided are enough to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:BASIC. SwankChipmunk (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree.. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - all the sources are groups where there are reasonable grounds to believe the subject was employed or contributed. Jay(Talk) 22:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated, there is nothing of value in this remarkably poorly sourced article which serves little or no purpose other than promoting its subject. Megajeffzilla (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and archive to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Near Dark (unfinished film) per my comments below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Near Dark (unfinished film)[edit]

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

This article is a hoax. While there was a proposed remake of Near Dark, the project was cancelled while in development Count de Ville (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article on the original 1987 film Near Dark already mentions the remake that was never completed. I only found one source discussing the remake which seems to be the one already used for the brief mention in the main Near Dark article. Given the lack of sources as well as this film apparently not making it out of development (much less ever being released), there's not enough to warrant a second article on the remake. TheBlinkster (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm closing this one a day early and archiving this to the hoax archives. There was a remake in plans at some point, but there was apparently never any mention of a cast and crew. The article lists some fairly recognizable names (Heather Langenkamp of NoES fame, Bill Paxton, Saturn Award winner Jenette Goldstein), all of whom would be something that would make a PR department salivate - especially since Paxton and Goldstein were in the original film. There's no way that they wouldn't issue a press release bragging that they'd landed these stars. A look at the sources shows that very few of them are legit. For example this source claims that it announces a filming date but the archived article only announces that they're in the casting process - no announcements that anyone has been hired or that filming is slated to begin at a specific date. This source is used to back up claims that some portions of the film was completed, but the Wayback Machine shows that it's an article about Lance Henriksen showing interest in the remake. No details are given about the movie other than him expressing interest.
In other words, while the remake as a concept isn't a hoax, the claims in this article are a hoax since there was apparently never any indication that anyone was hired or that any filming took place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 19:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New England Football League[edit]

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

No discussion in detail by reliable sources outside the area of this league as is required by ORG John from Idegon (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - The league is detailed in this source but only briefly mentioned in the page's other references. The NEFL is "the largest of the two semipro leagues in the region". Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Worse pages are kept for much less, which is why I have re-created this page. The entry is well sources with more than just the league's webpage. I built it out beyond what the last version, deleted years ago, had been. A number of pages link here and I have been adding teams to the towns they are in. At this point, the teams don't have pages, but teams in other leagues do. I believe there is a need for this page, which I how I got here. I was trying to learn more about Odin Lloyd, Aaron Hernandez, and Lloyd's murder. Within the category of semi-pro, other teams have entries and so do other leagues. The last time it was deleted because it wasn't notable enough and I think it is pretty notable (and I don't even like football). --LibraryGurl (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I'm unmoved by LibraryGurl's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: a putative "need" for the page or a desire to learn more about Aaron Hernandez (shouldn't his own page be the starting place for that?) aren't part of any notability criteria. Only one source stands out as a recognized reliable source against the chaff of small town weeklies and local news aggregator websites: the Boston Globe cites. Yet the GNG requires multiple sources, and the Globe isn't enough to sustain an article. Ravenswing 06:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to Keep following Rob's source. While he's mistaken in stating that local coverage from non-reliable sources can make up the difference in meeting the GNG -- 0+0=0 -- the Union-Leader is New Hampshire's largest newspaper, it certainly meets the IRS standard, and it discusses the subject in detail. That makes multiple sources. Ravenswing 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that this is not what I said. In my searching, I found many local newspapers that constitute reliable local coverage. I wasn't suggesting that non-reliable sources (blogs, etc.) mean anything. But thanks for the info about the Union-Leader, I had no idea. Removing the weak from my "vote". ~ RobTalk 16:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's been a discussion of Semi-Pro football here that may be helpful. Sometimes we keep semi-pro articles, sometimes not. The keep/delete decision in the past has always seemed to come down to the general notability guideline and then support for notability normally just falls apart as it does here. Of course, there are exceptions but those tend to be quite clear. As for the "need" of the article, see WP:NEED for an essay about how "need" is not the measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Neutral for now--don't have time to review the changes in the article but I trust the other editor's involved. If I get time I'll review again.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The Boston Globe coverage is significant. There are plenty of sources at the more local/regional level, such as [46], if you care to look for them. Keep in mind that we should probably be considering articles about the individual teams as helping to establish notability of the whole, since we aren't going to create individual team articles (most likely). Lots of local/regional coverage and multiple articles in a nationally recognized source (Boston Globe) is enough to meet GNG, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs a lot of improvement. In particular, referencing needs to be added for all the factual information that is presented in the tables. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Doodle[edit]

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

Non-notable song, no coverage outside of fandom or the one episode. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be merged or redirected to the Spongebob squarepants article.

--Pachisu124 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we going to do with the article?

--Pachisu124 (talk) 00:06, 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 00:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable about the song, nothing even worth merging. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of even passing notability. All the information in the article relates to a single episode which is a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Drexel co-op system[edit]

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

Massive article on a student placement system. Information clearly sounds like it is subject to change (lots of details of a ranked-choice preference system) and/or promotional, and already mentioned in a more reasonably-sized section on the Drexel University article. I thought about merging or replacing with a redirect, but I doubt much of this content is salvageable and the 'The' at the start of the name means it's not very plausible that people will type this exact name in as a search term. Originally PRODded (by me, and then DGG). Blythwood (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not independently notable. No significant incoming links. Drexel co-op system is reasonable existing redirect to retain but I'm comfortable deleting this one. ~Kvng (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This system doesn't sound any different than co-op programs at other colleges and I don't see any independent sources to prove notability. shoy (reactions) 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 01:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Aono[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was curious why the article was listed as an autobiography. I couldn't tell why by looking at the editors who worked on the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a conflict of interest either. I did a brief search and don't see any problem connections between the creator and the subject, and the article creator was the only major editor before the tags were added. Maybe Jcc (talk · contribs) or the nominator can shed some light. --Closeapple (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the COI tag since no one has responded about the issue. Thanks, Closeapple. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional and subject fails Creative and GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have expanded somewhat. Appears to easily meet the GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may have started out promotional, but the editing done has improved it. Thank you, Visviva for expanding. I agree that the article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:27, 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 00:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Locke[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Low-round draft pick without particular distinction, and someone who goes from major junior not to the pros but to the mediocre level of Canadian collegiate hockey isn't on track to earn any. Complete failure of NHOCKEY, and no evidence he passes the GNG beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 07:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Raven.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep significant claims to support notability in discussion, including demonstration of importance in permenant collection Sadads (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leesa Streifler[edit]

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

Seemingly NN WP:CREATIVE professional who also fails WP:GNG Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article says her work has been exhibited there - it doesn't say any of it is a part of its permanent collection. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arthistorian1977. Several works in the National Gallery of Canada. But the unsourced resume listing of exhibitions needs to go. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an advert for a self-published book. Deb (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deb Why do you think so? She had exhibition in many public galleries and at least two museums. She has her works included in the most important Canada public collection. The tone of article is neutral. How did you decide it's an advert? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it reads like a CV. The references are limited and the mention of the self-published book - though at least it admits to being self-published - suggest a conflict of interest. I accept that it's not clear-cut. Deb (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:NARTIST 4(d) Artists whose works are in the collection of the National Gallery of Canada are notable by definition, especially when those works are purchases by the gallery, not gifts. The NGoC isn't just any museum. Mduvekot (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article says her work has been exhibited there - it doesn't say any of it is a part of its permanent collection. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does, since this diff Mduvekot (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, how does it fail WP:ARTN? Sources do exist. How does it fail WP:ARTIST? The artist's work is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I find the reference to WP:CIR puzzling. What, specifically, demonstrates incompetence? Mduvekot (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable. A search for Leesa Streifler in Google news turns up three items over the past couple of months.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly meets WP:NARTIST. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sources appears to be a well-established artist. Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_9&oldid=1142621553"