Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 May	16 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about philosophers[edit]

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

The list would probably be far to long. Also, a category called Category:Films about philosophers already exist. — Music1201 ^talk 23:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nominator's suggestion that this list would be far too long. It seems to me that Hollywood produces fewer films about philosophers than it produces about, say, Marvel Comics characters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All evidence seems to point out that the article would have a similar length to the List of films about mathematicians. The list of films about philosophers would be an important new resource for readers of wikipedia. --Caracas1830 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:CLN/WP:NOTDUP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly not too long, and the existence of a category has no bearing. Seems a perfectly reasonable list. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTOUTCOMES pursuant to the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates with emphasis on WP:NOTDUP. Readable prose size is currently 378 B (65 words). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Esbjörn-Hargens[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF in the sense that his publications are all WP:FRINGE publications and do not count as independent sources. jps (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Effectively an unsourced BLP, and I doubt very much that any reliable secondary sources will actually turn up. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing else convincing for the applicable notability, nothing to suggest keeping therefore. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete and salt. MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The closing script messed up somehow, and I can't figure out how to fix it. If anyone can, please do! --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Malcolmxl5! --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hijabophobia[edit]

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

Incoherent personal essay. The topic might be worthy of an article, but there's nothing salvageable here. PROD removed without comment. —swpb^T 23:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 23:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article deals with attitudes toward hijab, but appears to have been written from a personal point of view rather than a neutral point of view. It also appears to have been poorly translated from another language, because almost every sentence (except the last) contains some grammatical error or misphrasing that makes the article difficult to understand. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G4 speedy delete, still for the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hijabophobia. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G4 Speedy delete, still for the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hijabophobia.- ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely make-believe concept. There is no such thing as "hijabophobia", only understandable outrage that theocratic zealots are trying to forcibly impose prudish standards of female dress on the world. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing minimally better convincing for an acceptable Wikipedia article at all. Enough consensus here, SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Internet Champions[edit]

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

Apparently this is not a total joke, but there's no indication that there will be ever a meaningful "list of champions" - in fact, the only remotely detailed source has the current titleholder say there never will be another. We don't need a list of one. Huon (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis article is probably meant as a joke. Should be speedly deleted.*Treker (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unofficial title which was created on a wrestler's YouTube show, and will most likely never change hands. JTtheOG (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an unsanctioned title, but unlike something like the Million Dollar Championship it never changed hands. In the past the wikiproject has decided not to split championship lists from the main article until there have been at least 10 champions.LM2000 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this page's deletion even needs to be discussed. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as I myself had reviewed this, nothing at all to suggest acceptance for notability and Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete because this unofficial title does not merit a dedicated encyclopedia article. --Dcirovic (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Women Project[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Tow (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails the general notability guideline and therefore should not be included in an encyclopedia. A simple Google search shows no results that define the article's notability. — Music1201 ^talk 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it now since it does not meet notability requirements so nothing more to discuss.Gforcem (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a week so far has suggested this with apparently no outstanding delete suggestions, the article also contains several entries including some containing these words (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Line fitting[edit]

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

Merge to Linear regression Quest for Truth (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: linear regression is but one of the four different line fitting methods listed in this stub article, as discussed in the further-reading book. fgnievinski (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia:Merger. This is articles for deletion. Please state how an administrator pressing the delete button to remove content and all attribution and history is involved in what you want. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is obviously a notable topic, so I don't think any reasonable case could be made for deletion. This article works as a broad concept set index article, as there are types of line fitting not conforming to a typical linear regression model; for instance, reduced major axis methods, briefly mentioned in Total_least squares#Scale invariant methods don't fit the usual linear regression assumptions. Spectral line fitting in astronomy has little to do with linear regression. So I think as a well-formed SIA with a topic broader than that of the linear regression article, this article is fine to keep. --Mark viking (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a DAB page, basically per Mark Viking. "Line fitting" is a reasonable search term, and it is not quite synonymous with "linear regression". I could see a case for redirecting to curve fitting, but the current state of the article proves it is possible to do more. This being said, I think the "further reading" section is inappropriate for an index article, especially if it is promotion for a single book.

On a more formal note, the nominator could have boldly performed the merger himself, or used the merge proposition process; AfD is not the appropriate venue. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good disambiguation page at a reasonable search term. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge. There is nothing wrong with this disambiguation page and linear regression is only a subset of line fitting. DeVerm (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Wrestling Promotions[edit]

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

Just one source. I used project reliable sources list, just 3 results talking about GFW partnership. No notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails the general notability guideline and therefore should not be included in an encyclopedia. A simple Google search shows no results that define the article's notability. — Music1201 ^talk 20:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly noticeable to suggest the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Global Force Wrestling. MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premier British Wrestling[edit]

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

The only source is about a partnership with other promotion. I couldn't find any source about the promotion by itself HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Global Force Wrestling. This article was originally created as a redirect to Global Force Wrestling and was later created as an article, although, an independent article for this topic should not be included in an encyclopedia because it fails the general notability guideline. — Music1201 ^talk 20:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references to this seem to be it's own promotional material. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as not actually independently notable, not yet convincing for any said notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Woking F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS, recent AfD on club season article in the same division resulted in unanimous decision for deletion. This was prodded and the prod had expired, but it was then removed with no rationale given. Also nominating 2016–17 Gateshead F.C. season for exactly the same reason and in the same circumstances. Number 5 7 18:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And seeing as this has had only one comment so far, I'm adding 2015–16 Woking F.C. season to the nomination for the same reason – also deprodded without a rationale. @Lugnuts: Would you like to comment on the additional nomination? Cheers, Number 5 7 12:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete for the same rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:NSEASONS failure, in no way playing in a top professional league. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: per nom. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Fail WP:NSEASONS- we deleted quite a few Conference seasons articles a few days ago for this reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Padgate[edit]

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

plagiarism of article http://www.mediander.com/connects/491405/padgate/#!/topic/-/ NathanAllen (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that they have "plagiarised" us. There is a little "W" icon at the bottom of the expanded article that links back to our article. I suppose that's their subtle means of "attribution". wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WBM - article could probably do with some love per the maintenance tags though. Artw (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps improve or instead Redirect to Warrington for now until there's better for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against userfication if requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosena Allin-Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; sole claim to fame arises from candidature at the upcoming by-election. RaviC (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before being selected as a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the by-election. But the only other claim of notability here is that she currently serves on one of London's borough councils, which isn't enough (we accept members of the main citywide London Assembly as notable, but not members of every individual borough council within the city.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~move to draftspace~~ so we don't lose the edit history. If she wins the bielection then she'll be notable enough, and it's easier to just move it back from there than recreate, which also loses this edit history. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have access to a "restore" function, by which a deleted article and its edit history can be undeleted if necessary. The danger in just draftspacing a candidate's BLP, however, is that it would create an undesirable precedent that all candidates could always keep an article in draftspace pending the election results, thus overrunning draftspace with an unmanageable and unmaintainable glut of campaign brochures. So WP:POLOUTCOMES even specifies that in the case of unelected political candidates, we go the "delete, and then allow restoration if they win" route rather than holding onto it in draftspace just in case. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above, seems like deletion is the usual outcome, and if/when she wins the election, admins will be more than happy to restore. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree largely with Bearcat. She doesn't meet notability criteria under WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Generally, I think that it is also quite important to regard candidates as non-notable to prevent the use of Wikipedia biography articles for campaign purposes. But if she is elected to the House of Commons, the article should be retrieved, because then she would be notable under WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. There is also (at least) one precedent, in which case a biography article on a candidate was first deleted and then retrieved after her election (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siân Gwenllian) --Editor FIN (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there's actually a lot of precedent for that — if a person wins election to the seat, then their notability claim has gone from "candidate" to "actual officeholder", which is a clean pass of WP:NPOL #1. So yeah, it's not just one case, but rather it's pretty standard practice that the article can be restored on or after election day if they win the seat. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. But save material should she be elected, which seems fairly likely. Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tooting by-election, 2016 pending the outcome of that election. If she wins the article can be restored. If she doesn't then we can always delete it later. This is Paul (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy so it can be restored if she wins which would make her notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Restore if elected. Calimperial (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable political wannabe. Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." She doesn't, although that will probably change if she wins. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and I would've actually also considered PROD. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat and WP:NPOL, etc. Please accept my apologies for having started this article! Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect Article can be restored if she wins the election. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. No point in deleting if she gets elected (the article can then be moved back to this title), and if she doesn't, it can languish harmlessly in userspace. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Northamerica1000 and Nyttend: She just got elected to Parliament. Therefore I suggest belaying that delete and restoring the original content so the new article doesn't have to be created from scratch. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fudge[edit]

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

I couldn't find any evidence that this person passes WP:BIO. The award mentioned in the article is for the film that the subject directed and not for the subject himself, so doesn't seem to count towards criterion #1 at WP:ANYBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a best short film award at a relatively minor film festival is not, in and of itself, enough notability to give a film director a free pass over WP:CREATIVE — TIFF or Sundance or Cannes or Berlin, sure, but not most smaller festivals — and that goes double when the resulting article is based entirely on primary sources, with no indication of reliable source coverage in media. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future when there's more substance and better sourcing to offer. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see article http://www.southerngazette.ca/News/Local/2016-05-18/article-4532717/Grand-Bank-filmmaker-Hollywood-bound/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywood1965 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One article about him in his own hometown local newspaper does not get a person over WP:GNG by itself. If you're shooting for "notable because media coverage of him exists", rather than "notable because he's achieved something that objectively passes a notability criterion", then there have to be several pieces of coverage from a range of sources not limited to a single local smalltown area. Get back to us when you can show coverage on the order of the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, the Vancouver Sun, the Winnipeg Free Press or The Globe and Mail — but the Burin Peninsula's Southern Gazette covering a person who's from the Burin Peninsula is not, in and of itself, a GNG pass if it's the best you can do for sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggests the needed applicable notability and I would've explored PROD. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did PROD it, but the tag was removed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Steele (consultant)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a political consultant and media commentator, which reads more like the "elevator pitch" at the top of his LinkedIn profile than an encyclopedia article. While certainly a person like this would be eligible for a Wikipedia article if it could be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, nothing here grants him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable source coverage -- and on a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search, I'm not finding any significant coverage about him: what I get is content written by him. But a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage, not the bylined author of it. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if good sourcing can actually be found somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Because there are no citation sources at all. 207.102.255.247 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above, and WP:BLP. Also, his connections don't matter for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also considered A7 as this is thinly borderline acceptable, nothing at all for convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Anthony Appleyard (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Wwirst[edit]

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

Fernando Wwirst doesn't exist. See here. There are numerous other forms of news coverage to demonstrate that fact. Even for a legitimate page, it's not clear that the joke itself, as a joke, would be notable enough for its own page. I don't think so since this is a flash-in-the-pan thing without encyclopedic worth. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The vast majority of the content on this page is not even about the subject, but is copied from the page for David Alaba. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So much of the article's current material is wrong, merely being a copy of information related to David Alaba, but I'm wary to significantly mess with the page while it's in an active discussion. Still, it may be worth scrubbing the page so that it's only a lead paragraph at the moment since Alaba is a living person that shouldn't be subject to misleading information associating him with this prank. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously fake article. I have tagged for CSD with a custom rationale as none of the available ones seemed proper. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Oliver (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of an unelected political candidate, whose only discernible claim of having greater notability than the norm for that endeavour is the fact that he filed a defamation lawsuit over the reasons why he was dropped as a candidate (and even that was eventually withdrawn because he got an apology.) But again, that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, with no substantive reason why he would earn permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia for it and no credible indication of preexisting notability for anything else. There's a lot of unsourced biographical detail here, and no good sourcing possible for most of it -- so there's no basis for a WP:GNG claim either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Clear case of WP:BLP1E connected to an incident with no lasting significance. AusLondonder (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with the corresponding team articles. All these articles concern years that the football teams did not compete for various reasons. The case for deletion is that many of these articles are very short (often consisting of "X did not field a team in 19xx because of war Y" or similar). The argument for keeping the content is to avoid leaving unexplained gaps in the team's coverage and explaining the team's absences. Both of these arguments make valid points, but I think those who have suggested merging and redirecting in each of these cases address the concerns in the manner most consistent with the will of the participants here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Montana Grizzlies football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:NSEASONS, none of these teams played any games formally or otherwise representing their institutions. The text merely states this and each page should not clutter the continuity of their varsity programs UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fallow the same pattern:[reply]

Keep or merge. These are not entirely content free, and I don't see the harm in keeping them. However, if they are deleted, the text should be merged to near the end of the preceding article, so the gap is not left unexplained, e.g.

The 1898 Alabama Crimson White football team^[3] (variously "Alabama", "UA" or "Bama") was to represent the University of Alabama in the 1898 college football season; however, this was the first time Alabama did not field active football team due a university policy since the inaugural 1892 squad. In the spring of 1895, the University Board of Trustees passed a rule that prohibited athletic teams from competing off-campus for athletic events.^[4] As such the 1898 season was canceled; however the board subsequently rescinded this rule and the squad returned to the field for the 1899 season.^[4] Since beginning play in 1892, this would mark only the first of three separate years Alabama did not field a team (the two other were war years, in 1918 during World War I, and in 1943 during the World War II).

References

^ "How the Crimson Tide got its name". bryantmuseum.ua.edu. Paul W. Bryant Museum. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
^ Kennedy, Scott (April 8, 1992). "Tide football tradition began with 1892 team". The Tuscaloosa News. Google News Archives. p. 2F. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
^ Alabama football teams were not referred to as the "Crimson Tide" until the 1907 season. Prior to 1907, the team was called the "Crimson White" from 1893 to 1906 and the "Cadets" in 1892.^[1]^[2]
^ ^a ^b Griffin, John Chandler (2001). "1896: Trustees Thwart Alabama". Alabama vs. Auburn: Gridiron Grudge Since 1893. Athens, Georgia: Hill Street Press. p. 13. ISBN 1-58818-044-1.

Merge that into the 1897 season article would be OK. wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that both Alabama and Tennessee cancelled their 1898 seasons, but apparently for different reasons. Tennessee clearly "due to the Spanish–American War", but I get the impression that the Alabama trustees were concerned not about the war, but rather that off-campus road trips were distracting from academics. wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to moving some of the information to the preceding and succeding year articles where applicable before deletion of the non-existing year. In fact I encourage it in the interest of mentioning what happened in the program around that time.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These articles are not all the same. Some look like they should clearly be deleted. Others have some significant content and require closer evaluation. Would the nominator consider separating these so they can be addressed individually? I think that makes more sense. Also, please make sure that you leave a talk page notice on the talk pages of the article creators. Cbl62 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you are reading the teams yearly pages and are going from year to year. Like some do and the next season is not there it makes you wonder why is it not there. Also; why is it an issue in the first place? The pages are fallowing a pattern that all the teams have. The pages all let you know the information that is needed. Some don't have a lot of content and maybe all need more on the from a history aspect. But I do not think they need to be deleted. MDSanker 16:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I always thought that if anybody objected to the deletion of a single or a couple of articles that they could !vote "delete except article x and y." The only pages listed that have more than one sentence which report they didn't play is 1898 Alabama, which the information should be merged into 1897 and 1899, and the 1898 page deleted. The 1943 Tennessee page lists players that should have been able to play but didn't. which were drafted in the NFL. I didn't list 1882 Michigan for the reason User:Cbl62 mentioned, and I will leave notices. If one would remember I didn't suggest deleting 1943 Alabama Informals football team for that reason, mainly they had a pick-up team that played actual games. In regards to the issue of linking pages, as User:MDSanker mentions, this is NOT always the case as in the 1943 Auburn Tigers football team which doesn't exist nor was it even suggested to be created in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign. Simply put these teams didn't exist they interrupt continuity of existing seasons. The navbox could easily have gray links such as this, this, this, and even in the setup of future creation such as this, and the infoboxes can easily link to the correct season with the |prev year= and |next year= perameters.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a reason there isn't an article for the 1997 Cleveland Browns which discusses the fact that the team didn't play because Art Model moved the players to Baltimore and the franchise hadn't been reactivated.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the teams' succeeding season the following: 1918 Georgia Bulldogs football team, 1917 Georgia Bulldogs football team, 1918 LSU Tigers football team, 1898 Tennessee Volunteers football team, 1943 Tennessee Volunteers football team (the draft info is already present on the team drafted players page), 1898 Alabama Crimson White football team, 1944 Montana Grizzlies football team, 1943 Montana Grizzlies football team as being basically devoid of encyclopedic content sufficient for a stand-alone article, and most likely always will be. These articles only serve as placeholders. Lizard (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the following: 1917 Tennessee Volunteers football team, 1918 Tennessee Volunteers football team. A team was fielded, but it wasn't the Volunteers. Lizard (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard makes a good point. I think the Vols would object, and say something like 1918 Tennessee (SATC) football team is better. The 1898 team article can be merged into the main article. The 1943 team perhaps can be dealt with by merging the body into the main article and having a note on the draft article. Then again, a few articles do a decent job of covering the war-torn seasons, and it can seem weird with the gaps. We also have to account for the 1894-95 Tennessee teams. Cake (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 1918, 1943 and 1944 Montana team articles. Those three articles are devoid of significant content, and there is no indication that Montana even had teams for those seasons. Undecided for now about the others. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 1917 and 1918 Georgia team articles. Those two articles affirmatively state that "the Georgia Bulldogs did not play football" in these years. In these cases, there was no team, football was not played, and the articles are devoid of significant content. Still undecided about the others. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the 1917 and 1918 Tennessee team articles as per the comments of Lizard and Cake above. Cbl62 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - These are legitimate placeholders for collections of articles on the teams. The fact that no games were played in each of these years by each of these teams leaves a potential GNG-passing articles to be written. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At a bare minimum, the 1918, 1943 and 1944 Montana team articles should be deleted. There is no evidence whatsoever that articles on these non-existent teams/seasons received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources such that WP:GNG could ever be satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard brings up an excellent point. There is a reason they weren't included as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign in the "still needed portion" makes me wonder about the 1871 Rutgers football team.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overwhelming consensus that subject meets WP:PROF, a guideline which "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline." (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl B. Schrader[edit]

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

She is not really wp:notable - chancellor of Missouri University of Science and Technology, no independent reporting? not even passing the low level of wp:gng Govindaharihari (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She is head of college which on its face makes her notable. The article may need work but she is defacto notable with lots of links that you would expect for the head of a major college.https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Cheryl+Schrader Americasroof (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- head of college which on its face makes her notable - nonsense, you might like it but she has no notability at all, as the lack of reporting about her life reveals. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- When I wrote that, Nsk92 hadn't yet added the IEEE Fellow, but that also makes a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep, and suggesting that the nominator withdraw this AfD. Apart from WP:PROF#C6 mentioned above, the subject passes WP:PROF and WP:BIO on multiple other grounds. There were several other significant awards and honors listed in the articles, all easily verifiable. I added a ref for her having received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring, among other things, as well as an IEEE Fellow. No point in dragging this on. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:Prof due to her standing in the field, her administrative rolls, and her awards. OtterAM (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:PROF met and a head of a University. Snow keep. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes PROF. She does not need to pass GNG if herstanding in academia satisfies PROF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Montana. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep I agree with Montana as well. - Brianhe (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:David Eppstein, User:Nsk92. Her position, awards are sufficient. Gap9551 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is an IEEE fellow. Notable per WP:NACADEMICS#3. I agree that there is lack of media coverage but this is precisely why WP:PROF exists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scott-Morgan[edit]

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

Article might not meet notability requirements as per WP:BIO. Tow (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cites many sources establishing notability. — Music1201 ^talk 05:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with above) Keep perhaps as not my field of interest at all, but this seems to be enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe numerous sources listed are mostly reviews of his books or examples of consultant blogs complimenting other consultant blogs. It reads like an advertisement. No mention in reputable sources like Forbes, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, etc. RockyMtChai (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any necessary editorial decisions on merging or rewriting this article can happen at the appropriate talk pages. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prenatal and perinatal psychology[edit]

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

A heteroclite jumble of resources all somewhat linked to the psychology and moral philosophy of childbirth. The article appears to give undue weight to the self-published scholarship of Wendy Anne McCarthy - I suspect that the article may be a coatrack for her own ideas. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of sources for this topic including:

Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine
Introduction to Prenatal Psychology
The Unborn Child
The Prenatal Psychology of Frank Lake
Prenatal Development of Postnatal Functions
The Prenatal Theme in Psychotherapy
Prenatal and Perinatal Factors in Psychological Development
Prenatal Determinants of Behaviour

I suppose that it's a difficult topic but, per our editing policy, that's not an adequate reason to delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TNT it. This is a badly written article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sadly, yes - this is my own recommendation. Unless some brave editor will tackle this vast topic in medical science then we are left with this messy hodge-podge. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is not policy. Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states explicitly that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided until I research more. So far I agree with all that's been said. (1) It's a "heteroclite jumble" (thanks for the new word, very fitting here) of loosely related sources and it gives undue weight to McCarty. (2) There are sources that exist that use words that are also in this article's title. (3) It's badly written. But I don't know if any of those are reasons to keep or delete it, because I still don't know what "prenatal and perinatal psychology" is claiming to be. I don't understand what the article is trying to describe it as and I have not found any independent, reliable sources that define it yet. If we were to keep this article, can someone explain like I'm 5 what's it's supposed to be about? PermStrump(talk) 12:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is undue promote of Wendy Anne McCarty and other fringe ideas, it should be deleted and redirected to Developmental_psychology#Prenatal_development where the concept is already discussed. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Prenatal and perinatal psychology. PermStrump(talk) 19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I mentioned this AFD on WT:MED and WP:PSYCH. PermStrump(talk) 22:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Undue weight is no reason for deleting the entire article. HealthyGirl,why don't you attempt to fix the article instead of wiping it away. Your interest in skepticism should do this article well.--Lo te xendo (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Lo te xendo: What do you see this article being about? This is a genuine question. I'm not sure how to judge its notability, because I'm not sure what counts and what doesn't as being part of the same topic. Previous editors have felt any source that used the words prenatal or perinatal and had something to do with psychology, emotions, behavior, cognitive abilities, etc. was fair game for this article (see this version from a few days ago before I deleted most of it was WP:SYNTH). I got stuck when I was trying to work on editing it before this AFD was proposed because I wasn't sure what the topic was. Is it/should it be an expansion of Developmental psychology#Prenatal development? That's not how it reads, but I could see an argument for there being enough to say about prenatal psychological development that it should have its own article. I imagine a sort of umbrella article where most sections would have a hat-thingy with a link to the main article and a summary of what's in it (e.g., There would be a section on in utero exposure to drugs and alcohol with links at the top like: "Main article: Fetal alcohol syndrome" and "Main article: Prenatal cocaine exposure"). If we were to go with this, personally, I'd like to move the article to Prenatal developmental psychology or something that isn't an ADMASQ and for what I presume to be a fringe group.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a fringe group that sees "prenatal and perinatal psychology" as its own specific branch of psychology. Our friend Wendy Anne McCarty was apparently the "co-founder of the Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology MA and PhD Programs at Santa Barbara Graduate Institute," which claims to be the "pioneer" in offering a program specifically devoted to prenatal and postnatal psychology. They only advertised one other program before they closed—somatic psychology—which is well-known fringe to me. I assume this group is involved with the publication of The Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health (which is peer-reviewed per Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, though their website says that their information is provided by the publishers and Ulrich's policy is not to make judgments on the quality of peer review). The journal is hosted at birthpsychology.com, so that makes me wonder if "birth psychology" is a more appropriate name for the fringe topic (assuming it's notable enough). I get the feeling that they deliberately chose the title "prenatal and prenatal psychology" because the terms are broad and commonly used, so it allows them to be associated with any work using those terms even though the vast majority of it doesn't have anything to do with the "field" of study called "prenatal and perinatal psychology" that was allegedly* offered temporarily at the now-closed Santa Barbara Graduate Institute. (*See my recent PROD on the SGBI article). PermStrump(talk) 00:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PermStrump I see or would like to see the article being about how the psychological experiences and stresses of the mother can affect the development of a child/fetus in utero. Also maybe how early after birth experiences of the baby affect later development and/or psychological disorders. There is also the possibility of using fetal pain from fetal interventions/surgery and new born pain/surgery and psychological development. The options are broad but workable I think. I've read some of the The Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health and I think most of it is nonsense personally. But there was one article that seemed interesting:Prenatal Maternal Stress: Neurological and Physiological Impacts on Offspring.

The way Wendy Anne McCarty discusses "prenatal and prenatal psychology" is pretty fringy but we do have an article on prenatal maternal stress which is similar in scope to this article and hasn't had any problems.

I'm a n00b so I know my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. But from my lurking I feel like an inclusionist. But maybe we could scrap the nonsense but keep the article or maybe delete it but replace it with an article with a similar scope? What do you think?--Lo te xendo (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept seems notable (Elizabeth Noble; Louis G. Keith; Leo Sorger (2003). Having Twins and More: A Parent's Guide to Multiple Pregnancy, Birth, and Early Childhood. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 101–. ISBN 0-618-13873-0.). The article may have NPOV issues, but it doesn't seem to be a TNT-able mess. Tag it wit UNDUE/NPOV and such, but it is, worst case, a poor draft that is nonetheless passable as a mainspace article and will eventually be used by less-POVed editors to develop into a better one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the one hand, there are journals, MAs, Associations all dealing in this topic, which made me think this is a sure keep. But on closer inspection, it appears to be all a bit woo, and I'm not convinced that it passes WP:NFRINGE, the guideline for fringe topics. There it states (with emphasis added):

For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

I haven't found anything independent of the promoters of P&P Psych as I would understand it, and only occasional unreliable web comments describing it as woo. Does anyone have anything that would show independent coverage? OsFish (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OsFish took the words right out of my mouth. I spent a good amount of time last night looking into it and I decided that it is definitely an article on a specific fringe view, not an article on developmental psychology that got overrun by fringe creep, so we need to be applying WP:FRINGE. I have not found a single independent, reliable source discussing this topic, not even to debunk it. It pretends to be the precursor to child and adolescent psychology, but C&A psychology is a speciality at many mainstream, accredited programs, whereas P&P psychology (to steal OsFish's acronym), was only ever allegedly offered at one unaccredited school, the Santa Barbara Graduate Institute (SBGI), which closed in 2012. I couldn't confirm in any independent, reliable sources that any academic programs at SBGI existed, let alone that it actually offered psychology courses on this topic, and in my research on this article, ended up PRODing that one. P&P psychology is fringe because it's not offered or even mentioned by accredited institutions and it's not mentioned in any mainstream, independent, reliable sources. Except Prenatal Development of Postnatal Functions, which doesn't seem to be at all related to P&P psychology, all of the sources people have mentioned in this deletion discussion thus far are "in-universe." The majority of sources have been published by Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and the rest are books that were written by the people directly affiliated with the journal (e.g., Introduction to Prenatal Psychology, which was self-published).

TLDR: P&P psychology isn't offered (as a course or speciality) or even mentioned by any accredited institutions and it's not covered (not even a passing mention) in mainstream publications. No one here has been able to offer an independent, reliable source that cover this topic. It's not even notable to be debunk. It fails WP:NFRINGE, because the only the only mentions are "in universe." PermStrump(talk) 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In addition to being fringe, it's also an WP:ADMASQ for a defunct, unaccredited masters and PHD program at SBGI that, if it ever existed, would have been around when this article was created, and for the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology, which requires membership to the association of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology. I don't see any encyclopedic content worth saving. PermStrump(talk) 12:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree w/ PermStrump--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Permstrump, OsFish, and nom. Keilana (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as it is a subject of interest, a real subject, and could use more development and work, but not deletion. Also note there has been a recent huge pruning of the article, and so take a look at the article before that pruning before deciding as well. SageRad (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look indicates there are potential reliable sources for the topic in which case the subject is notable per Wikipedia. If there is undue weight it can be trimmed. The main consideration is whether or not there are RS for the topic. Note that this article has been designated the mother article for the topic [1]O(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

"... designated the mother article for the topic" I think Littleolive oil means the "See also" hatnote at Developmental psychology#Prenatal development. I replaced it with a more appropriate "Main article" hatnote for Prenatal development, which is the article that section summarizes. Littleolive oil, which independent, reliable sources were you referring to? PermStrump(talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established by independent reliable sources. Woo-meter is hitting red on this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm uncertain how to comment for now so I'm asking DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. whatever I may think of the merits of some of the work in this field, its a real academic field and appropriate for an article. I am unaware of the exact meaning of"woo-meter" but it sounds like an instrument for measuring "IDONTLIKEIT". DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, in what way is it a real academic field? Where is it offered? —PermStrump(talk) 03:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books are written about it. Textbooks are written for teaching it. Journals are devoted to it. Whether it should be considered that distinct is not for us to determine--merelt that it is so considered. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which textbooks specifically that are clearly about this topic and not a tangentially related topic were published by independent, well-respected, academic publishers? So far I've only seen self-published books. —PermStrump(talk) 18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have been thinking and DGG's analysis is convincing enough. I also noted the article seemed acceptable enough. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it's WP:FRINGE or not, the subject still appears to be notable, regardless of its veracity. Can't say I understand the article too well, but it appears to be (passably) well referenced. Perhaps it could do with a healthy dose of skepticism. WPancake (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt fails WP:NFRINGE, as above, the only mentions are "in universe." in addition, the Journal certainly is not published by an academic publisher. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that prenatal psychology is totally disconnected from the rest of psychology seems absurd. For example, consider the paper, Fetal Psychology: An Embryonic Science by Peter Hepper. He's a professor at the Queen's University where he quite happily recounts his prize for Outstanding Contributions to Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology. His paper is reviewed in the NEJM as "especially strong". We have an active field here which seems far less fringey than flat earth theories and other weird science which we are content to cover. The idea that birth is a significant and traumatic event has been around in psychology since Freud and so it's no surprise that it continues to be studied. Andrew D. (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for anyone else looking for it, "Fetal Psychology: An Embryonic Science" by Peter Hepper is a chapter in a 1992 book Fetal behavior, developmental and perinatal aspects and neither the book nor the chapter connects itself to the field of "prenatal and perinatal psychology." While clearly "fetal psychology" is loosely related, it's a perfect example of the kind of WP:COATRACK this article is. They want to claim everything tangentially related to it as part of the same "field." No one is denying that experiences in utero affect fetal development, including psychology. We're saying that there is no real field called "Prenatal and perinatal psychology" and the people associated with it have non-notable fringe views and then try to claim mainstream views as being under the umbrella of the same field. The notable concepts are covered under other articles such as fetal development and developmental psychology. —PermStrump(talk) 13:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal psychology and prenatal psychology are just synonyms. The page in question was actually started as Birth trauma. It was moved to something like the current title some months later. Birth trauma then got turned into a disambiguation page and then lost its connection to this page when an IP-editor substituted a link to childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder which is something different. There is no conspiracy of "they" making these changes. Instead it just seems to be a game of Chinese whispers in which Permstrump's butchery of the page is the latest garbling. In such cases of confusion, it is important that we don't delete the pages because their edit history is helpful in unravelling what successive editors have done over the years. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the terms are synonymous, but they could both be used as general terms and not necessarily part of this field. There's no indication to me that "fetal psychology" in that book was a reference to the P&P psychology "field" of study. On his website, the author says that his research interest is "Prenatal development of human fetal behaviour". The only connection to P&P psychology is that the association gave the author an award and he mentions it on his website, yet he doesn't ID himself on his website as ascribing to this field of study. I only removed content that was unsourced and dubious or unsourced/not pertinent and clearly promotional or where the source didn't connect itself to this topic. There happened to be a lot of all of that. I was originally planning to find better sources and expand on the sections where I had removed a lot of material, but I couldn't find any. Then it was nominated for deletion, so I looked harder, and still couldn't find any independent, reliable sources. —PermStrump(talk) 18:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article in its current form might be restrained by its title, because those hypothesis were recycled elsewhere. Many fundamental premises of the development of those concepts are part of transpersonal psychology or derivatives of the Jungian school of thoughts. What is treated in this article sure is not fringe, the problem lies in the current form the article takes and its title (because those hypothesis have been published under several other names). Reading it, one might think it is some fringe theory, when all the aspects of developmental psychology are brought to their full extent. This material sure must go somewhere, merged or a rename as to incorporate the subject in something more general. I do not have a proposition as to what name to give it. It seems there is yet no clear consensus in the scientific community. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If the article were deleted, where, in Wikipedia, would a reader find the same information? --Dennis J au (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any information of encyclopedic value will be lost. People inside the bubble will continue going to the journal, self-published books and websites. Apparently not many others are looking for this information because otherwise people outside of the bubble would be writing about it. —PermStrump(talk) 15:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and rewrite) as per numerous arguments above. From what I've been able to gather, *this* particular topic just doesn't seem to have gained enough good-quality independent coverage *under this name* to satisfy the GNG, a situation made more complex by the fact that it's far from clear whether the sources are even talking about the same thing as the article - terms like "fetal psychology" and "prenatal psychology" are used in sources that may or may not refer explicitly to the exact subject of this article. With that said, if someone knowledegable on the topic could take this into userspace and rewrite it so that it (a) cites stronger sources and (b) explains why it's notable, I suspect it could come back as a decent article. At the moment, I don't know what value it's providing in this shape, as frankly it's bordering on the unreadable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With respect to the following questions:

"I don't understand what the article is trying to describe it [prenatal and perinatal psychology] as and I have not found any independent, reliable sources that define it yet. If we were to keep this article, can someone explain like I'm 5 what's it's supposed to be about?" PermStrump

and

"Can't say I understand the article too well" WPancake

From a 5 years old's point of view, I think the study of psychology as such could be seen as learning about the psychological impulses and biological mechanisms that influence people's responses to other people and events.

A salesperson might study psychology to better understand the impulses that shape the responses of people to the salesperson's marketing/sales messages, the ultimate aim being to 'close sales'.

Likewise a teacher may study psychology to better understand the responses of their students, in order to make their lessons more attractive and digestible to those students, again, ultimately, to help their students enjoy greater success at school and in life.

A manager might study psychology in order to foster more productive relations among those under the manager's supervision.

Studying the psychology of prenatal and perinatal babies has a slightly different purpose. A salesperson does not sell baby gear to the baby, but to the parents. Likewise teachers don't get to instruct such babies directly.

Prenatal and perinatal psychology is more concerned with the prenatal and perinatal conditions that impact a baby's psychological development, particularly from the point of view of how the psychological impact of early events may affect a baby later in life.

For example, in mainstream psychology there is a common understanding that unresolved trauma can 'negatively impact' a person later in life. If the trauma remains unhealed then the effects becomes chronically embedded in the sufferers life. In the last couple of decades there has been an explosion of research into war veterans and PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) which tragically reveals the consequences of war trauma in the lives of individuals, their families and whole communities.

The psychological impacts of trauma are well established. Going beyond war veterans and PTSD, other research questions are: what degree of severity of trauma produces 'clinically observable effects'? What are the clinically observable differences between the effects of chronic, low level trauma and acute high level trauma? How far back in a person's life can trauma occur and still have a serious impact on an individuals healthy functioning as a human being?

When we speak of 'impressionable youth' we are also pointing to these types of questions. A more systematic approach would be to study the things that leave impressions on impressionable youths, and at what age, how young, do these impressionable events start having an impact?

As I understand it, amongst other things, pre- and perinatal psychology examines all of the above types of questions in pre- and perinatal babies. --Dennis J au (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you may have rather missed the point about why people think this article should be deleted. The issue is not what Prenatal and perinatal psychology could mean, it's what it does mean in terms of being a defined field, according to those very few who walk under its banner. (Etymologically, astrology could be the study of the stars, but it isn't). The argument put forward by Permstrump and others (including me) is that the "field" that calls itself Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology isn't that bit of mainstream psychology that looks at the impact of prenatal experiences on the psychology of the individual. Instead, it appears to be pseudoscience that hasn't attracted enough attention from outworld sources even to merit an article about how it's pseudoscientific. The master's degree that was on offer was from a non-accredited college; the journal was not out of a recognised publishing house, the main source that gave shape to it appears to be a self-publisher and so on. This all looks like it fails as a subject per WP:Fringe.OsFish (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - It's agreed that this article here is a jumbled mess of a few nuggets of good research mixed in with lots of pretentious nonsense that has nothing to do with real science. The title itself is a reflection of a fringe theory and not what's actually used in real academic study, so the problems go to the core. Rather than keep rehashing the debate on whether to just TNT this pile of garbage or keep it despite all the problems, I've tried to cut the Gordian Knot by creating this: Fetal psychology. I now boldly propose that we shift the few positive contents of this article over to that one, which has the title actually used scientifically. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was possible... but your new article is looking good. I like the new title better because you're right about the original title being an invitation for fringe. I'll try to contribute in a little bit. —PermStrump(talk) 11:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Republic[edit]

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

No significant coverage other than mentions of shows. There's an interview on electro-swing.com - a website "founded in summer 2010 by 2 brothers really excited by the new sound of Electro Swing" and a few listings on things like discogs and allmusic but nothing in-depth. Non-notable label has been deleted several times at AFD:

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swingrowers Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only a few works and none of this is outstandingly convincing for the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the "group" is basically a side project for fun by a Danish producer, remixing old 1940s big band songs into a modern electronic style. But it fails WP:NBAND on every point, they haven't even charted in his native Denmark. Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: you might want to list this under Denmark-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adept Manager[edit]

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

I couldn't find any evidence that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved. It has articles in other languages, but they seem to offer no more evidence of notability than this one. Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently suggesting better for the needed software notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Software was discontinued years ago so future coverage is unlikely. Dialectric (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 21:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Spider[edit]

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

This character article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not independently notable, but worth noting as part of a larger context. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not at all independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and rename to "Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks" (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi role in September 11 attacks[edit]

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

This was deleted in a previous AfD. That AfD close was brought to review. The outcome of that review was to relist. My action here is purely administrative; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 14:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I've provided much of my arguments in the previous AFD (please see the list of sources I provided there). Besides I'd like to add these fresh sources:

Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says by the guardian.
Declassified documents detail 9/11 commission's inquiry into Saudi Arabia by the guardian.
Saudi Ties to Sept. 11 Attacks by CGS monitor.
'Saudi Arabian government officials supported September 11 hijackers,' former 9/11 Commission member claims by the independent.

Per plenty of sources which support the topic I think we should have such an article. This is how I think about it. --Mhhossein (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a horribly bad idea to have a bluelink with this title. If kept at AfD, it should be renamed to something that doesn't take sides, such as "Alleged Saudi role in 9/11".—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing looks strong, and this is absolutely a notable controversy. It is difficult to call it "speculative" when there is so much coverage including statements from those who have actually seen the report. Here are further sources about the debate over the "28 pages" alone:

28 Pages In Sept. 11 Report Should Be Declassified, Ex-Sen. Graham Says (NPR)
THE SAUDI ROLE IN SEPT. 11 AND THE HIDDEN 9/11 REPORT PAGES (Newsweek)
CIA director: '28 pages' contain inaccurate information (The Hill)
Politico

However, I also propose a move to "Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks." GAB^Hello! 15:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Looking at the sources listed above, I think we have plenty for an article. I'd call this a reasonable spinout of Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Saudi_Arabia rather than a POV fork. That said, as was mentioned at the DRV and by two others above, I'd prefer a different name. I'd prefer "Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks" to be somewhat consistent with the parent article. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Tshuva (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A fresh source. Mhhossein (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I would rename to something like Saudi September 11 attacks involvement controversy DanielJCooper (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 22:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Bbb23, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kwizera Davis[edit]

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

Self-created, doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST, speedy deletion and PROD deleted by new editors Melcous (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Personally, I would have speedied this. also SPa editing to disguise autobiography Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flightdiary[edit]

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

Searching for sources results only in forum posts or brief mentions. No significant coverage in reliable sources. A7 was declined by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article was created by a new editor early today. Less than one minute after that editor made their second edit to the article, Narutolovehinata5 placed a speedy deletion tag on it, even though it was evident that the article creator hadn't finished work. That behaviour was abusive, and violated WP:BITE. Such actions are incompatible with our commitment to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience". Every editor should be afforded a decent opportunity to write their first article, a point that ought to go without saying. Doubling down on such misbehaviour is substantively uncivil and merits summary rejection by the community. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Can only find brief mentions, mostly in blogs. No coverage to establish notability. This "article" is only two sentences and lacks acceptable sources and there aren't sources to be able to improve it. MB (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nominator. This clearly met the G11 and G12 criteria of a speedy delete as it's just a copy and paste of the about us on the website, and even then the article is just a couple of sentences. Their Facebook was last updated on May 2012 and their last tweet was Nov 2015, so it would seem that they are hardly notable. Also the rationale for keeping the article is that the competition has an article, which btw, is also being considered for deletion. David.moreno72 (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for G12. Blatant copy and paste of the company's only "reference", the two-sentence About Us page of this website. No other references would have been found to add as nothing is published. The new editor should build their next article in their sandbox then, release it when complete. Their defender may want to pick their battles: Defense of other articles is appreciated, but not this clear copyright violation with no references. —Prhart com♥ 05:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it is unfortunate that it's a new editor, the subject still does not have GNG notabilty. AadaamS (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing including for basic notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pretenders (Transformers). (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 21:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metalhawk[edit]

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

This character fails to establish notability. The references only support fictional details and toy details best left to Wikia. TTN (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pretenders (Transformers). Not independently notable, but worth mentioning within a larger context. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clearly a consensus that the article does not belong here. I suppose that someone can try creating an entry at Wiktionary if he or she wants to, but I note that there are no entries for such analogous concepts as "writer's writer" and "musician's musician". Deor (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's Artist[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, and a singularly ill-informed one. Artists mentioned are either very obscure or very well known. TheLongTone (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. References have been added to back each of the claims, which seem solid enough, but this is still more of a dictionary definition than a Wikipedia article. WPancake (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested, nothing to suggest it's acceptable for an actual Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot be moved interwiki because of no such functionality and incompatible content layout; would have to be recreated from scratch at Wiktionary. Sandstein 19:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. The sources prove this phrase and concept are real, but not notability. What room is there for expansion beyond the one-line dictionary definition stub? History of the phrase, significance/notability of the phrase, use of the phrase in popular culture etc. - I can't see what can be done to save this, or what purpose it's serving now. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 - Hoax, G5 - Created by a sock of Ravikiran singh (talk · contribs · count) —SpacemanSpiff 12:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Dhuri Terrorist Attack[edit]

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

I suspect that this article is a hoax. I searched on Google and Google news, but could not find any sources. I find it very surprising that a terrorist attack of this scale (500 deaths, 1000 injured) was not reported by Indian news media. Furthermore, this image used in the article is actually a screenshot from a video game (see the third image on this webpage); and this image uploaded on Wikicommons is actually from 2015 Gurdaspur attack (see this for proof). Gaurav (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article infobox says it all. Attack type: Bombing, Suicide Bombing, Mass Murder, Shooting, Grenade explosion, Hostage Crisis, Siege, Terrorism. (yeah, I am glad they didn't forget terrorism) Weapons: AK 47, Grenade, Time bomb, Rocket Launcher, Shotgun, Revolver, Knife. (And I though time bombs were passe). The image of the area map indicates it as an island, very similar in structure to an island from a multiplayer strategy game. For all I know, this event could have happened in the game. Delete this hoax. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Australia[edit]

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

This is a political blog calling itself a newspaper. After six months this stub article has attracted no RS to establish notability, apart from self-reference. Content consists of political diatribes. a fine example of internet ratbaggery, but hardly a newspaper. Pete (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stub describes it as a website, not a newspaper. It is not listed as a newspaper. Most reputable newspapers have gravitated to websites and there is no longer anything fundamentally credentialling about having paper output. Your judgment of content is unjustified POV with which I personally disagree. Bjenks (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The site gives the impression of having a team of contributors, all beavering away to produce independent content, but on examination, much of the material is lifted from other sources. For example, supposed contributor John Menadue has a series of articles here, but in reality they are copied word for word from his personal blog here. --Pete (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly unusual for prominent writers to carry their work on a personal website as well as syndicate it to any number of public media. It is unnecessarily gratuitous to describe such content as ″copied word for word from his personal blog″. For example, does the Pacific Media Centre lose any credibility because this opinion piece can be said to be copied word for word″ from Pilger's site. I think not. Bjenks (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looking at the PMC page linked above, I see this: "This article was first published on www.johnpilger.com and has been republished with the permission of John Pilger."[2] --Pete (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it crystal clear.

This is not a newspaper.
It is some guy's blog.
He lifts pieces from other sites, and then adds his own comments, and graphics likewise lifted from others.
The Menadue piece linked to above has no indication of permission from the author. Most of the text is simply copied and pasted, including typos such as "Ronald Regan", but here and there it is modified to suit IA's preference.
The IndependentAustralia guy tags it with a Creative Commons license. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License, to be exact.
This appears immediately above a donation/subscription widget accepting Visa and Mastercard.
Menadues's site, also linked to above, makes no mention of a CC license or of any permission to republish his material.
Graphics such as cartoons and photographs are often presented without attribution or permission. I doubt that Fox gave their permission for a still from Futurama to be used here.
The site is the creation and sole possession of one person, living in the socialist workers' enclave of Surfers Paradise, who takes content as he pleases for his own commercial purposes. It is not a newspaper, it is not notable, our stub article contains no external sources and has been marked as such for six months. I don't know why we are giving this fellow any publicity at all. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty straightforward - cites no sources (except the blog itself). While all of Pete's points above are indeed red flags for non-notability, a blog could still be notable despite all that, if it passed GNG. This doesn't. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for sources, using the founder's name Donovan" as a keyword and came up only with mentions on other non-notable blogs and web-based sites that share the political perspective )perspective became apparent as I searched). to merit a page, a blog would have to be discussed in some depth by multiple reliable sources. Delete as mere ADVERT / promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the lengthy list of references is a sort of smokescreen, presumably put there by a saavy article creator to make this look like a well-sourced article. But the discussions of this site are referenced to the this site. The other references are to individuals affiliated with this website, none of whom is bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this actually suggests the needed solid independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article could really use being trimmed down to remove things that have no bearing on its notability. That its contributors also write elsewhere, that a marginally notable person said nice things about their book, that the book's author thanked his crowdfunders, YouTube videos, etc. - these do not support notability. I don't agree with most of the nominator's conclusions and I feel like there might well be enough WP:RS to warrant notability at this point, but the article makes the point particularly badly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came across this AfD discussion by chance. I was confused by the claims as I have occasionally read IA and had never considered it as how it is described above. The National Library classifies it as a 'Periodical, Journal, magazine, other edition' and has been archiving it since 2012. IA does not 'call itself a newspaper'.

I want to declare that I have zero COI. I am not a subscriber, have never donated, do not know anyone at IA, have never commented on any of its articles. If the article hadn't existed, it would never have occured to me to create it. If the AfD hadn't appeared I may never have realised it existed.

"political diatribes... ratbaggery"... "gives the impression of having a team of contributors...", "lifted from other sources", "supposed contributor", "copied word for word", all seemed like accusations of something nefarious and an attack of the subject rather than judgement of the WP article. It seemed hard to believe that IA has been online for 5yrs with 100s of contributors not complaining their works have been 'lifted'. Many of these IA contributors/supporters [3] are notable enough to have BLP articles. That they did not contribute their work in some form seems unlikely. Whatever attribution they did/did not seek is surely not WP's business.

Menadue's profile page on IA here lists 10 articles - each ends with attribution: "This article was originally published on John Menadue's blog 'Pearls and Irritations' ", with direct links and some also with "and is republished with permission." IA's contributor guidelines discuss a code of ethics and "Please also attribute the sources of your multimedia and licence details" etc. It has a privacy policy, comments policy etc - hardly things you'd find on "some guy's blog". And... "the socialist workers' enclave of Surfers Paradise"? Anyone with a scintilla of interest in Australian politics would likely be aware that SP is in one of the very safest conservative localities in the country - council, state and federal divisions. Perhaps that was tongue-in-cheek, but the location is irrelevant?

IA's commons licence - says: "Almost all our original material is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License... "Our original" - ie the articles written by IA's own editors? There are well over 1,000 articles at the IA staff author's lists.

I have been working on the article. A look at the edit history will show I did not create it - 'a saavy creator', 'a smokescreen', 'to make it look like', 'none of whom is bluelinked'? I did not put the red wlinks in the article. And I did not think each of the editors I added to the article would need their own article? As a new editor who merely tried to improve the article, I am trying not to feel offended by these accusations of things I did not do. I figured I could not come here to vote keep without fixing the apparent problems - the first being to negate the impression that IA was just 'some guy's blog', ie to give some credibility to the professional writers on its staff and then to document some of the outside mentions of IA.

I don't know why no-one else has been able to find the refs that I have. (I don't yet know how to use the tools.) It may be that, at the time the article was nominated, the managing editor's name was misspelt and maybe that msm sources don't like to give coverage/credence to new media. Today I added refs to the interview that went viral. I only added 6 but found at least 14 - all with IA's and Donovan's name included in their text. I realise I have probably added too much to the article. That was in an attempt to save it from deletion. If it survives, I intend to get help via talk page/desk to work out what should stay and what should go and then to fill in the bare refs. I have acted in good faith. I have one only user account and have never edited without being logged in. I am definitely the sort of editor to 'smokescreen'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyOz (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeees, but I see that all your comments above are drawn from the blog's own site, and your sources for the supposed contributing editors refer to their doings elsewhere. What IA says about IA is self-reference. What reliable sources say about IA is what WP needs. Something that isn't self-puffery or boosting from fellow travellers in the blogosphere. --Pete (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web searches reveal insufficient sources for meriting inclusion on Wikipedia as an article. I can only conclude this is mostly about using Wikipedia for promotion. Also, it is aggravating (to me) to try to sift through more than 50 references to see if any of them support notability for this blog. There are a good number of references (sources) where the subject is not about this blog, so I have no idea why they are there. And I am not likely to try to sift through 50+ references that may or may not be unrelated. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the Editor Jenny Oz wishes to post links to references that will determine this blog or journal's notability, she may do so here and I will be glad to look at them. Other editors may also be interested, but I can't speak for them. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 13:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe runners-up and finalists[edit]

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

Unsourced info, already present in the year articles. In this form just fancruft and promo The Banner talk 10:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A functional navigational aid and valuable information source as per WP:LISTPURP. This is evidenced in part by the 3,126 page views the page has received in the last thirty days, a high number. It is also very easily verifiable; I have added some sources to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum) Also, the list is not promotional whatsoever. It does not extol the benefits, greatness or virtues of Miss Universe, and is entirely neutral in tone and point of view. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as acceptable for its own article, perhaps not best if merged to the main article thus better separate. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PennyWise Solutions[edit]

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

Self-promotion - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability and I would've explored PROD instead if needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage about the company seems to be restricted to this one event (and its reprints). There is no evidence that this company is notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Voice (magazine)[edit]

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: same reasons as for the previously deleted Islamic Voice (Telegu Fortnightly) below. Non notable. OtterAM (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better and this is not satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Voice (Telegu magazine)[edit]

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article also deleted before "Islamic Voice (Telugu Fortnightly)" in the name - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfD discussion. Non notable. OtterAM (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tortricigay[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES - the only 2 hits in google scholar and google books are this article and another one recently created by the same editor. Possible misspelling of Tortricidae or possible hoax/joke based on that name? Melcous (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax - asserted to be from North Israel, and in other article from Colombia and Ecuador. PamD 08:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marois[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage shown, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office and as president of a local environmental agency. None of this is enough to constitute an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists, and the sourcing isn't good enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP requires secondary sources. OtterAM (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a WP:SPEEDY case. Absolutely no notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 13:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Waitzkin[edit]

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

Still questionable for the needed solid independent notability and my searches at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam are not finding anything better than expected mentions, nothing at all confidently better to improve this article. At best, this could (whether deleted entirely or not) be redirected to either his son or the film especially since it seems he's best known for the book-film. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author, verifiable through multiple cited references to reliable, independent, secondary sources, of which I have added a dozen citations (plenty of more also on Highbeam); meets criterion #3 for creative professionals as the author of the book Searching for Bobby Fischer: The Father of a Prodigy Observes the World of Chess that was turned into the Academy Award-nominated film Searching for Bobby Fischer. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam Sailor, clearly notable. SwisterTwister, did you do any research at all? It could have easily confirmed notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josefine Lindstrand[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing better than here and there's nothing else convincing at all including at the Swedish Wiki to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As can be seen in the article on Swedish Wikipedia Lindstrand has been given an official award by sv:Rikskonserter, an important Swedish governmental foundation, and her debut record has been given a very positive review in one of Sweden's largest newspapers: [4]. /FredrikT (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FredrikT. Passes creative and GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references and additional claims to notability added to the article. Meets WP:Creative as well as WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 09:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Guest[edit]

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

Single sourced WP:BLP of a political strategist, with no strong claim of encyclopedic notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. User:AusLondonder (talk)
Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Datach'i[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 14:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 14:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I found a few links but simply nothing actually convincing of better. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice unless and until better sourcing can be found - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Cursio[edit]

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

Promotional piece not based on reliable sources, or in fact largely not based on any sources, since those given in the article do not confirm the claims they're cited for. No indication of notability. No better references found via Google News. Huon (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . But only probably. Found many references. Many in Italian. Notable in his field. Passes WP:BASIC and most likely WP:NPOL. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would prefer any additional comments on the article. Nakon 04:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as I intended to comment before this relist and also invite DGG for his analysis, since my searches are finding nothing but a 2011 Huffington Post article, I'm not convinced by anything else including this article. Not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Various minor administrative posts, and the references are, accordingly, not substantial. Name-dropping is not notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrament (band)[edit]

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

A short review, the HM content is explained in the short Encyclopedia of CCM entry: a concert review. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (has released two or more albums on a notable indie label - R.E.X. Records). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- R.E.X. did not have a history of more than a few years. The albums themselves were not notable and there are no sources to support notability. All of WP:MUSICBIO assumes references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "found nothing better" is not a valid deletion rationale. Nakon 04:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as G4 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House Of Hiranandani[edit]

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

Just another real estate company. There are other sources but they are almost entirely press releases (sometimes posing as editorials) as far as I can see. Fails WP:GNG and appears to be entirely promotional in nature. Sitush (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large number of sources found through English-language Indian newspaper search. I have sought to address the promotional nature of the article, and it no longer seems promotional to me AusLondonder (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per AusLondoner search. Significant coverage about the company . LibStar (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, duh? Is it only me who recognises the difference between a reliable source and press releases? The latter, of course, being WP:SPS. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies anything, WP:GNG or WP:CORP, nothing at all for context for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional references were added, relisting for review Nakon 04:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AusLondoner's search. Meets WP:GNG ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are very few references which focus on the company itself. Most of them focus on the founder (Surendra Hiranandani). I'm not convinced. Also the article was deleted previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Hiranandani. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stargazer (Norwegian band)[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything online about this band; the only results that appear are for non-affiliated bands. Notability can't be proved so I'm going with delete on this. st170e^talk 06:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing online about the band that I can find, and as such is non-notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dragonette#Compilation albums. MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixin to Thrill[edit]

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

No real references. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist Nakon 04:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dragonette. Little coverage found, but some details of what is on this could be added to the entry in the band's discography. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dragonette. I found nothing helpful beyond the existing references. Fails notability. Gab4gab (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft delete. The article may be restored by any administrator on request. MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbonomics (album)[edit]

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

All in Chinese Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for albums notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would prefer this is reviewed further. Nakon 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Ions in Life Sciences[edit]

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

Tagged by Randykitty for speedy deletion as spam. Restored on request from the author. It has been around for nearly seven years and no other editors have shown much interest in it. Certainly far too long - we do not need a schedule of every article. And, in my view, lacking independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the specific issue of evidence for notability. Each volume has been the subject of a number of reviews. I have not cited all of them because it seemed unneccesary. The fact that 16 volumes in the series have already been published is evidence of notability in itself.Petergans (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the massive and excessive deletions by User:HappyValleyEditor so that editors can can see the full text and therefore make fully informed comments.Petergans (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored HappyValleyEditor's version. The version Petergans is referring to can be seen here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This a really disgraceful article. It's terribly organized, written and structured. Much of it just seems to be a restatement of the actual work it tries to describe. The lists are very irritating. Finding an article like this on Wikipedia is the equivalent of finding an old box of muffins in the garage that fell behind something when you were bringing in the groceries... in the 1980's. I agree with Randykitty that this is essentially an advertisement for the book (series). Since Wikipedia does not allow advertisements, my vote is delete. An additional argument might be that this article needs to be blown up and redone to even be able to see if there is anything remotely notable underneath all those moldy, mummified muffins. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I think it is notable enough, per reviews cited in the article. I agree with HappyValleyEditor that it was overly long and unencyclopedic, with all those tables of contents, but after posting their comment above HappyValleyEditor has cleaned up the article (maybe not to what it should be, but at least in a right direction). Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I optimistically posted the above comment hoping that the article will be built up from the HappyValleyEditor's version. Instead of an anticipated collaboration (in developing the article) I see an editing disagreement. Given the marginal notability, I see no future for this article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First, the article as it stands is appalling. However, the question is whether the book series is notable. If it were a journal, I would look for an impact factor, but I think the relevant guideline is WP:TBK. This guideline notes that "possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions." This book series has been published by reputable academic publishers including the RSC and Springer, is in preparation for its 17th volume, and has certainly been cited in plenty of articles on WP and presumably also in the literature. As such, I would see it as notable but in need of a complete re-write along the style of a standard journal article (such as this version). EdChem (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (changed to "delete" below) The way the article was when I first encountered it was indeed atrocious. I started an attempt at cleanup but was immediately reverted by the article creator, Petergans. At that point, I decided WP:TNT applied and tagged it as spam. After the excellent job that HappyValleyEditor did, we have an acceptable stub that could be the basis for expansion into an acceptable article. The recent edit history does not give me much confidence that such will actually happen, though. (I realize that the foregoing is not a reason to keep/delete, it's just a description of events). As for notability, I note that there are some reviews for some individual volumes. I also note that (according to WorldCat) none of the books seems to be held by many libraries. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of terms "disgraceful", "appalling" and "atrocious" is not what I expect of Wikipedians. A word of explanation is appropriate. What I attempted to do was provide users with links to view specific article contents, which the publisher provides free of charge. This can be useful to researchers when the relevant volume is not held by their institution's library. I accept that this is not permissible under current WP rules; I imagine that these rules were drawn up before publishers like Springer offered free previews of book contents on the web. Petergans (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When those rules were formulated, all big publishers already had well-established websites. And those rules are still very much relevant nowadays. It's definitely unencyclopedic to just have an "article" that consists of a bunch of external links and basically copies Springer's website for these books. Researchers interested in these books will look at Springer's website for links to the chapters, not WP. Like SwisterTwister, I'm curious to see what DGG (a retired academic librarian) thinks of all this. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now as I'm uncertain and I'm asking DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I saw this and thought it was not an encyclopedia article, and asked Randykitty what their judgement was, as Randykitty is very experienced in these sorts of articles. Their judgement was the same and they tagged it for speedy. That was the right answer in my view. I am sympathetic to Petergans for having groomed this for so long but it is WP:NOT an encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty tagged this version; the article is very different now, have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I should have looked and thought again, so really thanks. It is better now. But. The biggest chunk of content was sourced to this dead link; the series is apparently now at CRC press - current ref is here. So that biggest chunk of encyclopedic content is unsourced. (updated all that here) And the sources (refs 1-4) for the encyclopedic content are all to the publishers, not independent or secondary sources, so no so good, even still... but yes better than it was! Jytdog (talk 08:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to CRC press is inappropriate. The publisher since 2012 is Springer http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319217550 Before that it was the Royal Society of Chemistry. Petergans (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So a link that actually works and brings you to a place where the books are actually listed is less appropriate than a dead link in your view. OK then. 17:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The link to CRC Press refers to the prvevious series ""Metal Ions in Biological Systems", not to "Metal Ions in Life Sciences" , which is the title of this article. Petergans (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. to the best of my knowledge, a not particularly notable book series published in part of a sequence of three scientific publishers. As a librarian, yes, I subscribed to the series, but only because we bought essentially everything published of even minor significance in the field of biochemistry, whether of not it was of any great importance. The reviews are utterly routine, amounting just to announcements. Very few papers of any importance were every published in it. The place for this sort of information is in library catalogs. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article (Metal Ions in Life Sciences) has now been revised in line with the comments above. I request that the speedy deletion tag be removed. Petergans (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no speedy deletion tag on the article. One of your edits was to add a link to a T&F shopping cart (I guess that link only works for you yourself and that only transiently) and remove a "third party sources needed in this section" tag, despite the fact that all sources in that section ("Historical development") are to publisher websites. There is still no conclusive evidence that this series of books is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. In my areas (inorganic and bioinorganic chemistry), this book series is decidedly not prominent. It never was prominent, but then again many once prominent book series are suffering in the digital age. User:Petergans cites from it a fair bit within Wikipedia, I recall. I dont see any harm in keeping the parent article describing the book series, so long as the series is not overly promoted within Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am also convinced by DGG, this is still overall questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Isack Kumar[edit]

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

Non notable educator; fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The article subject is an academic but teaches at a secondary school and wouldn't pass the academics' notability guidelines. I couldn't find coverage in the media either which would enable it to pass GNG. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now essentially fails WP:V for most of the facts listed in the article. Even just a plain google search for his name returns rather little, and almost nothing that would satisfy WP:V. Almost nothing is referenced in the article itself, including no references for the various awards mentioned there. As things stand, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noticeably troubled and nothing for any basic notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Château Bel Air (Le Haillan)[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability for this château. Even the French article doesn't have sources either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist. The château is covered by the local municipal government and the football club that owns the building. Altamel (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Strongly suggest that the nominator User:GeoffreyT2000 reads WP:BEFORE.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources discuss the subject in depth, as the current version shows. An article may be a stub that gives no sources, but that is not a reason for deletion. Does the stub have potential? GeoffreyT2000 should read Wikipedia:Deletion policy before making further nominations. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. A building is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them. Here the significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources required to establish notability is present. A surprising nomination. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Name1-1] "How the Crimson Tide got its name". bryantmuseum.ua.edu. Paul W. Bryant Museum. Retrieved June 30, 2013.

[Name2-2] Kennedy, Scott (April 8, 1992). "Tide football tradition began with 1892 team". The Tuscaloosa News. Google News Archives. p. 2F. Retrieved June 30, 2013.

[3] Alabama football teams were not referred to as the "Crimson Tide" until the 1907 season. Prior to 1907, the team was called the "Crimson White" from 1893 to 1906 and the "Cadets" in 1892.^[1]^[2]

[Griffin-4] Griffin, John Chandler (2001). "1896: Trustees Thwart Alabama". Alabama vs. Auburn: Gridiron Grudge Since 1893. Athens, Georgia: Hill Street Press. p. 13. ISBN 1-58818-044-1.

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]